category
stringclasses 191
values | search_query
stringclasses 434
values | search_type
stringclasses 2
values | search_engine_input
stringclasses 748
values | url
stringlengths 22
468
| title
stringlengths 1
77
| text_raw
stringlengths 1.17k
459k
| text_window
stringlengths 545
2.63k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservation | Can organic farming feed the world? | no_statement | "organic" "farming" alone cannot "feed" the "world".. the "world" cannot be adequately fed solely through "organic" "farming". | https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-agriculture-world-hunger | Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone? | Guardian ... | Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone?
Organic farming creates more profit and yields healthier produce. It’s time it played the role it deserves in feeding a rapidly growing world population
Sun 14 Aug 2016 10.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 25 Aug 2021 09.55 EDT
In 1971, then US Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz uttered these unsympathetic words: “Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry.” Since then, critics have continued to argue that organic agriculture is inefficient, requiring more land than conventional agriculture to yield the same amount of food. Proponents have countered that increasing research could reduce the yield gap, and organic agriculture generates environmental, health and socioeconomic benefits that can’t be found with conventional farming.
Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for one of the greatest challenges facing humanity: producing enough food for a population that could reach 10 billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment.
That’s the conclusion my doctoral student Jonathan Wachter and I reached in reviewing 40 years of science and hundreds of scientific studies comparing the long term prospects of organic and conventional farming. The study, Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century, published in Nature Plants, is the first to compare organic and conventional agriculture across the four main metrics of sustainability identified by the US National Academy of Sciences: be productive, economically profitable, environmentally sound and socially just. Like a chair, for a farm to be sustainable, it needs to be stable, with all four legs being managed so they are in balance.
We found that although organic farming systems produce yields that average 10-20% less than conventional agriculture, they are more profitable and environmentally friendly. Historically, conventional agriculture has focused on increasing yields at the expense of the other three sustainability metrics.
The flower petals and the labels represent different sustainability metrics that compare organic farming with conventional farming. They illustrate that organic systems can better balance the four areas of sustainability: production (orange), environment (blue), economics (red) and social wellbeing (green). Illustration: John Reganold and Jonathan Wachter
In addition, organic farming delivers equally or more nutritious foods that contain less or no pesticide residues, and provide greater social benefits than their conventional counterparts.
With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater. Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and severe impacts on ecosystem services – which refer to nature’s support of wildlife habitat, crop pollination, soil health and other benefits – have not only accompanied conventional farming systems, but have often extended well beyond the boundaries of their fields, such as fertilizer runoff into rivers.
Overall, organic farms tend to have better soil quality and reduce soil erosion compared to their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture generally creates less soil and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions, and is more energy efficient. Organic agriculture is also associated with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity.
Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable (by 22–35%) for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more. These higher prices essentially compensate farmers for preserving the quality of their land.
Studies that evaluate social equity and quality of life for farm communities are few. Still, organic farming has been shown to create more jobs and reduce farm workers’ exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
Organic farming can help to both feed the world and preserve wildland. In a study published this year, researchers modeled 500 food production scenarios to see if we can feed an estimated world population of 9.6 billion people in 2050 without expanding the area of farmland we already use. They found that enough food could be produced with lower-yielding organic farming, if people become vegetarians or eat a more plant-based diet with lower meat consumption. The existing farmland can feed that many people if they are all vegan, a 94% success rate if they are vegetarian, 39% with a completely organic diet, and 15% with the Western-style diet based on meat.
Realistically, we can’t expect everyone to forgo meat. Organic isn’t the only sustainable option to conventional farming either. Other viable types of farming exist, such as integrated farming where you blend organic with conventional practices or grass-fed livestock systems.
More than 40 years after Earl Butz’s comment, we are in a new era of agriculture.During this period, the number of organic farms, the extent of organically farmed land, the amount of research funding devoted to organic farming and the market size for organic foods have steadily increased. Sales of organic foods and beverages are rapidly growing in the world, increasing almost fivefold between 1999 and 2013 to $72bn. This 2013 figure is projected to double by 2018. Closer to home, organic food and beverage sales in 2015 represented almost 5% of US food and beverage sales, up from 0.8% in 1997.
Scaling up organic agriculture with appropriate public policies and private investment is an important step for global food and ecosystem security. The challenge facing policymakers is to develop government policies that support conventional farmers converting to organic systems. For the private business sector, investing in organics offers a lot of entrepreneurial opportunities and is an area of budding growth that will likely continue for years to come.
In a time of increasing population growth, climate change and environmental degradation, we need agricultural systems that come with a more balanced portfolio of sustainability benefits. Organic farming is one of the healthiest and strongest sectors in agriculture today and will continue to grow and play a larger part in feeding the world. It produces adequate yields and better unites human health, environment and socioeconomic objectives than conventional farming.
John Reganold is a Regents Professor of Soil Science & Agroecology at the Washington State University. | Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable (by 22–35%) for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more. These higher prices essentially compensate farmers for preserving the quality of their land.
Studies that evaluate social equity and quality of life for farm communities are few. Still, organic farming has been shown to create more jobs and reduce farm workers’ exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
Organic farming can help to both feed the world and preserve wildland. In a study published this year, researchers modeled 500 food production scenarios to see if we can feed an estimated world population of 9.6 billion people in 2050 without expanding the area of farmland we already use. They found that enough food could be produced with lower-yielding organic farming, if people become vegetarians or eat a more plant-based diet with lower meat consumption. The existing farmland can feed that many people if they are all vegan, a 94% success rate if they are vegetarian, 39% with a completely organic diet, and 15% with the Western-style diet based on meat.
Realistically, we can’t expect everyone to forgo meat. Organic isn’t the only sustainable option to conventional farming either. Other viable types of farming exist, such as integrated farming where you blend organic with conventional practices or grass-fed livestock systems.
More than 40 years after Earl Butz’s comment, we are in a new era of agriculture. During this period, the number of organic farms, the extent of organically farmed land, the amount of research funding devoted to organic farming and the market size for organic foods have steadily increased. Sales of organic foods and beverages are rapidly growing in the world, increasing almost fivefold between 1999 and 2013 to $72bn. This 2013 figure is projected to double by 2018. | yes |
Conservation | Can organic farming feed the world? | no_statement | "organic" "farming" alone cannot "feed" the "world".. the "world" cannot be adequately fed solely through "organic" "farming". | https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/ | In Sri Lanka, Organic Farming Went Catastrophically Wrong | Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.
The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange.
By November 2021, with tea production falling, the government partially lifted its fertilizer ban on key export crops, including tea, rubber, and coconut. Faced with angry protests, soaring inflation, and the collapse of Sri Lanka’s currency, the government finally suspended the policy for several key crops—including tea, rubber, and coconut—last month, although it continues for some others. The government is also offering $200 million to farmers as direct compensation and an additional $149 million in price subsidies to rice farmers who incurred losses. That hardly made up for the damage and suffering the ban produced. Farmers have widely criticized the payments for being massively insufficient and excluding many farmers, most notably tea producers, who offer one of the main sources of employment in rural Sri Lanka. The drop in tea production alone is estimated to result in economic losses of $425 million.
Human costs have been even greater. Prior to the pandemic’s outbreak, the country had proudly achieved upper-middle-income status. Today, half a million people have sunk back into poverty. Soaring inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency have forced Sri Lankans to cut down on food and fuel purchases as prices surge. The country’s economists have called on the government to default on its debt repayments to buy essential supplies for its people.
The farrago of magical thinking, technocratic hubris, ideological delusion, self-dealing, and sheer shortsightedness that produced the crisis in Sri Lanka implicates both the country’s political leadership and advocates of so-called sustainable agriculture: the former for seizing on the organic agriculture pledge as a shortsighted measure to slash fertilizer subsidies and imports and the latter for suggesting that such a transformation of the nation’s agricultural sector could ever possibly succeed.
Sri Lanka’s journey through the organic looking glass and toward calamity began in 2016, with the formation, at Rajapaksa’s behest, of a new civil society movement called Viyathmaga. On its website, Viyathmaga describes its mission as harnessing the “nascent potential of the professionals, academics and entrepreneurs to effectively influence the moral and material development of Sri Lanka.” Viyathmaga allowed Rajapaksa to rise to prominence as an election candidate and facilitated the creation of his election platform. As he prepared his presidential run, the movement produced the “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour,” a sprawling agenda for the nation that covered everything from national security to anticorruption to education policy, alongside the promise to transition the nation to fully organic agriculture within a decade.
Despite Viyathmaga’s claims to technocratic expertise, most of Sri Lanka’s leading agricultural experts were kept out of crafting the agricultural section of the platform, which included promises to phase out synthetic fertilizer, develop 2 million organic home gardens to help feed the country’s population, and turn the country’s forests and wetlands over to the production of biofertilizer.
Following his election as president, Rajapaksa appointed a number of Viyathmaga members to his cabinet, including as minister of agriculture. Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Agriculture, in turn, created a series of committees to advise it on the implementation of the policy, again excluding most of the nation’s agronomists and agricultural scientists and instead relying on representatives of the nation’s small organic sector; academic advocates for alternative agriculture; and, notably, the head of a prominent medical association who had long promoted dubious claims about the relationship between agricultural chemicals and chronic kidney disease in the country’s northern agricultural provinces.
Then, just a few months after Rajapaksa’s election, COVID-19 arrived. The pandemic devastated the Sri Lankan tourist sector, which accounted for almost half of the nation’s foreign exchange in 2019. By the early months of 2021, the government’s budget and currency were in crisis, the lack of tourist dollars so depleting foreign reserves that Sri Lanka was unable to pay its debts to Chinese creditors following a binge of infrastructure development over the previous decade.
Enter Rajapaksa’s organic pledge. From the early days of the Green Revolution in the 1960s, Sri Lanka has subsidized farmers to use synthetic fertilizer. The results in Sri Lanka, as across much of South Asia, were startling: Yields for rice and other crops more than doubled. Struck by severe food shortages as recently as the 1970s, the country became food secure while exports of tea and rubber became critical sources of exports and foreign reserves. Rising agricultural productivity allowed widespread urbanization, and much of the nation’s labor force moved into the formal wage economy, culminating in Sri Lanka’s achievement of official upper-middle-income status in 2020.
By 2020, the total cost of fertilizer imports and subsidies was close to $500 million each year. With fertilizer prices rising, the tab was likely to increase further in 2021. Banning synthetic fertilizers seemingly allowed Rajapaksa to kill two birds with one stone: improving the nation’s foreign exchange situation while also cutting a massive expenditure on subsidies from the pandemic-hit public budget.
But when it comes to agricultural practices and yields, there is no free lunch. Agricultural inputs—chemicals, nutrients, land, labor, and irrigation—bear a critical relationship to agricultural output. From the moment the plan was announced, agronomists in Sri Lanka and around the world warned that agricultural yields would fall substantially. The government claimed it would increase the production of manure and other organic fertilizers in place of imported synthetic fertilizers. But there was no conceivable way the nation could produce enough fertilizer domestically to make up for the shortfall.
Having handed its agricultural policy over to organic true believers, many of them involved in businesses that would stand to benefit from the fertilizer ban, the false economy of banning imported fertilizer hurt the Sri Lankan people dearly. The loss of revenue from tea and other export crops dwarfed the reduction in currency outflows from banning imported fertilizer. The bottom line turned even more negative through the increased import of rice and other food stocks. And the budgetary savings from cutting subsidies were ultimately outweighed by the cost of compensating farmers and providing public subsidies for imported food.
Workers are seen at a tea plantation in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka, on July 31, 2021. ISHARA S. KODIKARA/AFP via Getty Images
A Sri Lankan farmer carries paddy on his head in a field on the outskirts of Sri Lanka’s capital, Colombo, on Sept. 7, 2018. LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI/AFP via Getty Images
Farming is, at bottom, a fairly straightforward thermodynamic enterprise. Nutrient and energy output in the form of calories is determined by nutrient and energy input. For most of recorded human history, the primary way humans increased agricultural production was by adding land to the system, which expanded the amount of solar radiation and soil nutrients available for food production. Human populations were relatively small, under 1 billion people in total, and there was no shortage of arable land to expand onto. For this reason, the vast majority of anthropogenic changes in global land use and deforestation has been the result of agricultural extensification—the process of converting forests and prairie to cropland and pasture. Against popular notions that preindustrial agriculture existed in greater harmony with nature, three-quarters of total global deforestation occurred before the industrial revolution.
Even so, feeding ourselves required directing virtually all human labor to food production. As recently as 200 years ago, more than 90 percent of the global population labored in agriculture. The only way to bring additional energy and nutrients into the system to increase production was to let land lie fallow, rotate crops, use cover crops, or add manure from livestock that either shared the land with the crops or grazed nearby. In almost every case, these practices required additional land and put caps on yields.
Starting in the 19th century, the expansion of global trade allowed for the import of guano—mined from ancient deposits on bird-rich islands—and other nutrient-rich fertilizers from far-flung regions onto farms in Europe and the United States. This and a series of technological innovations—better machinery, irrigation, and seeds—allowed for higher yields and labor productivity on some farms, which in turn freed up labor and thereby launched the beginning of large-scale urbanization, one of global modernity’s defining features.
But the truly transformative break came with the invention of the Haber-Bosch process by German scientists in the early 1900s, which uses high temperature, high pressure, and a chemical catalyst to pull nitrogen from the air and produce ammonia, the basis for synthetic fertilizers. Synthetic fertilizer remade global agriculture and, with it, human society. The widespread adoption of synthetic fertilizers in most countries has allowed a rapid increase in yields and allowed human labor to shift from agriculture to sectors that offer higher incomes and a better quality of life.
The widespread application of synthetic fertilizers now allows global agriculture to feed nearly 8 billion people, of whom about 4 billion depend on the increased output that synthetic fertilizers allow for their sustenance. As a result, the modern food systems that have allowed global agriculture to feed Earth’s population are far more energy intensive than past food systems, with synthetic fertilizers accounting for a significant source of the energy for crops.
As synthetic fertilizers became increasingly available globally after World War II and combined with other innovations, such as modern plant breeding and large-scale irrigation projects, a remarkable thing happened: Human populations more than doubled—but thanks to synthetic fertilizers and other modern technologies, agricultural output tripled on only 30 percent more land over the same period.
The benefits of synthetic fertilizers though go far beyond simply feeding people. It’s no exaggeration to say that without synthetic fertilizers and other agricultural innovations, there is no urbanization, no industrialization, no global working or middle class, and no secondary education for most people. This is because fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals have substituted human labor, liberating enormous populations from needing to dedicate most of their lifetime labor to growing food.
Virtually the entirety of organic agriculture production serves two populations at opposite ends of the global income distribution. At one end are the 700 million or so people globally who still live in extreme poverty. Sustainable agriculture proponents fancifully call the agriculture this population practices “agroecology.” But it is mostly just old–fashioned subsistence farming, where the world’s poorest eke out their survival from the soil.
They are the poorest farmers in the world, who dedicate most of their labor to growing enough food to feed themselves. They forego synthetic fertilizers and most other modern agricultural technologies not by choice but because they can’t afford them, caught in a poverty trap where they are unable to produce enough agricultural surplus to make a living selling food to other people; hence, they can’t afford fertilizer and other technologies that would allow them to raise yields and produce surplus.
At the other end of the spectrum are the world’s richest people, mostly in the West, for whom consuming organic food is a lifestyle choice tied up with notions about personal health and environmental benefits as well as romanticized ideas about agriculture and the natural world. Almost none of these consumers of organic foods grow the food themselves. Organic agriculture for these groups is a niche market—albeit, a lucrative one for many producers—accounting for less than 1 percent of global agricultural production.
As a niche within a larger, industrialized, agricultural system, organic farming works reasonably well. Producers typically see lower yields. But they can save money on fertilizer and other chemical inputs while selling to a niche market for privileged consumers willing to pay a premium for products labeled organic. Yields are lower—but not disastrously lower—because there are ample nutrients available to smuggle into the system via manure. As long as organic food remains niche, the relationship between lower yields and increased land use remains manageable.
The ongoing catastrophe in Sri Lanka, though, shows why extending organic agriculture to the vast middle of the global bell curve, attempting to feed large urban populations with entirely organic production, cannot possibly succeed. A sustained shift to organic production nationally in Sri Lanka would, by most estimates, slash yields of every major crop in the country, including drops of 35 percent for rice, 50 percent for tea, 50 percent for corn, and 30 percent for coconut. The economics of such a transition are not just daunting; they are impossible.
Importing fertilizer is expensive, but importing rice is far more costly. Sri Lanka, meanwhile, is the world’s fourth largest tea exporter, with tea accounting for a lion’s share of the country’s agricultural exports, which in turn account for 70 percent of total export earnings.
There is no conceivable way that export sales to the higher value organic market could possibly make up for sharp falls in production. The entire global market for organic tea, for example, accounts for only about 0.5 percent of the global tea market. Sri Lanka’s tea production alone is larger than the entire global organic tea market. Flooding the organic market with most or all of Sri Lanka’s tea production, even after output fell by half due to lack of fertilizer, would almost certainly send global organic tea prices into a spiral.
The notion that Sri Lanka might ever replace synthetic fertilizers with domestically produced organic sources without catastrophic effects on its agricultural sector and environment is more ludicrous still. Five to seven times more animal manure would be necessary to deliver the same amount of nitrogen to Sri Lankan farms as was delivered by synthetic fertilizers in 2019. Even accounting for the overapplication of synthetic fertilizers, which is clearly a problem, and other uncertainties, there is almost certainly not enough land in the small island nation to produce that much organic fertilizer. Any effort to produce that much manure would require a vast expansion of livestock holdings, with all the additional environmental damage that would entail.
Sustaining agriculture in Sri Lanka, for both domestic consumption and high-value export products, was always going to require importing energy and nutrients into the system, whether organic or synthetic. And synthetic fertilizers were always going to be the most economically and environmentally efficient way to do so.
Sri Lanka's President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (center) waves to supporters during a rally ahead of the upcoming 2020 parliamentary elections.
While the proximate cause of Sri Lanka’s humanitarian crisis was a bungled attempt to manage its economic fallout from the global pandemic, at the bottom of the political problem was a math problem and at the bottom of the math problem was an ideological problem—or, more accurately, a global ideological movement that is innumerate and unscientific by design, promoting fuzzy and poorly specified claims about the possibilities of alternative food production methods and systems to obfuscate the relatively simple biophysical relationships that govern what goes in; what comes out; and the economic, social, and political outcomes that any agricultural system can produce, whether on a regional, national, or global scale.
Rajapaksa continues to insist that his policies have not failed. Even as Sri Lanka’s agricultural production was collapsing, he traveled to the U.N. climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, late last year, where—when not dodging protests over his human rights record as Sri Lankan defense minister—he touted his nation’s commitment to an agricultural revolution allegedly “in sync with nature.” Not long afterward, he fired two government officials within weeks of each other for publicly criticizing the increasingly dire food situation and fertilizer ban.
As farmers begin their spring harvest, the fertilizer ban has been lifted, but fertilizer subsidies have not been restored. Rajapaksa, meanwhile, has established yet another committee—this one to advise the government on how to increase organic fertilizer production in a further demonstration that he and his agricultural advisors continue to deny the basic biophysical realities that constrain agriculture production.
Much of the global sustainable agriculture movement, unfortunately, has proven no more accountable. As Sri Lankan crop yields have plummeted, exactly as most mainstream agricultural experts predicted they would, the fertilizer ban’s leading advocates have gone silent. Vandana Shiva, an Indian activist and ostensible face of anti-modern agrarianism in the global south, was a booster of the ban but turned mute as the ban’s cruel consequences became clear. Food Tank, an advocacy group funded by the Rockefeller Foundation that promotes a phase-out of chemical fertilizers and subsidies in Sri Lanka, has had nothing to say now that its favored policies have taken a disastrous turn.
Soon enough, advocates will surely argue that the problem was not with the organic practices they touted but with the precipitous move to implement them in the midst of a crisis. But although the immediate ban on fertilizer use was surely ill conceived, there is literally no example of a major agriculture-producing nation successfully transitioning to fully organic or agroecological production. The European Union has, for instance, promised a full-scale transition to sustainable agriculture for decades. But while it has banned genetically modified crops and a variety of pesticides as well as has implemented policies to discourage the overuse of synthetic fertilizers, it still depends heavily on synthetic fertilizers to keep yields high, produce affordable, and food secure. It has also struggled with the disastrous effects of overfertilizing surface and ground water with manure from livestock production.
Boosters of organic agriculture also point to Cuba, which was forced to abandon synthetic fertilizer when its economy imploded following the Soviet Union’s collapse. They fail to mention that the average Cuban lost an estimated 10 to 15 pounds of body weight in the years that followed. In 2011, Bhutan, another darling of the sustainability crowd, promised to go 100 percent organic by 2020. Today, many farmers in the Himalayan kingdom continue to depend on agrochemicals.
In Sri Lanka, as elsewhere, there is no shortage of problems associated with chemical-intensive and large-scale agriculture. But the solutions to these problems—be they innovations that allow farmers to deliver fertilizer more precisely to plants when they need it, bioengineered microbial soil treatments that fix nitrogen in the soil and reduce the need for both fertilizer and soil disruption, or genetically modified crops that require fewer pesticides and herbicides—will be technological, giving farmers new tools instead of removing old ones that have been proven critical to their livelihoods. They will allow countries like Sri Lanka to mitigate the environmental impacts of agriculture without impoverishing farmers or destroying the economy. Proponents of organic agriculture, by contrast, committed to naturalistic fallacies and suspicious of modern agricultural science, can offer no plausible solutions. What they offer, as Sri Lanka’s disaster has laid bare for all to see, is misery.
Ted Nordhaus is the co-founder and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute and a co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Twitter: @TedNordhaus
Saloni Shah is a food and agriculture analyst at the Breakthrough Institute. Twitter: @SaloniShah101
Join the Conversation
Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.
Change your username:
Confirm your username to get started.
The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi women walk past a mural depicting Saudi King Salman (center), Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (left), and late King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman (right), the founder of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, at a park in the capital, Riyadh, on Jan. 16.
The coup leader-turned-president promised Egyptians prosperity, but the country is flat broke.
Slavian, a former Russian special forces sergeant who now fights for Ukraine after living in the country for a decade with his Ukrainian wife, gestures to keep quiet as he moves along front-line tenches toward a Russian position in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on Oct. 27, 2022.
Is the world standing by as ethnic cleansing takes place in the Indian state of Manipur?
Since May, violence between the Meitei ethnic majority and the Kuki minority has torn through the sma...Show morell state bordering Myanmar in India’s northeast. Mobs have burned hundreds of homes and churches, and tens of thousands of people have fled.
The conflict has largely been ignored by Western media, despite global attention focused on India, which is the rotating host of the G-20 this year.
What is actually going on in Manipur? What should New Delhi do? What are the ramifications for India, Myanmar, and the world?
Indian journalist Barkha Dutt has reported extensively from Manipur this year. Join her and defense expert Sushant Singh, who has chronicled the conflict in Foreign Policy, for a FP Live conversation with host Ravi Agrawal.
Viewers of FP Live regularly see host Ravi Agrawal quiz world leaders and policymakers about issues such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, the state of the global economy, and competition betwee...Show moren the United States and China.
Now it’s your turn to interrogate the host. In a special Ask-Me-Anything episode on FP Live, Agrawal will field your questions in conversation with executive editor Amelia Lester. Anything the magazine regularly covers is fair game, in addition to questions about how FP makes its decisions.
The Ask-Me-Anything edition is open to anyone. Please write in and submit your questions below.
The Biden administration’s National Security Strategy has called for an “allied techno-industrial base” to safeguard U.S. interests, security, and values. Key to the technological aspe...Show morect of that strategy is the White House’s new Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, run by Ambassador-at-Large Nathaniel Fick.
Fick is a former tech and cybersecurity executive who previously toured Afghanistan and Iraq as a U.S. Marine. He has now been tasked by the Biden administration to expand the U.S. role in global tech diplomacy and add heft to Washington’s fight against misinformation and cyberthreats.
What are the White House’s plans to stay ahead of its adversaries in the digital world? Fick joined FP’s Ravi Agrawal to discuss cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, tech diplomacy, and more. FP subscribers are encouraged to send questions.
See what’s trending.
See what’s trending.
Most popular articles on FP right now.
Most popular articles on FP right now. | At the other end of the spectrum are the world’s richest people, mostly in the West, for whom consuming organic food is a lifestyle choice tied up with notions about personal health and environmental benefits as well as romanticized ideas about agriculture and the natural world. Almost none of these consumers of organic foods grow the food themselves. Organic agriculture for these groups is a niche market—albeit, a lucrative one for many producers—accounting for less than 1 percent of global agricultural production.
As a niche within a larger, industrialized, agricultural system, organic farming works reasonably well. Producers typically see lower yields. But they can save money on fertilizer and other chemical inputs while selling to a niche market for privileged consumers willing to pay a premium for products labeled organic. Yields are lower—but not disastrously lower—because there are ample nutrients available to smuggle into the system via manure. As long as organic food remains niche, the relationship between lower yields and increased land use remains manageable.
The ongoing catastrophe in Sri Lanka, though, shows why extending organic agriculture to the vast middle of the global bell curve, attempting to feed large urban populations with entirely organic production, cannot possibly succeed. A sustained shift to organic production nationally in Sri Lanka would, by most estimates, slash yields of every major crop in the country, including drops of 35 percent for rice, 50 percent for tea, 50 percent for corn, and 30 percent for coconut. The economics of such a transition are not just daunting; they are impossible.
Importing fertilizer is expensive, but importing rice is far more costly. | no |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | yes_statement | "penguins" can "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" does not pose a threat to "penguins"' "survival". | https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/seabirds/penguins | Penguins | Smithsonian Ocean | Tuxedoed birds with endearing personalities, penguins are fascinating to young and old alike. Clumsy and comical on land, they become beautifully graceful swimmers below the ocean’s waves. Although the various species of penguins look similar, the largest penguin, the emperor, stands at 4 foot, 5 inches (1.35 meters) and the smallest penguin, the fairy or little, stands at about a foot tall (.33 meters).
Contrary to popular belief, only five penguin species ever set foot on the icy Antarctic continent and only two, the Adélie and emperor, live there exclusively. In fact, penguins inhabit a very diverse array of environments. The Humboldt penguin of Chile and Peru lives on the shores of the Atacama Desert, the driest desert in the world where temperatures can reach around 70°F (21°C). The yellow-eyed penguins of Enderby Island off New Zealand burrow under the trees of the dwarf rata forests. Each penguin species is uniquely adapted to its home environment.
Anatomy, Diversity & Evolution
Anatomy
Extreme Swimmers and Divers
Penguins are birds of the ocean, spending up to 75 percent of their lives in the water. Some penguins, like the fiordland and rockhopper, have even been found with barnacles growing on their feathers! Much of what seems odd about penguins is due to the fact that they spend so much time in the water.
Swimming is what penguins do best. A penguin’s awkward waddle may seem comical on land but that’s because they are made to swim. Adaptive wizards of the sea, their torpedo shaped bodies combined with powerful flippers enable penguins to swim to considerable depths and over great distances. Their legs and feet, located far back on the body, contribute to the waddle on land, but underwater they act as streamlined rudders that minimize drag.
At the water’s surface a penguin can at best paddle like a duck, but below the waves penguins cruise at speeds faster than Olympic swimmers. The fastest, the emperor penguin, can reach 9 mph (14 km/hr) when in a hurry but prefers a steady 7 mph. Most midsize penguins swim around 5 mph (8 km/hr) and the smallest penguin, the little penguin, meanders at a slow 1 mph (1.5 km/hr). A traveling penguin keeps the surface within 3 to 6.5 feet (1-2 meters) often employing a swimming technique called porpoising. Porpoising is a shallow skimming across the water through a series of consecutive leaps, named for its similarity to how porpoises swim. The primary function of porpoising is its efficiency in moving quickly through the water while allowing for breathing at the surface without slowing down. It may also serve as a defense mechanism against predators—it makes it difficult to grab a swimming penguin when they are continually disappearing above the surface.
On average, penguins dive to depths between 30 and 60 feet (9 and 18 m). The smaller species of penguin tend to feed at the surface of the water, but larger penguins like the king penguin frequently dive to 300 feet (91 m), and emperor penguins can reach depths around 1,700 feet (518 m). A 2018 study measured an emperor penguin diving for over 32 minutes—the longest recorded avian dive to date.
The wings of a penguin, once used for flight by their distant ancestors, are powerful swimming propellers. Shorter wingspans, along with flattened, fused and dense bones devoid of air pockets, distinguish penguins from flying birds. They also have two sets of strong flipper muscles, much like human biceps and triceps, which generate power while swimming. Unlike flying birds, which rely on the propulsion of the downstroke for flight, penguins gain momentum underwater from both the downstroke and the upstroke. In response to the high density of water compared to air, penguins have also developed an array of strong chest and back muscles. One muscle, the scapulohumeralis caudalis, attaches to the scapula (or shoulder blade) and supplies the power to lift the wing. Most birds require only small and thin scapulas to support the wings but penguins require larger scaffolding for their swimming muscles. The penguin scapula has evolved to be much broader, similar in shape to a tapered tennis racket.
When seen from below a white belly better blends in with light-filled surface waters while from above a black back looks similar to the dark hues of the deep ocean.
(Flickr User Gregory "Slobirdr" Smith)
The adorable tuxedo serves a purpose in the water as well. Called countershading, the black and white coloration helps camouflage the birds from potential predators. When seen from below a white belly better blends in with light-filled surface waters while from above a black back looks similar to the dark hues of the deep ocean.
Marine creatures that live in the sea but rely on freshwater to survive often develop special adaptations that filter out excess salt. When a penguin feeds it often consumes significant amounts of seawater. To get rid of the unwanted salt, penguins evolved a special gland that filters seawater. The supraorbital glands, or salt glands, lie on either side of the beak in a v-shaped groove above the eye and are surrounded by a network of blood vessels and nerves. The salt is excreted over the beak and then a quick “sneeze” and shake rids the beak of the salt.
Fabulous Feathers
Penguins live in some of the harshest climates, from the frozen plains of Antarctica to the equatorial heat of the Galapagos, and they immerse themselves in the ocean for months at a time. So it should be no surprise that they evolved a highly efficient protective layer that shelters them from the environment.
A penguin’s feathers serve to regulate body temperature, increase aerodynamic efficiency underwater, and defend against the elements. Beyond providing insulation, feathers can also minimize drag by trapping bubbles against their body and then releasing them during a dive. A diving penguin emits a visible trail of bubbles as it moves through the water. Penguins take great care of their feathers, often preening three hours a day. An oil secreting gland, the uropygial gland, lies at the base of a penguin’s tail and dispenses water-repelling and microbial deterring oil that a penguin then physically spreads over its body.
Most bird’s feathers are arranged in parallel tracks, but this distribution leaves featherless gaps. Penguin feathers by comparison are continuously spaced across the penguin’s skin. Until recently it was believed that penguins had the highest feather density of all birds, but a 2015 study revealed emperor penguin feather density averaged around 9 feathers per centimeter, less than a fourth of what was previously believed. In addition to the contour feathers that line the birds entire body and help give it shape, penguins also have after-feathers (fluffy, downy bits that cling to the contour feathers), plumules (down feathers that attach to the skin), and filoplumes (microscopic feathers with barbs on the end). The individual function of each feather type is still unclear, but plumules are nearly four times more numerous than contour feathers, leading scientists to believe they serve an important purpose.
Considering penguins live at varying latitudes it should follow that different species exhibit variations in their feathers. All penguins maintain a body temperature between 100 and 102 degrees Fahrenheit (around 38°C) but they live in temperatures that range from 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32°C) along the coast of Patagonia to negative 76 degrees Fahrenheit (-60°C) on the sea ice of Antarctica. Feathers account for nearly 85 percent of a bird’s insulation, and when the weather is warm that insulation can make temperatures a bit toasty. The banded penguins, such as the Humboldt and African penguins, have featherless patches on their faces and feet where they divert blood to cool when overheated. In contrast, the Adélie penguin, one of two Antarctic species, has complete feather coverage up to the base of its beak.
Although feathers can be fluffed up or flattened down, penguins also use other methods to keep their temperatures at the right level. When an Adélie penguin overheats it diverts blood to its thin wings, causing the white undersides to turn a faint pink color. When cold, penguins rely on countercurrent exchange to warm up, a specific heat transferring mechanism that exchanges heat from warm blood traveling in vessels towards their legs and feet to colder blood leaving the area.
Senses
Many aspects of the senses of penguins also reflect their sea-going habits.
Penguins need to see clearly both on land and underwater. Terrestrial animals, including humans, rely on the cornea—the clear outer layer of the eye—to focus images using a property called refraction, a bending of light as it crosses through different materials. As light travels through the air and enters the eye, it bends to the appropriate angle and creates a focused image on the retina. Underwater, terrestrial animals become far-sighted because the fluid of the eye and the water are too similar, so the light doesn’t bend enough and the image doesn’t focus effectively. Penguins solve this problem with a flattened cornea and highly modified lens. Their flattened corneas have less refractive power than those of terrestrial animals, enabling them to see clearly underwater. Their spherical lenses can compensate for the flatter cornea by also bending the light.
The king penguin’s eyes are unique even among penguins. When fully constricted the pupil appears as a pin-sized square but in low light conditions it will expand an amazing 300 fold—the greatest change in pupil size of any bird—to increase light reception. This is especially important when king penguins dive to their greatest depths, around 984 feet (300 meters). The contrast in light is equivalent to bright sunlight and starlight. Because maximum foraging depths can be reached in five minutes, there isn’t enough time for the retina to adapt to the changing light. By constricting the pupil to a pinhole in sunlight the retina is pre-exposed to the lower ambient light levels found at maximum dive depths where the pupil then fully expands.
Adapted to underwater conditions, penguins have shifted their visual light spectrum in favor of violet, blue, and green and to exclude red, a color that quickly disappears at depths greater than 10 feet (3 meters). It is thought that penguins can even see ultraviolet light—emperor and king penguin beaks reflect ultraviolet rays, the only marine birds to do so. The display of ultraviolet could contribute to mate selection with both females and males preferring mates with stronger displays of ultraviolet reflectance.
HEARING
Like other birds, penguin ears lack external ear flaps. The ears reside on either side of the head as holes covered by feathers. As any SCUBA diver knows, pressure changes from diving can damage the fragile structures within the ear. A study of the king penguin ear showed that their middle ear is protected from pressure changes during diving by a special organ made of cavernous tissue. When ambient pressure increases the tissue expands into the middle ear to maintain a constant pressure.
In the cacophony of hundreds of penguins on land a returning parent can pin point their chick from the rest of the colony based on its unique call. One study of African penguins found their hearing range to be between 100 and 15,000 Hz, but peak sensitivities were between 600 and 4,000 Hz—in comparison, humans hear between 20 and 20,000 Hz.
An acute sensitivity to sound may be a defense penguins employ in the face of predators like orcas and leopard seals. One study showed even when asleep, king penguins could distinguish between predatory sounds and harmless sounds. In the presence of an orca call penguins flee upon awakening. Similar to migratory birds, penguins may rest only one half of their brain while the other stays vigilant, constantly monitoring the surroundings for possible threats.
The olfactory lobe in the brains of penguins is relatively large. Historically it was believed that penguins possessed a rudimentary sense of smell but recent studies indicate smell may play a larger role in a penguin’s life than previously thought. Studies of African, Humboldt and chinstrap penguins indicate some penguins can detect prey using olfactory cues such as chemicals released by foraging krill. The Humboldt penguin uses smell to distinguish between related and unrelated individuals and to find mates.
Diversity
The largest of the penguins, the emperor, stands at just over four feet while the smallest, the little penguin, has a maximum height of a foot.
(Smithsonian Institution)
The largest of the penguins, the emperor, stands at just over four feet tall while the smallest, the little penguin, has a maximum height of a foot. (Smithsonian Institution)
Penguins claim their own family, the Spheniscidae family, and are likely most closely related to other birds like the petrel and albatross. There is still debate over the number of distinct species, but it is generally agreed that there are between 17 and 19 species (see rockhopper and little penguin sections for more information). The species are divided among six genus divisions, or genera, commonly referred to as the crested, banded, brush-tailed, large, yellow-eyed, and little.
1. Crested Group (Eudyptes)
A group of macaroni penguins on rocks of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Atlantic Ocean.
(Flickr User Outward_bound)
Macaroni (Eudyptes chrysolophus)- Macaroni penguins are the most abundant of all the penguins. The most southerly distributed crested penguin, they live along the coasts of sub-Antarctic islands and the Antarctic Peninsula. The lifespan of a Macaroni penguin spans from 8 to 15 years. Macaroni prefer krill but will also eat small fish and squid. They are roughly 27.5 inches (70 cm) in height and between 8 to 14 pounds (3.7-6.4 kg) in weight.
Royal (Eudyptes schlegeli)- The royal penguin differs from other crested penguins in its orange plumage instead of yellow and white face. Some still argue that it is a white-faced variant of the Macaroni penguin due to genetic similarities but others point to distinct ecological differences and breeding isolation. Breeding is restricted to Macquerie Island off New Zealand and begins in October. Chicks take 35 days to hatch and become reproductively mature themselves after 5 to 6 years. Individuals can live between 15 and 20 years. They mostly eat krill but supplement their diet with small fish. Royal penguins stand at 28 inches (70 cm) and 8.8-12 pounds (4-5.5 kg).
Fiordland (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus)– Fiordland penguins have the characteristic yellow tufts of feathers like other crested penguins and live along the temperate rainforests of South Island and Stewart Island of New Zealand. Unlike many penguin species, they prefer to nest isolated from other mating couples. The birds nest under forest canopy, in caves, under boulders and shrubbery, and in nests made of brush and grass. They eat fish larvae, crustaceans and squid. Breeding season begins mid-winter in July and egg incubation ranges between 4 and 6 weeks. Adults stand 22 inches (55 cm) at between 5.5 and 10.75 pounds (2.5-4.9 cm) and live to be up to 20 years old.
Rockhopper (Eudyptes chrysocome)- The rockhopper penguin is further divided into three subspecies, the Northern, Southern and Eastern rockhoppers, and is the source for much of the debate surrounding the total number of penguin species. They live on small, isolated islands in the sub-Antarctic regions of the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Rockhopper nesting grounds are on rugged terrain requiring the penguins to hop from rock to rock, the inspiration for their name. The birds can congregate in colonies containing up to 100,000 individuals. Breeding season begins in October, eggs are laid by November and chicks hatch 33 days later. The average rockhopper lives 10 years, but they may live as long as 30 years. They feed on krill, small fish and squid. Rockhopper penguins are the only species to jump feet first into the water when they dive. They stand at 18 inches (46 cm) and weigh 5 to 10 pounds (2.2 to 4.5 kg).
Snares Crested (Eudyptes robustus)-Snares crested penguins live on the isolated and densely forested Snares Islands, a group of small islands roughly 60 miles (100 km) south of New Zealand. They inhabit the most restricted area out of all the penguins and eat squid and small fish. The birds breed under the protection of the Olearia forests in nests of peat, pebbles, and brush beginning in September. Two eggs are laid a few days apart and hatch between 31 and 37 days later. Snares crested penguins reach sexual maturity at age 6 and may live up to their early 20s. They stand at 22 inches (56 cm) and weigh between 6 and 10 pounds (2.7 to 4.5 kg)
Erect-crested (Eudyptes sclateri)- The erect-crested penguins are best identified by their upright and fanned yellow plumes. Colonies exist on the islands off New Zealand including Bounty and Antipodes Islands. Male competition for breeding sites in September is fierce and penguins commonly resort to biting and beating each other with flippers. The diet of erect-crested penguins is not well known, though it is suspected they eat krill, small fish, and squid like other crested penguins. They stand at 26 inches (67 cm), weigh up to 14 pounds (6.4 kg) and live up to 15 to 20 years.
2. Banded Group (Spheniscus)
Humboldt (Spheniscus humboldti)- Native to the hot climate of the Atacama Desert on the coast of South America, Humboldt penguins have large, bare skin patches around their eyes, an adaptation to help keep them cool. Humboldt penguins dig nests in sand or penguin poop (guano) where they incubate the eggs for 40 to 42 days. Breeding season is either March to April or September to October depending on the location of the colony. Humboldt penguins rely on the nutrient rich Humboldt Current to support the anchovy and sardine populations they prey upon. The Humboldt is one of the most popular zoo penguins due to its ability to withstand warmer climates. They stand at an average height of 25.5 inches (65 cm) and weigh between 8 and 13 pounds (3.6-5.8 kg).
Every breeding season, some 400,000 Magellanic penguins come to Punta Tombo, Argentina to nest on the shore.(Gustavo Almada, Flickr)
Magellanic (Spheniscus magellanicus)- The Magellanic penguin lives along the southern coast of South America from Argentina on the Atlantic side to Chile in the Pacific. Their breast plumage consists of two black stripes that differentiate them from the geographically nearby Humboldt penguin. Magellanic penguins nest in ground dugouts, when possible, or under brush. Both parents share sitting on the egg for the 39 to 42 day incubation period. During the winter months, between May and August, Magellanic penguins migrate along the coast of Chile, and as far north as Brazil on the East Coast, chasing anchovies. Adults stand at 28 inches (70 cm) and weigh up to roughly 15 pounds (6.5 kg).
African (Spheniscus demersus)- The African penguin is sometimes referred to as the jackass penguin for its shrill braying that sounds like a donkey. They inhabit the southern shores of Africa from Namibia to South Africa and feed on pilchard, sardines, anchovies, and mackerel. Their nesting colonies are large and noisy. Each breeding couple lays two eggs in a shallow dugout in the ground. Eggs are incubated between 38 to 40 days by both parents. They have a lifespan between 10 and 15 years. At 23 to 25 inches tall (58-63.5 cm) and weighing between 5 and 9 pounds (2-4 kg) they are one of the smaller penguins.
Galapagos (Spheniscus mendiculus)- Galapagos penguins are the most northerly penguins, living along the Galapagos Islands on the equator. These penguins have special adaptations and behaviors that help them deal with the tropical heat. Galapagos penguins actively seek out shade, pant, stand with wings spread, and hunch over on land to shade their feet, an area of heat loss. Galapagos penguin breeding is completely dependent upon the Cromwell Current and they may breed during any month of the year depending upon seasonal climate conditions. When the Cromwell Current fails to upwell and bring colder, nutrient rich water to the surface, penguins delay breeding presumably because of low food availability. The highly variable climate is influenced by the unpredictable El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Once the penguins are able to breed, egg incubation is roughly 40 days. The Galapagos are the smallest of the banded penguins at 21 inches (53 cm) and weigh up to 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg).
3. Brush-tailed Group (Pygoscelis)
Chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarcticus)- Chinstrap penguins are distinguishable by their white face and a thin black band that runs across the chin. Unlike many other penguin species, the chinstrap usually rears both chicks to adulthood when environmental conditions are favorable. They nest on the Antarctic Peninsula and sub-Antarctic Islands in the South Atlantic on rocky terrain. Beginning in November, adults incubate the eggs in shallow pebble nests for up to five to six weeks. They prey upon Antarctic krill, Euphasia supurba, almost exclusively but will also eat small fish. At a maximum size of 30 inches (76) and weighing 10 pounds (4.5 kg), they are medium-sized penguins.
Gentoo penguin mother with her chick in Antarctica.(Brian Skerry, National Geographic)
Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua)- The largest of the brush-tailed penguins, this bird is further distinguished by its red beak. The gentoo nests on both the Antarctic Peninsula and on sub-Antarctic islands. They construct nests with tussock grass and moss when available but will also use pebbles in rockier environments. Both eggs are incubated for 31 to 39 days. Loyal birds, they not only return to the same nesting site every year but will also form lasting bonds with breeding partners. Adults subsist on mostly Antarctic krill but will also eat other crustaceans, squid, and fish. Gentoo penguins reach sizes up to 32 inches (81 cm) and 15 pounds (6.5 kg).
Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae)- The Adélie penguin is one of two penguins to nest exclusively on Antarctic shores, the only other penguin to do so is the formidable emperor penguin. An ice-dependent species, they rely on the ice for foraging, often trapping prey under ice floes (sheets of ice that jigsaw the ocean surface) and resting on top of them to avoid predators. Populations are on the decline on the northern Antarctic Peninsula, where air temperatures significantly increased in the latter half of the 20th century due to climate change. Breeding season begins in October, with eggs hatching after 35 days of incubation. They rely heavily on Antarctic krill but also eat fish, crustaceans, and other krill species. The birds stand at 27 inches (70 cm) and weigh up to 12 pounds (6.5 kg).
4. Large Group (Aptenodytes)
Emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri)- Living exclusively within the Antarctic, emperor penguins are truly animals fit for the extreme. To enable chicks the best chance of survival, adults incubate the egg in subzero conditions (some days hit -40 degrees Fahrenheit/Celsius) during the dead of winter. Breeding season begins at the end of March with couples congregating in one of 45 different colonies along the Antarctic sheet ice. After a quick courtship, females lay a single egg and transfer it to a nest between the feet of the father. The egg will sit on the father’s feet for roughly two months while the mother returns to the sea to feed on fish, krill, and squid. Father emperors battle harsh temperature and wind conditions while incubating the egg. They often lose as much as half their body weight during the process. At a maximum size of 51 inches (130 cm) and 88 pounds (40 kg) they are the largest penguin species.
There are over 30 colonies of king penguins on South Georgia Island in the Southern Atlantic Ocean. The penguins capture their prey, typically lanternfish, by diving at speeds of 12 miles per hour.(Steve Gould/Nature's Best Photography)
King (Aptenodytes patagonicus)- Lasting between 14 to 15 months, the king penguin’s breeding cycle is the longest of any bird. Adult couples can only afford to raise two chicks every three years because of the extensive time needed to rear one chick. Breeding may begin anywhere from November to April so colonies have a mix of chicks of various ages. King penguins breed on sub-Antarctic islands within the Southern Atlantic. Standing they can reach heights up to 38 inches (95 cm) with weights as high as 35 pounds (16 kg).
5. Yellow-Eyed (Megadyptes antipodes)- Yellow-eyed penguins are the most private of all penguins, preferring to nest out of sight from other penguins. They often forgo parental duties if they are within eyesight of other nesting couples. For this reason they often nest among the tree trunks of the dwarf rata forests on the islands off of New Zealand where they are native. The breeding season is particularly long, lasting from August to February. Egg incubation alone can take up to two months. They weigh between 5 and 5.5 pounds (2.3-2.5 kg) and reach heights of 65 cm (25 inches).
6. Little Penguins (Eudyptula)
Little or Fairy (Eudyptula minor) – The smallest of the penguins, the little penguin claims the rocky island coasts around New Zealand and Australia as home. Colonies are usually at the base of sandy dunes or cliffs. They eat mostly small fish, but occasionally will consume krill and small squid. Little penguins live an average of 6.5 years though they have been known to reach ages as high as 20. Breeding season begins in August and lasts until December. Chicks take roughly 36 days to hatch and then another 3 to 4 weeks where they depend on their parents for food. Juveniles reach sexual maturity at age three. They weigh in at a mere 2 to 3 pounds (.9-1.4 kg), and stand only 12 inches (24 cm) tall.
Evolution
The first penguins evolved roughly 60 million years ago in temperate latitudes around 50 degrees South, close to where New Zealand is now. An area devoid of land predators, the location lent itself to the survival of flightless birds. While many birds nest in trees or cliffs to protect their chicks from wild mammals, penguins historically have been able to nest on the ground without the threat of large predators. Without the constraints of flight, namely the weight and wing surface area necessary for lift-off, penguins could claim a new domain—the ocean.
An illustration of two extinct great auks. The great auk was the first bird to be called a penguin, but the bird is in no way related to modern penguins, instead claiming membership in the Alcidae family, same as puffins, other auks, and murres.
(John Gerrard Keulemans)
Penguins are Southern Hemisphere birds, though many people confuse them with the black and white birds of the north, the puffins. The term penguin is thought to have originated from either Welsh “pen” and “gwyn” for white head or the Spanish pingüino, referencing excessive amounts of fat. The first bird to go by the name was actually the now extinct great auk which was a black and white flightless bird in the northern Atlantic. The great auk is in no way related to modern penguins, instead claiming membership in the Alcidae family, same as puffins, other auks, and murres. In the 1800s, fishers and whalers slaughtered the flightless great auks by the thousands to supply food aboard ships, and by 1844 the species was extinct. Their memory seemed to stick with seamen, for when explorers traveled to the southern seas and encountered new tuxedoed birds they repurposed the name.
Scientists of the early twentieth century believed penguins were a living link between birds and dinosaurs. This belief spurred the famous Worst Journey in the World, a scientific expedition led by Dr. Edward Wilson in 1911 that aimed to retrieve emperor penguin eggs for the purpose of studying the embryos. At the time it was still believed that early developmental stages directly reflected attributes of previous ancestral stages; in the case of penguins, reptilian scales in the embryo could be evidence of dinosaur lineages. This connection has since been disproven, although all birds are indeed now recognized as having evolved from dinosaurs.
The earliest known penguins evolved shortly after the demise of the dinosaurs in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction. Roughly 66 million years ago species from the genus Waimanu lived in the waters off of New Zealand. The two species of Waimanu penguins are currently considered the basal ancestors, meaning they are considered the earliest common ancestor of all penguins. Flightless like modern penguins, Waimanu penguins still maintained anatomical similarities to flying birds and may have had swimming capabilities similar to a loon or cormorant. Their beaks were long and slender and their legs were slightly larger than the modern penguins. The discovery of these ancient penguins was based on an analysis of four separate specimens from North Canterbury, New Zealand that are some of the best-preserved avian fossils from that era. It was these specimens that supplied evidence for the theory that penguins split from other birds before the end of the Cretaceous epoch.
By 60-55 million years ago penguins were well adapted to life at sea. Not only were there roughly 40 species, more than twice the number today, but they also grew to be much larger sizes. The heaviest of these penguins, Kumimanu fordycei, lived 60 million years ago along the shores of what is now New Zealand. At roughly 350 pounds this massive penguin was about the size of a small bear. Its wings were still primitive flippers more similar to today's puffins, indicating it still retained some remnants of its flying ancestors.
From 40 to 25 million years ago giant penguins adapted to life at sea were the dominant predators of squid, fish, and krill. The tallest of these giant penguins, Palaeeudyptes klekowskii, lived roughly 37 million years ago and measured 6 feet 6 inches (2 meters) from beak tip to toe. It would measure close to the average height of an adult woman at 5 foot 3 inches (1.6 meters) when standing. By comparison, today’s emperor penguin is 4 feet 5 inches (from top of head to toe). Described in 2014 by an Argentinian research team, P. klekowskii is the most complete Antarctic penguin skeleton discovered to date.
An artist’s portrayal of Kumimanu coming ashore on an ancient New Zealand beach. Surrounding it are smaller Petradyptes penguins that lived at the same time. This artwork accompanied a study published in the Journal of Paleontology.
(Simone Giovanardi)
Around the same time period—but farther north—the Peruvian giant, Icadyptes salasi, stood at a slightly shorter 5 feet. This giant supported a unique 7 inch beak that is theorized to have been helpful in spearing fish. The discovery of this fossil upended previous conceptions about the equatorial migration of penguins. It was thought that penguins migrated north towards the equator after periods of Earth cooling like that which occurred during the Eocene-Oligocene (around 34 million years ago) and a later cooling period 15 million years ago. But the earlier migration of Icadyptes indicates penguins actually migrated during a time of significant warming.
By 23 million years ago, during the early Miocene, most of the giant penguins had long died off, all except Anthropodyptes gilli. This giant was still thriving in Australia until 18 million years ago. After the fall of the giant penguins, it is believed that the crested penguins, the ancestors of all modern day penguins, radiated from a common Antarctic ancestor. Genetic analysis of four penguins and recent discovery of penguin fossils indicate a common ancestor as early as 20 million years ago with individual modern species diverging between 11 and 16 million years ago. Scientists still debate the evolutionary origins of modern penguins and this is an ongoing area of research.
Ecology & Behavior
Movements
During breeding season penguins stick close to the colony, but how far a penguin travels to feed varies from species to species. Most penguins will stay within 36 miles (60 km) of shore. Gentoo’s and yellow-eyed penguins will only forage for 12 hours, whereas the emperor penguin, which breeds in the less productive winter months, can forage for months at a time. After fasting for months while incubating the egg, a male emperor may need an entire month to regain its body fat, possibly traveling up to 950 miles (1,529 km).
Once penguins leave breeding colonies after the breeding season, our understanding of their behavior and ecology drops precipitously. Tags often lose satellite connection mid-migration, possibly due to batteries losing power or tags falling off. But certain case studies reveal that penguins regularly make long migrations to feed in the winter and thus recondition their bodies post-breeding. Magellanic penguins, native to Argentina and Chile, have been spotted as far north as Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. One study tracked ten Magellanic penguins as they swam up the Argentine coast and recorded traveling distances over 1,118 miles (1,800 km) from the nest. When total swimming distance was calculated the penguins swam more than 1,678 miles (2,700 km). In another study a chinstrap penguin was logged traveling 2,237 miles (3,600 km) in three weeks in the Southern Atlantic from Bouvetoya to Montagu Island in the South Sandwich Islands, a cluster of islands between Antarctica and Argentina. Macaroni penguins from the Kerguelen Islands in the Indian Ocean traveled an average of 1,553 miles (2,500 km) to foraging grounds in the middle of the ocean. The Fiordland Penguins have them all beat—one study found that these penguins make an epic 4,000-mile (6437 km) round-trip journey in just over two months. Beyond isolated studies of a few individuals it is still unclear what an average penguin migration distance or destination may be.
Reproduction
Every year penguins assemble in loud, crowded and smelly colonies for one reason—to mate. Most penguin species gather once a year, with the exception of the Galapagos and king penguins, in order to breed and raise chicks.
The male usually arrives first in order to reclaim prime nesting sites from years past or establish a new one. A shallow dugout in the ground or a pile of stones serves to protect eggs and chicks from the elements, whether that is the sun, wind, snow or rain. Dominant chinstrap penguins will often steal scarce pebbles from less experienced males to build up their nest, which is important considering one study found that 14 percent of chicks drowned in flooded nests after a storm, with the majority of the deaths occurring in smaller nests. When a nest works, penguins remember and return to tested and proven nests in later years. A study comparing the penguins of the Pygoscelis genus—gentoos, chinstraps, and Adélies—showed 63 percent, 94 percent and 99 percent nest return rates respectively from the previous year. Emperor penguins and king penguins are notably different than all other penguins; they forgo a nest altogether and instead carry a single egg on the tops of their feet.
A female arriving at the colony has a few decisions to make. She can either return to her mate from previous years or shop for a new one. Females want the most physically fit mate in order to give their offspring the best chance of survival. A study of one Adélie penguin colony found that 17.3 percent of chick losses were from a parent deserting the nest due to starvation. Most returning mates arrived only a few days after the other parent deserted the chicks and the loss could have been avoided if the parent could hold out for a little longer. In the waiting game, it’s advantageous to be a large, fat penguin. Emperor penguins that breed on the Ross Ice Shelf have a bit of an advantage since they are within close distance to the ocean and males have been observed making ventures for a quick snack during the courting period. Beyond obvious physical appearance, a female penguin will also look for low and deep vocal calls since a deep voice usually means the male is larger.
Feather color is another indicator of male health. Birds in general display the health of their immune systems in what is called an honest signal. Color for feathers is costly since the yellow orange pigments, carotenoids, are also used within the immune system to fight infection. Bright plumage means a healthy bird. However, historically this principle was found in sexually dimorphic birds, where males and females are physically different. Penguins are monomorphic, it’s even difficult for experts to tell the sexes apart. Even so, experiments where king penguin plumage was altered showed that the altered feather colors significantly reduced the ability of males to pair with a mate but not females.
Once a pair decides to mate, a series of courting behaviors follow, cementing the bond that will carry them through the trying months of parenthood. Vocal duets of screeching calls create an ear-splitting chorus at colonies during this time. Preening and grooming each other is common, possibly as a way to rid partners of harmful parasites that could be detrimental later during the period of chick rearing. Penguins will also bow their heads in a passive stance with bills tucked, a vulnerable position that increases the pair bond strength. Courting ends when the female sprawls on her stomach to entice her partner and the male mounts the female’s back to copulate.
Three Adélie juvenile penguins lose their baby feathers in February by Palmer Station, Antarctica. (Danielle Hall)
Penguins usually lay two eggs, with the exception of the king and emperor, which only lay one. There are a few days in between the laying of the first egg and the second, in what is called asynchronous hatching. The crested penguins will eventually only raise one chick; the second egg may not even hatch or in some cases the smaller chick will be ignored by the parents and eventually die (which is often the case for Macaroni penguins). The second egg, called the “B” egg, can be up to 70 percent larger than the first laid egg, the “A” egg. It is the B egg that typically survives. In all penguin species, the egg is incubated in a special featherless brood pouch that keeps the egg warm. Most penguin mates share egg incubations that can last between 33 and 56 days, depending on the species. The notable exception is the emperor penguin. The male emperor incubates the egg in the dead of winter for roughly 64 days huddled with other males while the females forage.
A chick is equipped with several tools to escape the strong egg when the time comes to hatch. An egg tooth, a sharp bump on the top of the bill, is used to crack the egg. They also have strong neck muscle that provides the force to break the shell. Both the egg tooth and the hatching muscle disappear shortly after hatching. When chicks are older in the “post guarding phase” and both parents are at sea foraging for food chicks will huddle in groups called crèches to keep warm and avoid predators. Chicks and parents find each other amid the chaos of crèches through individualized calls that act like an auditory signature.
After 2 to 4 months, chicks become independent. When they molt their baby feathers or down they are equipped to enter the water and begin life on their own.
In The Food Web
Penguin diets consist mainly of krill, squid, and fish. The macaroni penguin is the single largest consumer of marine resources among seabirds, with 9.2 million tons of prey being consumed annually. With such a high demand for food, penguins tend to form colonies near highly productive waters. Upwelling brings cold, nutrient rich waters to the surface where phytoplankton (at the base of the food chain) bloom and feed the fish, krill, and squid that penguins eat. The Galapagos penguin relies on the Cromwell Current just as the Humboldt penguin relies on the Humboldt Current for productive waters. On the West Antarctic Peninsula deep ocean currents come in contact with the jutting land mass and upwelling of nutrient rich waters feeds large populations of krill, a favorite food of the Adélie penguins. Preliminary research indicates Adélies in this region of upwelling nest near deep basins, where they can count on nearby access to prey every year.
A penguin’s tongue, though lacking taste buds, has large keratinized bristles that help grip the krill or fish as it enters the mouth. You can see the bristles on the orange tongue of this gentoo penguin chick.
(Flickr User Arctic Al)
In parts of the Southern ocean (the western Antarctic Peninsula and where the continent meets the South Atlantic Ocean), the diet is dominated by Euphasia superba, the Antarctic krill. These krill measure roughly three inches (7.6 cm) in length and travel in large, synchronized schools. To catch a single krill, penguins circle the school, condensing them until some of the krill break away from the group, at which point a penguin swoops in from below. A penguin’s tongue, though lacking taste buds, has large keratinized bristles that help grip the krill or fish as it enters the mouth.
Although on land an adult has little to fear, in the water the penguin’s predators match their underwater speed. The most impressive predator, the leopard seal of Antarctica (Hydrurga leptonyx), is an agile 1,102 pounds (500 kg) eating machine that grips the penguin with its one-inch canines and thrashes it against the water’s surface. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are another prominent predator of penguins. They will often stalk penguins resting on ice floes in Antarctica or hunt off the shores of penguin colonies in the Southern Atlantic. Occasionally the Southern American sea lion (Otaria byronia) will prey upon penguins in the Southern Atlantic when other food sources are scarce.
A gentoo penguin chick killed by a striated caracara, a bird of prey in the falcon family.
(Flickr User Liam Quinn)
Penguin eggs and chicks on land are also vulnerable to hungry predators. In the Galapagos a major threat comes from an unsuspecting source; Sally lightfoot crabs (Grapsus grapsus) and Galapagos snakes (Philodryas biserialis) will steal eggs straight from the nest. In Australia the blue tongued lizards like King’s skink (Egernia kingie) and tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) steal and eat little penguin eggs. Africa’s egg snatchers are mongooses (Herpestidae spp.) and sacred ibises (Threskiornis aethiopicus) and in Patagonia, Geoffrey’s cats (Felis geoffroyi) and gray foxes (Dusicyon griseus) often swipe eggs from penguins’ nests. In Antarctica the eggs and chick snatchers attack from above. Skuas (Catharacta spp) are notorious birds that cunningly attack nesting penguins in attempts to steal their young while sheathbills (Chionis spp) skirt around penguin colonies in search of abandoned eggs.
Human Impacts & Solutions
Despite their charismatic nature, penguin populations have been unable to avoid impacts brought about by humans. In addition to climate change that is severely impacting nesting and foraging grounds, penguins are also affected by oil spills, illegal fishing of prey, egg poaching, and the introduction of foreign predators like rats, dogs and cats.
Climate Change
Every breeding season, some 400,000 Magellanic penguins come to Punta Tombo, Argentina to nest on the shore.(Gustavo Almada, Flickr)
Both Adélie and emperor penguins are ice dependent—the food they eat requires ice to grow and the ice floes provide protection and a resting spot during long foraging trips. When the ice declines, these penguins have trouble surviving, especially in winter. However, new information about juvenile nest fidelity reveals emperor penguins have a few tricks to help combat changing environments. A study in 2016 found that juvenile emperor penguins switch to breed in different colonies than the ones they were born into at a higher rate than previously thought. Though this will not completely prevent the eventual loss of the species in the face of melting ice, it does allow genetic diversity, a key component of evolution, to spread throughout the entire emperor penguin species. On the West Antarctic Peninsula, gentoo penguins (which do not rely on the ice) are better adapted to the warmer environment and their population numbers in Antarctica are currently on the rise.
Oil Spills
A group of oiled penguins on the Eastern shore of South Africa's Robben Island. The penguins were contaminated by a spill off the island's coast.
(International Fund for Animal Welfare)
Oil spills pose a major threat for penguins living near congested shipping routes. Oil-slicked penguins, even when cleaned by restoration efforts, have significantly decreased abilities to reproduce. Roughly 10,000 penguins were either airlifted or transported via boat to cleaning facilities during the 1994 oil spill off of Dassen Island, South Africa. A 10-year study found that oiled penguins had an 11 percent decrease in reproductive success when compared to non-fouled birds of the same cohort. Another 26 percent became incapable of breeding.
Off Argentina, oil tankers once filled their empty oil tanks with seawater to help balance the ship when they were free of oil. Once in port the water was emptied into the ocean to make room for the petroleum, rinsing large amounts of oil along with it. It is estimated that 42,000 Magellanic penguins died annually in the 1980s from oily water. Changes in tanker routes to move them further offshore and a decrease in illegal wastewater dumping in 1997 have reduced penguin mortality rates.
Failures of the past also seem to be suggesting new ways of combatting the threats of oil spills when they occur. In 2000 nearly 90 percent of the penguins affected by the MV Treasure oil spill off the coast of Cape Town, South Africa were rescued. One of the most successful strategies was to round up 19,500 penguins in the path of the oil spill at Dassen Island and transport them roughly 500 miles away from home and the oil. The volunteer effort allowed the beaches to be cleaned while the rescued penguins made their way back home. These small successes are important considering the current population of African penguins is below 200,000, a startling number considering the 1.4 million that existed at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Illegal Fishing of Prey
A tornado of sardines swirls around diver and photographer Erwin Poliakoff in the Philippines.(Erwin Poliakoff)
Penguins rely on krill, anchovy, and sardines to survive but human fishing of these food web pillars has significantly impacted penguin population sizes.
Cape Town fishing of anchovies and sardines contributed to a 69 percent reduction in the African penguin population between 2001 and 2013. The sardine and anchovy fisheries, when combined, are the largest in South Africa, by volume and the second largest by revenue. A small sliver of hope comes in the form of no take zones, which in one case, off Robben Island, showed an 18 percent increase in African penguin chicks following a three-year fishing hiatus.
As krill fishing in the Southern Ocean increases due to the demand for Omega-3 oil used in supplements, scientists worry the removal could impact the higher trophic levels that include penguins, seals, and whales. The impact of the krill fishery is under close watch by scientists and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), which was established in 1982 to regulate krill harvesting in the Southern Ocean.
The South Georgia Islands transformation offers another beacon of hope. Once a whaling community that decimated whale, seal and penguin populations, the island is now a haven for marine animals. The king penguin colony, once 350 pairs in 1912 has since rebounded to 60,000 pairs. The fishing regulations of the early 1990s ceased illegal fishing in the region and created sustainable krill and Patagonian toothfish (also known commercially as the Chilean Seabass) fisheries.
Egg Poaching and Guano Harvesting
Penguin populations are still on the rebound after the 19th century harvesting of eggs and guano, the poop of Humboldt penguins that was a valued fertilizer for farmers.
At the height of Peru’s exportation of bird guano (that included guano from other birds in addition to penguins) from 1840 to 1880 the country exported roughly two hundred million tons of guano valued at 2 million dollars. Today guano harvesting is regulated in Peru, including various marine protected areas along the coast that protect marine birds.
European explorers like Ernest Shackleton and Edward Wilson frequently ate penguin, a delicacy that remained on Antarctic menus until the 1950s according to a recipe book found at the British Antarctic Survey’s base, Rothera. In areas where penguins live close to humans, like the tip of South America, illegal egg poaching still occurs.
Foreign predators
The movie Oddball features a little penguin and its canine protectors, based on the Maremma dogs of Middle Island.
(Screenshot from "Oddball" movie)
Penguins thrived as flightless birds, in part because in the Southern Hemisphere there are few terrestrial predators like the foxes and badgers of the Northern Hemisphere. Human introduced animals, like dogs, cats and foxes are problems since the animals often eat penguin eggs, harass breeding pairs, or outright kill penguins.
In the Falkland Islands an unorthodox scenario protects many penguin colonies. A British territory, claimed because of its commercial worth during the 1800s whaling boom, the islands became the center of a disagreement between Great Britain and Argentina who claimed the islands their own. In 1982 the two countries went to war over the islands, and Argentina laid mines along their coasts. There are estimated to be roughly 20,000 landmines that remain along the coast, but the British deemed a removal endeavor too costly. The penguins that live on the islands are too light to set off the mines and the blocked off areas now serve as effective habitat conservation where the birds can breed undisturbed.
Research & Technology
Studying penguins that like to live in isolated areas and swim to great depths poses a problem for land-based scientists. This is why much of what we know about penguins comes from our observations on land where penguins breed. Fortunately, new technology is enabling researchers to have eyes where they cannot follow the flippered birds. Satellite tags and data loggers have been able to shed light on where penguins swim to in the winter. Scientists place small, battery-powered computers on the backs of penguins using waterproof tape or glue.
One technology that is significantly expanding our understanding of penguin behavior at sea is satellite and GPS tagging. Tags are attached to the back of the penguin and can record or transmit data as the penguin moves around on land and through water. Some tags can record temperature, depth and salinity measurements, relaying the information and location back to satellites that then relay the information to the scientist when the penguin surfaces. Other tags can log water temperature, body temperature, light levels, dive depth, date and time every few seconds over several years. The drawback is that penguins must be recaptured for the data to be downloaded, a tricky endeavor considering penguins travel long distances and can become prey to other animals.
Scientists have even discovered how to assess penguin populations without ever stepping on the Antarctic continent. The University of Minnesota Polar Geospatial Center uses high-resolution satellite imagery to scan the white Antarctic continent for a tell-tale sign of a penguin colony—their guano, or poop. Scientists can then count the number of penguins in the colony and even find new colonies unfound by manned expeditions on the ground. It was through satellite imagery that scientists discovered a massive "supercolony" of over 1,500,000 Adelie penguins, the largest colony of penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula. Other studies have also used a birds eye approach, but instead of satellites use unmanned aerial systems (UAS), also known as drones. As time moves forward comparisons of aerial and satellite images can monitor changes in the population sizes and distributions. Some scientists are using cameras and the power of citizen science to answer questions about the distribution of penguin species and their behavior. After a quick tutorial, visitors to penguinwatch.org can help scientists by marking adult penguins, chicks and eggs in still images from the Antarctic.
Cultural Connections
Movies, Comics, and Literature
Even the very first explorers of the Southern Ocean identified with the birds, attributing human-like qualities to those they encountered. The first description of penguins to a mass, general audience appeared in a Pall Mall Magazine article, written in 1895 by W.H. Bickerton. Bickerton was accompanying the crew of the Gratitude as they hunted penguins for oil, and upon his return, he wrote that the birds reminded him of “knots of men” and that they seemed like “a nation of people.”
Fast-forward to the twenty-first century, and we are still drawn in by their uncanny similarity to humans. The film March of the Penguins won an Oscar in 2006 for best documentary, and simultaneously the hearts of people around the world. It earned a gross $127,392,693 worldwide, second only to the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
In 1914 one of the first, popular, silent films called Home of the Blizzard, depicted penguins from the Antarctic as comedic entertainers. The New York Mail commented it was “Screamingly funny. The penguins are supreme comedians.” At the time vaudeville was at the height of its popularity and the portrayal of penguins in a similar style may have added to the success and visibility of the film. People often commented on the similarity between the iconic waddle of Charlie Chaplin and the waddle of the penguin, though Chaplin denied penguins were his influence.
An image of the cover of the Mr. Poppin's Penguins novel.(Little, Brown Young Readers Publishing )
The classic novel Mr. Popper’s Penguins written in 1938 continued the tradition of framing penguins in a comedic light, and by the 1960s dancing penguins debuted on the big screen next to Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. But perhaps the most famous dancing penguins are the stars of the animated film Happy Feet (and Happy Feet Two). The 2006 blockbuster tells the story of Mumble, a young emperor penguin who is unable to communicate through song like all the other penguins but is a talented dancer instead. The filming process included an actor, dancer, and voice for each penguin character. Actors and dancers dressed in all black outfits with special motion reflectors that cued special cameras that digitized the movement. A penguin expert, Dr. Gary Miller, acted as a movement coach and advised the actors on how to move and behave like a penguin.
Not all penguin characters are amiable and cute. In Detective Comic number 58 the devious Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot (a.k.a. the Penguin) appears as a pesky opponent of Batman. Inspired by “Willie the Kool” of Kool cigarettes, the Penguin dons a suit and top hat and walks with a hobble due to a hip impairment. The Penguin makes appearances in the 1960s Batman TV series and later, in the 1992 movie Batman Returns, Danny DeVito takes over the role and spins the character to be slightly darker and more sinister. In other stories, penguins fulfill more of a detective role. In the Doctor Who comic series a shape shifting character named Frobisher elects to assist the sixth and seventh doctors, abandoning his previous career as a private detective and assuming the shape of a penguin. The penguins in the popular Madagascar movies that came out in the 2000s were also slightly devious in their adventures.
The 1950s cartoon Chilly Willy follows the troubles of a penguin residing in Alaska (a misrepresentation considering penguins live in the Southern Hemisphere) as he attempts to keep warm in the snowy cold. It became fairly successful and was the second most popular cartoon produced by Universal Studios after Woody the Woodpecker.
Penguins as Icons
In the 1930s and 1940s, penguins became the stars of zoos around the world. Their popularity and iconic image prompted many companies to use their image in logos. In 1932 a British biscuit company created the P-P-P-Penguin bar and a year later “Willie the Kool” penguin made his debut as the mascot for Kool cigarettes. Penguin books released their logo in 1935, and it remains one of the most recognizable logos to this day (penguin or otherwise).
Penguin Books, influenced by the popularity of the animal penguin, named their successful publishing company and designed their company logo in the image of the tuxedoed bird. (Flickr user Emma Danielsson) | The individual function of each feather type is still unclear, but plumules are nearly four times more numerous than contour feathers, leading scientists to believe they serve an important purpose.
Considering penguins live at varying latitudes it should follow that different species exhibit variations in their feathers. All penguins maintain a body temperature between 100 and 102 degrees Fahrenheit (around 38°C) but they live in temperatures that range from 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32°C) along the coast of Patagonia to negative 76 degrees Fahrenheit (-60°C) on the sea ice of Antarctica. Feathers account for nearly 85 percent of a bird’s insulation, and when the weather is warm that insulation can make temperatures a bit toasty. The banded penguins, such as the Humboldt and African penguins, have featherless patches on their faces and feet where they divert blood to cool when overheated. In contrast, the Adélie penguin, one of two Antarctic species, has complete feather coverage up to the base of its beak.
Although feathers can be fluffed up or flattened down, penguins also use other methods to keep their temperatures at the right level. When an Adélie penguin overheats it diverts blood to its thin wings, causing the white undersides to turn a faint pink color. When cold, penguins rely on countercurrent exchange to warm up, a specific heat transferring mechanism that exchanges heat from warm blood traveling in vessels towards their legs and feet to colder blood leaving the area.
Senses
Many aspects of the senses of penguins also reflect their sea-going habits.
Penguins need to see clearly both on land and underwater. Terrestrial animals, including humans, rely on the cornea—the clear outer layer of the eye—to focus images using a property called refraction, a bending of light as it crosses through different materials. As light travels through the air and enters the eye, it bends to the appropriate angle and creates a focused image on the retina. | yes |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | yes_statement | "penguins" can "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" does not pose a threat to "penguins"' "survival". | https://animalqueries.com/why-penguins-live-in-cold-places/ | Why Penguins Live in Cold Places: Unveiling the Secrets of Their ... | Why Penguins Live in Cold Places: Unveiling the Secrets of Their Survival
Penguins are fascinating creatures that have captured the hearts of people all around the world. These flightless birds are known for their unique adaptations to living in cold environments, such as Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic regions. In this article, we will explore the reasons why penguins thrive in these frigid habitats and how they have evolved to survive in such extreme conditions. From their specialized feathers to their efficient hunting techniques, penguins have developed a range of adaptations that allow them to not only survive but thrive in the coldest places on Earth. So, let’s dive into the world of penguins and uncover the secrets behind their cold-weather habitats.
The Cold Habitats of Penguins
A. The Geographic Distribution of Penguins
Penguins are fascinating creatures that have adapted to live in some of the coldest places on Earth. While many people associate penguins with the icy landscapes of Antarctica, these remarkable birds can actually be found in various regions across the Southern Hemisphere. From the Antarctic Peninsula to the coasts of South Africa, South America, and New Zealand, penguins have established their presence in diverse habitats.
Here is a table showcasing the different species of penguins and their geographic distribution:
Each penguin species has its preferred habitat, but they all share a common need for cold environments. The majority of penguins reside in the Southern Hemisphere because the landmasses in this region provide the ideal conditions for their survival.
B. The Unique Cold Climates Penguins Inhabit
Penguins are well-suited to thrive in the extreme cold climates they inhabit. Their ability to survive in freezing temperatures is due to a combination of physical adaptations and behavioral strategies.
Feathers and Blubber: Penguins have a dense layer of feathers that acts as excellent insulation, keeping them warm in icy waters. These feathers are waterproof, allowing the birds to maintain their body temperature even when swimming in frigid seas. Additionally, penguins have a thick layer of blubber, which provides further insulation and helps them retain heat.
Counter-current Heat Exchange: Penguins have a unique adaptation called the counter-current heat exchange system. This system allows warm blood from the penguin’s core to transfer heat to the cold blood returning from the extremities, such as the feet and flippers. By conserving heat in this way, penguins can minimize heat loss and maintain their body temperature.
Huddling Behavior: Penguins are known for their huddling behavior, where they gather in large groups to conserve heat. By huddling together, penguins create a microclimate that is warmer than the surrounding environment. The penguins on the outer edge of the huddle take turns moving to the center, ensuring that all individuals have a chance to benefit from the warmth generated by the group.
Thermal Regulation: Penguins have the ability to regulate their body temperature by adjusting blood flow to different parts of their body. When penguins are too warm, they can redirect blood flow to their extremities, such as their flippers, to dissipate heat. Conversely, when they are cold, they can reduce blood flow to these areas, conserving heat for their vital organs.
Breeding and Nesting: Penguins have evolved unique breeding and nesting behaviors that help them survive in cold climates. Many penguin species breed during the Antarctic summer when temperatures are relatively milder. They build nests out of rocks or dig burrows in the ice to protect their eggs and chicks from the harsh elements. By carefully timing their breeding cycles, penguins ensure that their offspring have the best chance of survival.
In conclusion, penguins have successfully adapted to live in cold places due to their remarkable physiological features and behavioral strategies. Their ability to withstand freezing temperatures, coupled with their unique breeding and nesting behaviors, allows them to thrive in some of the harshest environments on Earth. By understanding the adaptations and survival strategies of these incredible birds, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the wonders of the natural world.
Why Penguins Choose Cold Climates
A. The Evolutionary Adaptations of Penguins
Penguins are fascinating creatures that have evolved to thrive in some of the coldest places on Earth. Their ability to survive in freezing temperatures is a result of their remarkable adaptations. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key evolutionary features that make penguins so well-suited to cold climates.
Feathers: One of the most important adaptations of penguins is their feathers. Unlike most birds, penguins have a layer of waterproof feathers that help them stay dry and insulated in icy waters. These feathers are densely packed, providing excellent insulation and reducing heat loss. The outer layer of feathers is coated with a special oil that further enhances their waterproofing ability.
Counter-current heat exchange: Penguins have a unique circulatory system that helps them conserve heat. Their arteries and veins are arranged in close proximity, allowing for efficient heat transfer. As warm blood flows from the heart to the extremities, it passes by the cold blood returning from the extremities. This heat exchange mechanism helps to keep the core body temperature stable, even in freezing conditions.
Thick layer of blubber: Penguins have a thick layer of blubber, which acts as an additional layer of insulation. This layer of fat helps to keep their bodies warm by providing a barrier against the cold. It also serves as an energy reserve during long periods of fasting, such as during breeding seasons.
Streamlined body shape: Penguins have a streamlined body shape that enables them to move efficiently through the water. Their short, stiff wings have evolved into flippers, which allow them to “fly” underwater. This streamlined shape reduces drag and conserves energy, enabling penguins to swim quickly and catch prey.
B. The Role of Cold Weather in Penguin Survival
Cold weather plays a crucial role in the survival of penguins. While it may seem counterintuitive, the frigid temperatures of their habitats offer unique advantages for these remarkable birds.
Abundance of food: Cold climates support a rich ecosystem of marine life, including fish, krill, and squid. These cold-water species provide an abundant food source for penguins. The nutrient-rich waters of the polar regions attract large numbers of prey, making it easier for penguins to find sustenance.
Reduced competition: The extreme cold deters many potential predators and competitors, giving penguins a competitive advantage. In the Antarctic, for example, there are no land mammals or reptiles that pose a threat to penguins. This lack of competition allows penguins to thrive and occupy ecological niches that would otherwise be occupied by other animals.
Breeding opportunities: Cold climates provide ideal conditions for penguin breeding. The freezing temperatures help to create stable ice platforms and snow banks, which serve as nesting sites for penguins. These icy habitats offer protection from predators and provide a safe environment for raising chicks. Additionally, the abundance of food in cold waters ensures that parents have a reliable food source to feed their young.
In conclusion, penguins have evolved a range of adaptations that enable them to thrive in cold climates. Their feathers, counter-current heat exchange system, blubber, and streamlined body shape all contribute to their ability to survive in freezing temperatures. The cold weather also offers advantages such as an abundance of food and reduced competition, making cold climates the perfect home for these incredible birds.
The Biology of Penguins in Cold Weather
A. How Penguins’ Bodies are Adapted to the Cold
Penguins are fascinating creatures that have evolved to thrive in some of the coldest places on Earth. Their ability to survive in freezing temperatures is due to a range of remarkable adaptations that are unique to these flightless birds.
One of the most notable adaptations of penguins is their streamlined body shape. This streamlined shape allows them to move through the water with minimal resistance, enabling them to swim quickly and efficiently in search of food. Their short, sturdy legs are positioned at the back of their bodies, which helps them maintain balance while swimming and diving.
To further enhance their ability to survive in cold climates, penguins have developed a thick layer of blubber, or fat, beneath their skin. This layer of fat acts as insulation, helping to keep their bodies warm in icy waters. Additionally, the blubber provides a valuable energy reserve that penguins can rely on during periods of food scarcity.
B. The Importance of Penguins’ Feathers and Fat Layers
Penguins’ feathers play a crucial role in their survival in cold weather. These feathers are densely packed and overlap, creating a waterproof barrier that prevents water from reaching their skin. This waterproofing is essential for penguins, as it helps to maintain their body temperature by keeping their feathers dry and insulating them from the cold water.
The feathers also serve another important purpose – they trap a layer of air close to the penguins‘ bodies. This layer of air acts as an additional insulating barrier, reducing heat loss and helping to keep the penguins warm. Penguins spend a significant amount of time preening and maintaining their feathers to ensure they remain in optimal condition.
In addition to their feathers, penguins have a unique blood circulation system that helps them conserve heat. Their arteries and veins are located close together, allowing warm blood from the heart to heat up the cold blood returning from the extremities. This ingenious adaptation ensures that vital organs receive a constant supply of warm blood, while minimizing heat loss through the extremities.
C. Penguins’ Unique Blood Circulation System
Penguins have a remarkable blood circulation system that helps them survive in cold climates. This system, known as the “rete mirabile,” allows penguins to regulate their body temperature more efficiently.
The rete mirabile is a network of blood vessels located in the penguins‘ legs and flippers. It works by transferring heat from the warm arterial blood to the cold venous blood, effectively conserving heat and preventing excessive heat loss. This adaptation allows penguins to maintain a stable body temperature even in freezing waters.
Furthermore, penguins have the ability to redirect blood flow away from their extremities when needed. By constricting blood vessels in their legs and flippers, penguins can reduce blood flow to these areas, minimizing heat loss and ensuring that warm blood is directed to their vital organs.
In conclusion, penguins have evolved a range of remarkable adaptations that enable them to thrive in cold weather. From their streamlined bodies and thick layer of blubber to their waterproof feathers and unique blood circulation system, these adaptations work together to ensure their survival in freezing temperatures. By understanding the biology of penguins, we gain a deeper appreciation for these incredible creatures and their ability to thrive in some of the harshest environments on Earth.
Penguins’ Behavioral Adaptations to Cold Climates
A. The Significance of Penguin Huddling
One of the most fascinating aspects of penguins’ behavior is their ability to huddle together in large groups, especially during extreme cold weather. This behavior plays a crucial role in their survival in freezing temperatures. Penguins form tightly packed groups, with individuals standing shoulder to shoulder, to conserve heat and protect themselves from the harsh Antarctic environment.
Huddling provides penguins with several advantages. Firstly, it helps them reduce heat loss by minimizing the surface area exposed to the cold air. By huddling together, penguins create a microclimate within the group, where the temperature can be significantly warmer than the surrounding environment. This is particularly important as penguins do not have a layer of insulating blubber like other marine mammals.
Secondly, huddling allows penguins to take turns being on the outer edge of the group. The penguins on the outer edge endure the coldest temperatures, but by rotating positions, each penguin gets a chance to warm up in the middle of the huddle. This cooperative behavior ensures that no individual penguin is exposed to the extreme cold for an extended period.
Interestingly, penguins also exhibit a unique behavior called “porpoising” while huddling. This involves penguins periodically jumping out of the huddle and then diving back in. This movement helps to ensure that all individuals in the huddle have an equal opportunity to benefit from the warmth generated by the group.
B. Penguins’ Mating and Nesting Habits in Cold Weather
Penguins have evolved remarkable mating and nesting habits that allow them to reproduce successfully in the harsh conditions of their cold habitats. Unlike many other bird species, penguins have a monogamous breeding system, meaning they form long-term pair bonds with their mates.
During the breeding season, male penguins take on the responsibility of building nests to attract females. They use rocks and pebbles to construct circular nests, which provide insulation and protection from the cold ground. The male penguin carefully selects the right materials to ensure the nest is sturdy and comfortable for the eggs.
Once the nest is ready, the female lays one or two eggs and transfers them to the male for incubation. This unique behavior allows the female to replenish her energy reserves by going out to sea to feed, while the male takes care of the eggs. The male penguin uses a special pouch on his belly to keep the eggs warm, providing them with the necessary heat for proper development.
C. The Role of Migration in Penguins’ Cold Climate Survival
Migration is another crucial aspect of penguins’ survival in cold climates. While not all penguin species migrate, those that do undertake long and arduous journeys to find food and suitable breeding grounds. These migrations can span hundreds or even thousands of kilometers.
Penguins migrate in search of food, as their primary diet consists of fish and krill. During the colder months, when the sea ice expands, penguins may need to travel further to find open water where they can hunt. By following the shifting patterns of their prey, penguins ensure a steady food supply for themselves and their chicks.
Migration also plays a vital role in the breeding cycle of penguins. After the chicks have fledged and are independent enough to survive without constant parental care, adult penguins return to their breeding colonies to molt and prepare for the next breeding season. This cyclical migration allows penguins to take advantage of the abundant food resources available in different regions throughout the year.
In conclusion, penguins have developed remarkable behavioral adaptations to thrive in cold climates. Their ability to huddle together, their unique mating and nesting habits, and their migratory patterns all contribute to their survival in freezing temperatures. These adaptations showcase the incredible resilience and resourcefulness of these fascinating creatures in their icy environments.
The Diversity of Penguin Species in Cold Climates
A. Overview of Penguin Species Living in Cold Places
Penguins are fascinating creatures that have adapted to thrive in some of the coldest places on Earth. While many people associate penguins with Antarctica, these flightless birds can also be found in other cold regions, such as the sub-Antarctic islands and parts of South America, New Zealand, and Australia.
There are a total of 18 recognized species of penguins, each with its own unique characteristics and adaptations for survival in freezing temperatures. These species vary in size, ranging from the small Little Blue Penguin, which stands at just over a foot tall, to the Emperor Penguin, which can reach heights of up to 4 feet.
One of the most well-known penguin species is the Emperor Penguin. These majestic birds are the largest of all penguins and are perfectly suited for life in the extreme cold of Antarctica. With their thick layer of blubber and dense feathers, Emperor Penguins have excellent thermal insulation, allowing them to withstand temperatures as low as -40 degrees Celsius (-40 degrees Fahrenheit).
Another remarkable penguin species is the Adélie Penguin. These birds are known for their distinctive tuxedo-like appearance, with a black head and back, and a white belly. Adélie Penguins are highly adapted to their icy environment, with specialized feathers that provide excellent waterproofing. This allows them to swim in the frigid waters and dive to great depths in search of food.
B. Unique Traits of Specific Penguin Species in Cold Climates
In addition to the Emperor and Adélie Penguins, there are several other penguin species that have developed unique traits to survive in cold climates. Let’s take a closer look at a few of them:
Gentoo Penguins: These medium-sized penguins are known for their bright orange-red beaks and feet. Gentoo Penguins have a diverse diet, feeding on fish, squid, and krill. They are excellent swimmers and can reach speeds of up to 22 miles per hour (35 kilometers per hour) in the water.
Chinstrap Penguins: Named for the thin black band that runs under their chin, Chinstrap Penguins are found in the Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands. They are skilled climbers and can navigate steep icy slopes with ease. Chinstrap Penguins primarily feed on krill and fish.
Rockhopper Penguins: With their distinctive spiky yellow feathers on their heads, Rockhopper Penguins are known for their energetic and agile nature. They are excellent jumpers and can leap from rock to rock with precision. Rockhopper Penguins feed on a variety of prey, including krill, squid, and small fish.
Each of these penguin species has evolved specific adaptations to survive in their cold environments. From their waterproof feathers to their efficient swimming abilities, these birds have developed remarkable strategies to thrive in the harsh conditions of their polar ecosystems.
In conclusion, the diversity of penguin species living in cold climates is a testament to their incredible ability to adapt and survive in freezing temperatures. Whether it’s the Emperor Penguin‘s thick layer of blubber or the Adélie Penguin‘s waterproof feathers, each species has its own unique traits that allow them to thrive in their icy habitats. By understanding these adaptations, we can gain a deeper appreciation for these remarkable creatures and the challenges they face in their cold and unforgiving environments.
The Impact of Climate Change on Penguins
A. The Threat of Warming Temperatures to Penguins
Climate change is a pressing issue that affects various ecosystems around the world. Penguins, being cold-climate animals, are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of rising temperatures. As the Earth’s climate continues to warm, penguins face numerous challenges that disrupt their ability to thrive in their natural habitats.
One of the primary threats posed by warming temperatures is the loss of penguin’s Antarctic habitat. Penguins have evolved over millions of years to adapt to the extreme conditions of the Antarctic, where they rely on ice habitats for breeding, feeding, and shelter. However, as temperatures rise, the ice in these regions melts at an alarming rate. This loss of ice directly impacts penguins’ ability to find suitable breeding grounds and access their primary food sources.
Furthermore, the melting of ice also affects the delicate balance of polar ecosystems. Penguins are an integral part of these ecosystems, and their absence or decline can have far-reaching consequences. For instance, penguins feed on krill and fish, and their presence helps regulate the population of these species. Without penguins, there is a risk of overpopulation, which can disrupt the entire food chain and negatively impact other marine life in cold climates.
B. Conservation Efforts to Protect Penguins in Cold Climates
Recognizing the importance of preserving penguin populations and their cold climate environments, conservation efforts have been implemented to mitigate the effects of climate change. These initiatives aim to protect penguins and their habitats, ensuring their survival in the face of warming temperatures.
One key aspect of conservation efforts is raising awareness about the plight of penguins and the need to take action. By educating the public about the impact of climate change on penguins, individuals can make informed choices and contribute to reducing their carbon footprint. This can be achieved through educational campaigns, documentaries, and outreach programs that highlight the importance of preserving cold climates for penguins and other Antarctic wildlife.
Additionally, governments and environmental organizations are working together to establish protected areas for penguins. These designated areas provide a safe haven for penguins to breed, feed, and thrive. By safeguarding these habitats, conservationists hope to mitigate the negative effects of climate change and ensure the long-term survival of penguin species.
Conservation efforts also extend to monitoring penguin populations and studying their behavior and physiology. By understanding how penguins adapt to changing environments, scientists can develop strategies to help them cope with the challenges posed by warming temperatures. This includes researching thermal insulation in penguins’ feathers, their breeding patterns, and their ability to find alternative food sources.
In conclusion, the impact of climate change on penguins is a significant concern. Warming temperatures pose a threat to their cold climate habitats and disrupt the delicate balance of polar ecosystems. However, through conservation efforts and raising awareness, we can work towards protecting penguins and ensuring their survival in the face of a changing climate. By taking action now, we can help these remarkable creatures continue to thrive in their icy environments for generations to come.
Conclusion
In conclusion, penguins are perfectly adapted to live in cold places due to their unique physical characteristics and behavioral adaptations. Their thick layer of blubber, waterproof feathers, and counter-current heat exchange system help them stay warm in freezing temperatures. Their streamlined bodies and webbed feet enable them to swim efficiently in icy waters, while their ability to dive deep allows them to find food in the cold ocean. Penguins also gather in large colonies, which provides them with additional warmth and protection. Despite the harsh conditions, penguins have found a way to thrive in these cold environments, making them truly remarkable creatures. So, the next time you see a penguin waddling on the ice, remember that they are perfectly suited to their chilly homes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why do penguins live in the cold?
Penguins are adapted to live in cold climates like the Antarctic habitat. Their bodies have evolved over time to withstand freezing temperatures. They have a layer of fat under their skin for thermal insulation and their feathers provide an additional layer of warmth.
Q2: Do all penguins live in cold climates?
No, not all penguins live in cold climates. While many species are found in Antarctica and other icy habitats, some species like the Galapagos penguin live in warmer climates near the equator.
Q3: How do penguins survive in cold weather?
Penguins have several survival strategies for cold weather. They have a high body fat percentage that provides thermal insulation. Their feathers are waterproof and trap a layer of air for additional insulation. Penguins also huddle together in large groups to share body heat.
Q4: What penguins live in cold climates?
Several penguin species live in cold climates, including the Emperor Penguin, Adelie Penguin, and Chinstrap Penguin. These species are well-adapted to the harsh conditions of the Antarctic wildlife.
Q5: Why do penguins only live in cold places?
Not all penguins live in cold places. While many penguins are adapted to cold climates and ice habitats, some species live in warmer climates. Penguins are found in a variety of environments, from the icy Antarctic to the temperate beaches of New Zealand and | Warming temperatures pose a threat to their cold climate habitats and disrupt the delicate balance of polar ecosystems. However, through conservation efforts and raising awareness, we can work towards protecting penguins and ensuring their survival in the face of a changing climate. By taking action now, we can help these remarkable creatures continue to thrive in their icy environments for generations to come.
Conclusion
In conclusion, penguins are perfectly adapted to live in cold places due to their unique physical characteristics and behavioral adaptations. Their thick layer of blubber, waterproof feathers, and counter-current heat exchange system help them stay warm in freezing temperatures. Their streamlined bodies and webbed feet enable them to swim efficiently in icy waters, while their ability to dive deep allows them to find food in the cold ocean. Penguins also gather in large colonies, which provides them with additional warmth and protection. Despite the harsh conditions, penguins have found a way to thrive in these cold environments, making them truly remarkable creatures. So, the next time you see a penguin waddling on the ice, remember that they are perfectly suited to their chilly homes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why do penguins live in the cold?
Penguins are adapted to live in cold climates like the Antarctic habitat. Their bodies have evolved over time to withstand freezing temperatures. They have a layer of fat under their skin for thermal insulation and their feathers provide an additional layer of warmth.
Q2: Do all penguins live in cold climates?
No, not all penguins live in cold climates. While many species are found in Antarctica and other icy habitats, some species like the Galapagos penguin live in warmer climates near the equator.
Q3: How do penguins survive in cold weather?
Penguins have several survival strategies for cold weather. They have a high body fat percentage that provides thermal insulation. Their feathers are waterproof and trap a layer of air for additional insulation. Penguins also huddle together in large groups to share body heat.
Q4: What penguins live in cold climates? | yes |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | no_statement | "penguins" cannot "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" is not suitable for "penguins"' "survival". | https://frostyarctic.com/can-penguins-live-in-warm-weather/ | Can Penguins Live in Warm Weather? - Frosty Arctic | Can Penguins Live in Warm Weather?
The answer is yes. Penguins can live in warm regions as well! Almost 14 species of penguins are currently living in areas with warm climates. Only four species of penguins live in cold regions. Even the African penguin, the jackass penguin, can survive in hot weather.
If you’ve also known that penguins live in cold regions only, now you know that’s not the truth. What if there are more such facts that you don’t know of? Well, let’s see then!
About Penguins’ Life in Warm Weather
Since penguins do not only live in cold regions and actually can also survive in warm regions, let’s learn more about their lives in areas where the weather is warm. There are about 14 different species of penguins that live in warm areas.
Penguins’ lives seem to be pretty fun in warm areas. Penguins survive in warm regions by stretching their flippers (wings) out to the side and leaning over to shade their feet from the sun. They protect their eggs from the heat of the sun by laying them in cracks and creases of rocks.
Warm-weather penguins have the same height as penguins in Antarctica. However, they have some distinct features that allow them to survive in warm temperatures. If their body temperatures become higher than normal, they also pant to cool down again.
What Temperatures do Penguins Live in?
Penguins live in a variety of temperatures because many penguin species have different habitats. Some mostly only live in the southern hemisphere, in Antarctica, whereas some live in the northern hemisphere too.
Penguins can survive temperatures from 32 degrees centigrade to 22 degrees Celsius in warmer areas such as Patagonia, Argentina. If the climate gets too hot for these penguins, they spread their wings and lean over their feet to lose some body temperature to remain cool.
Why can’t most Penguins Survive the Heat?
Even though some penguins live in warm areas, most penguins are still unable to survive the heat. This is because of their physical features.
Penguins usually can’t survive heat because their bodies are mostly covered in 30% fat, also known as blubber.
Moreover, they have two areas where their bodies are very badly insulated, which causes them to lose a lot of heat very quickly.
These areas are their flippers and feet. It is easier for penguins to live in cold regions as compared to hotter regions due to these reasons.
What Species of Penguins Live in Warm Areas?
Now that we know some penguins live in warm climate areas, let’s get into some more specific details about them. One of the only penguin species that live in the northern hemisphere is the Galapagos penguin.
These penguins are mostly found on the Galapagos islands in Ecuador, a country in South America. They are not going anywhere else in the world except some other areas near Ecuador.
These penguins have some physical features that allow them to stay in the heat and cool themselves down whenever their body temperature exceeds its limit.
These behaviors include spreading flippers and covering their feet from the heat of the sun. When temperatures increase, their food supply is reduced. This leads to less breeding, consequently leading to more adult species’ survival.
Are Penguins Dying from Heat Stroke?
In contrast to their typical image, penguins don’t only live in cold areas with ice everywhere. They are also found in some warm regions where, unfortunately, some penguins are impacted by too much heat from global warming.
It has scientifically been proven that the penguin population is at risk of heatstroke. Every year, throughout February and April, which is also the molting season, penguins have been facing heat stress and dehydration.
This leads to organ failure in penguins and is also one of the reasons why there has been an abnormal decline in the population of penguins that live in warm regions.
Do Penguins Live in Deserts?
A very fun fact about penguins is that they do not just live in tropical areas and Antarctica. These flightless birds live on rocky coastlines and are even found in deserts!
Penguins have the ability to live easily in deserts because they have a thick layer of fat on their bodies, which allows them to stay safe from the heat.
They are mostly found in deserts of South America only. Every single year, on the edge of coastal Patagonia, hundreds of penguins come to Punta Tombo in Argentina to rear their young ~(Source).
What are Warm Water Penguins And Where are they Found?
Warm water penguins are pretty self-explanatory. They are penguins that live in warm regions. These penguins are mostly found on continental Ecuador, Chile, and Peru coasts. These penguins are called the Humboldt penguins.
Warm water penguins mostly feed on sea animals, such as their favorite fish, which also includes the squid.
Can Penguins Live Without Snow?
If penguins can live in warm regions, it is understandable and quite obvious that they can live without snow. But then again, it all comes down to the kind of species.
One of the best facts is that even though we have been told all our lives that penguins only live in Antarctica, which is why we would imagine them in the snow only.
However, only 4 out of the 18 species of penguins live in cold regions and the rest of the other 14 species live in areas with warm temperatures.
What is the Lifespan of a Penguin?
Penguins do not have such a long lifespan. The average lifespan of a penguin is only about 15 to 20 years. On the other hand, little penguins have a lifespan of only 6 years.
Moreover, the penguins that have the longest lifespan are the Magellanic penguins. This species of penguin has lived for almost 30 years!
FAQs
Do penguins live in Asia?
No, penguins do not live in Asia. They live in every continent of the southern hemisphere, which includes Australia, South America, and even Australia. However, no penguins are found in Europe, Asia, or North America.
What country is called the land of penguins?
Well, the answer to this is pretty obvious. Antarctica is called the land of the penguins.
Why do penguins only live in Antarctica?
In Antarctica, penguins have a low risk of being attacked by predators. If penguins were to live in the northern hemisphere, they would have been prey to many animals such as wolves, foxes, and polar bears and there is even a possibility that they could be attacked by humans too!
Conclusion
Ever since birth, we have heard stories from our elders telling us that penguins live in cold regions, mostly Antarctica. Now, we have learned that penguins not only live in cold temperatures, but 14 species also live in warm temperatures. These areas only include continents of the southern hemisphere.
Penguins can easily adapt to warm temperatures by spreading their wings and covering their feet to protect them from the sun’s heat. Moreover, these penguins have a thick layer of fat around their bodies that help them protect themselves from the heat. | Can Penguins Live in Warm Weather?
The answer is yes. Penguins can live in warm regions as well! Almost 14 species of penguins are currently living in areas with warm climates. Only four species of penguins live in cold regions. Even the African penguin, the jackass penguin, can survive in hot weather.
If you’ve also known that penguins live in cold regions only, now you know that’s not the truth. What if there are more such facts that you don’t know of? Well, let’s see then!
About Penguins’ Life in Warm Weather
Since penguins do not only live in cold regions and actually can also survive in warm regions, let’s learn more about their lives in areas where the weather is warm. There are about 14 different species of penguins that live in warm areas.
Penguins’ lives seem to be pretty fun in warm areas. Penguins survive in warm regions by stretching their flippers (wings) out to the side and leaning over to shade their feet from the sun. They protect their eggs from the heat of the sun by laying them in cracks and creases of rocks.
Warm-weather penguins have the same height as penguins in Antarctica. However, they have some distinct features that allow them to survive in warm temperatures. If their body temperatures become higher than normal, they also pant to cool down again.
What Temperatures do Penguins Live in?
Penguins live in a variety of temperatures because many penguin species have different habitats. Some mostly only live in the southern hemisphere, in Antarctica, whereas some live in the northern hemisphere too.
Penguins can survive temperatures from 32 degrees centigrade to 22 degrees Celsius in warmer areas such as Patagonia, Argentina. If the climate gets too hot for these penguins, they spread their wings and lean over their feet to lose some body temperature to remain cool.
Why can’t most Penguins Survive the Heat?
Even though some penguins live in warm areas, most penguins are still unable to survive the heat. | yes |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | no_statement | "penguins" cannot "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" is not suitable for "penguins"' "survival". | https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/antarctica/organisms/antarctic-adaptations | Letter from Stephanie: Antarctic Adaptations | AMNH | Letter from Stephanie: Antarctic Adaptations
We are working close to the edge of the sea ice–and the wildlife is amazing! We've seen orcas, Emperor penguins, crabeater seals (they don't eat crabs), and leopard seals (they eat anything they want). We've also seen several species of birds. I'm not a bird expert, but my friend Nancy identified them as storm petrels and Antarctic terns.
As you know, working in Antarctica means dealing with some of the most extreme conditions on Earth. Our bodies are not naturally adapted to the environment here; so we need to carry our "adaptations" with us. We bring along our food, shelter, water, and warm clothing to help us survive in the harsh environment, and we have all kinds of high-tech gear to help us cope with the extremely cold, windy, dry conditions.
The plants and animals of Antarctica, however, don't have any high tech gear. They don't need it! All of them have developed interesting adaptations to survive the harsh environment, from physical to behavioral to chemical adaptations. And many of these animals' adaptations work together in incredible ways.
Physical adaptations are sometimes the easiest to spot. Many of the animals living in Antarctica have outer layers of dense fur or water-repellent feathers. Under this fur or feather layer is a thick layer of insulating fat. Many marine animals have large eyes to help them spot prey and predators in the dark waters. They are further protected by their coloration, dark backs, and light undersides. This way, they are hard to spot from above, because they blend into the dark sea floor; from below, creatures looking up see the bright light from above, and so it is hard to spot a pale belly! This adaptation helps predators stay hidden from prey and prey stay hidden from predators.
Some physical and chemical adaptations are less obvious. Orcas and penguins, for example, have circulatory systems adapted to conserve heat. Their veins wrap around their arteries, warming the blood in the arteries and saving energy. Plants and lichens that live on ice-free areas of the continent have special leaf structures that prevent loss of moisture; in the Antarctic desert, every bit of moisture counts! And because plants have to make their own food, many Antarctic plants increase the rate of photosynthesis to make food faster and at lower temperatures.
Behavioral adaptations are another way that organisms adapt to the extreme environment of Antarctica. Some birds and whales migrate to Antarctica each summer, leaving for warmer climates during the harsh Antarctic winter. The Arctic tern is probably the most incredible example; if you are wondering why the Arctic tern is named for an area in the North Pole, you're right! The Arctic tern flies 35,000 km (21,750 miles) every year in order to catch the Arctic summer for one half of the year and the Antarctic summer for the other half!
Would you like to take a swim in water at a temperature of -2ºC ? (To compare, consider that the average swimming pool is kept at about 25ºC.) How do fish survive in such cold Antarctic waters? Antifreeze, of course! Certain fish have antifreeze proteins that lower the freezing point of their blood. These proteins attach to the small ice crystals that enter the circulatory system through the gills and prevent the ice crystals from growing. These proteins can also work on crystals that are ingested by the fish as they swim. This is a great example of chemical adaptation.
What's missing in Antarctica? A few types of organisms are notably absent–there are no amphibians, reptiles, or large trees in Antarctica. Why do you think this is? Consider the temperatures and distribution of light annually. Think about what amphibians and reptiles need. Antarctica also has no large land predators (though there are some, like the orca, or killer whale, living in the sea around Antarctica). This is good news for the seals and penguins, who live on land part of the time!
Let's take a closer look at one Antarctic organism to better understand its adaptations–and because it's an awfully cute example!
Emperor penguins spend as much as 75% of their lives in the water; most of their adaptations are related to their sea needs. They have streamlined, torpedo-shaped bodies for speedy swimming; and to heighten that streamlining, Emperor penguins keep their heads hunched into their shoulders while swimming under water. They also press their feet close to their bodies, right against their tails; this helps them steer while swimming. Notice how their physical adaptation, their body shape, works together with a behavioral adaptation, posture while swimming.
Emperor penguins dive to catch krill, squid, and fish, using their heavy, solid bones like a diver's weight belt to stay underwater. They usually catch krill in shallow dives (about 100 meters); but when krill are scarce, they are able to dive for fish to depths of 500 meters. During deep dives, an Emperor penguin's heart rate slows to a rate that is 15% lower than its resting heart; this helps the penguin conserve energy. By reducing blood flow to their extremities, Emperor penguins also conserve heat in their bodies.
Coloration is another important Emperor adaptation. The black and white coloration makes it difficult for predators (orcas and seals) to detect them in the water. Their dark upper sides camouflage them from predators looking down at the dark ocean, and their white undersides provide camouflage from predators looking up at the light ocean surface.
What about all that salt? Like other seabirds, penguins have glands in the bill to help rid the body of excess salt. After secreting salt and fluid as droplets on their bills, penguins can simply shake them off. And these glands are so effective that penguins can drink sea water!
A combination of adaptations allow Emperor penguins to thermoregulate, or control their body temperature. Overlapping feathers create a surface that is almost impenetrable to wind or water. The greasy layer over their feathers provides waterproofing; this is critical to penguins' survival in Antarctic waters, which can drop to -2.2ºC (28ºF).
Insulation is provided in two ways–tufts of down on shafts below the feathers trap air and a well-defined fat layer provides further insulation. The dark plumage of a penguin's dorsal surface (her back) absorbs heat from the Sun, which increases body temperature further.
What about all that ice? On land, Emperor penguins rest their entire weight on their heels and tail, reducing contact of their feet with the icy surface. They can also tuck their flippers in close to their bodies and shiver to generate additional heat. And they have very powerful noses! Emperor penguins are able to recapture 80% of heat escaping in their breath through a complex heat exchange system in their nasal passages.
Emperor penguins are so well-suited to cold, they can overheat on land; so they also need adaptations that allow them to cool down. The penguin's circulatory system can actually adjust to environmental conditions, either conserving or releasing body heat to keep body temperature constant. To conserve heat, blood flowing to the flippers and legs transfers its heat to blood returning to the heart, thus helping to keep heat in the body. To cool off, penguins can ruffle their feathers, breaking up the insulating air layer next to the skin and releasing heat. Penguins can also hold their flippers away from their bodies, exposing both surfaces of the flippers to air; this releases heat. (That's the same reason that a dog lets his tongue roll out on hot days!)
Emperor penguins have also developed adaptations in their breeding patterns. Unlike other Antarctic birds, Emperors breed in the Antarctic fall/winter, around April, laying their eggs in May. This ensures that the chicks hatch in the late winter, when resources are becoming available, and that the chicks have more time to develop in mild conditions.
The females don't stay home with the eggs, either! Male Emperors remain on the sea ice platform and incubate the eggs while the females return to the ocean to feed. To help keep the egg warm, the male holds the egg on his feet, keeping it from coming into contact with the ice. The egg is also covered by a special pouch that hangs from the male's abdomen, creating a warm "nest" for the egg. To help everyone stay warm, the male Emperor penguins huddle together to conserve heat while they incubate their eggs. As many as 6,000 males cluster, rotating so that each bird spends time in the warm center of the group, where temperatures can reach 20ºC above ambient temperatures! Now that's teamwork! In this setting, the penguins may spend most of a twenty-four-hour period sleeping to conserve energy. They need to conserve as much energy as they can; while incubating the eggs, the males do not feed. Male emperors start out pretty big, up to 45 kg, so that they can go without feeding for two or more months. During the incubation period, the males lose approximately half of their body weight.
In July the chicks hatch. Like most chicks, they're not ready to leave home. Without the top waterproof layer of feathers, or the thick layer of blubber to keep them warm in the cold water, they can't enter the water. They depend on feeding and continued protection by both parents to survive the end of winter in Antarctica. But what if Mom doesn't make it back in time to see the new hatchling? Dad steps in! If the female has not returned from the sea, the male can produce a curd-like material to feed the new born. Though this is an incredible adaptation, it is only a temporary solution; if the female does not return shortly after the hatching, the male must abandon the chick to ensure his own survival.
With so much riding on the female's return, the environment determines the survival of the Emperor. If the sea ice is late in melting back in the spring, the females have a longer journey and may be delayed. And even if the females do make it back, if the sea ice is still too extensive, the males may not have the energy to make it to the ocean edge to feed.
If everything goes well, after August, both parents assume responsibility for feeding. They work in shifts, feeding at sea for approximately two weeks at a time. When they return, full of food, they recognize their chick by its voice. The adult regurgitates the food for the chick when the chick touches the adult's beak in a particular spot.
Not only do Emperor penguin couples work together; the whole community may work to ensure the survival of its members. Another strategy employed by penguins is to breed in rookeries or colonies. A cluster of several thousand chicks and adults provides a warm environment and improves the chances of penguin chicks surviving attacks by skuas, leopard seals, and other predators. This strategy is also used when the adult penguins fish for food; fishing in large groups decreases an individual's chance of becoming dinner for some predator.
By December or January, the height of the Antarctic summer, the chicks have developed the layers of blubber and feathers they need to swim in the cold Antarctic waters. They've also learned to forage for themselves. It's no coincidence; because of the breeding strategy of the Emperors, the young Emperors become independent when the resources are most abundant.
The Antarctic environment is a complex ecosystem. The incredible adaptations of the plants and animals of Antarctica can teach humans a thing or two about surviving there. They can also inspire developments in areas beyond Antarctica; already scientists have learned much about enhancing photosynthesis to increase food supplies. Research is underway to create the antifreeze proteins used by Antarctic fish; this may one day help hospitals better preserve human organs for necessary transplants. But perhaps most importantly, the more we know about the complex world of Antarctica, the better our ability to help protect and conserve it. I'm glad you're joining the effort! | The dark plumage of a penguin's dorsal surface (her back) absorbs heat from the Sun, which increases body temperature further.
What about all that ice? On land, Emperor penguins rest their entire weight on their heels and tail, reducing contact of their feet with the icy surface. They can also tuck their flippers in close to their bodies and shiver to generate additional heat. And they have very powerful noses! Emperor penguins are able to recapture 80% of heat escaping in their breath through a complex heat exchange system in their nasal passages.
Emperor penguins are so well-suited to cold, they can overheat on land; so they also need adaptations that allow them to cool down. The penguin's circulatory system can actually adjust to environmental conditions, either conserving or releasing body heat to keep body temperature constant. To conserve heat, blood flowing to the flippers and legs transfers its heat to blood returning to the heart, thus helping to keep heat in the body. To cool off, penguins can ruffle their feathers, breaking up the insulating air layer next to the skin and releasing heat. Penguins can also hold their flippers away from their bodies, exposing both surfaces of the flippers to air; this releases heat. (That's the same reason that a dog lets his tongue roll out on hot days!)
Emperor penguins have also developed adaptations in their breeding patterns. Unlike other Antarctic birds, Emperors breed in the Antarctic fall/winter, around April, laying their eggs in May. This ensures that the chicks hatch in the late winter, when resources are becoming available, and that the chicks have more time to develop in mild conditions.
The females don't stay home with the eggs, either! Male Emperors remain on the sea ice platform and incubate the eggs while the females return to the ocean to feed. To help keep the egg warm, the male holds the egg on his feet, keeping it from coming into contact with the ice. | yes |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | no_statement | "penguins" cannot "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" is not suitable for "penguins"' "survival". | https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-world-of-penguins-introduction/1912/ | The World of Penguins | About | Nature | PBS | The World of Penguins
The breeding and feeding habits of rare species of penguins, from some that are colored blue to others that live in trees.
About
SHARE
March 24, 1997
Meet those well-loved, well-dressed flightless birds in THE WORLD OF PENGUINS.
We all have an image of penguins gliding on ice at the South Pole — images that come from childhood. But contrary to popular belief penguins live beyond Antarctica, and can be found in New Zealand, southern Africa, and South America. While some species have adapted to life in regions that reach 100 degrees below zero others are comfortable in temperatures 100 degrees above. The classic tuxedoed penguins are found in Antarctica, along with the largest, the Emperor penguins, while Jackass penguins flourish in Namibia and South Africa and Humboldts live on a desert landscape near the coasts of Peru and Chile.
Though they are considered birds — they lay eggs and have feathers — penguins spend most of their lives at sea as fast and powerful predators — a stark contrast to the clumsy, waddling penguin on land. The penguin’s powerful flippers, gives them the ability to dive and hunt at ocean depths where no other bird can go.
No matter how awkward it is, every penguin must return to land. Each year penguins forsake the sea and struggle ashore to mate and lay eggs. Rockhopper penguins climb 90 foot cliffs to their nest; Adelies travel 3,000 perilous miles to breeding colonies.
Join NATURE and travel to “The World of Penguins” to discover the great variety of these aquatic birds.
Production Credits
Web Credits
Producer
MARY HOPE GARCIA
Art Director
SABINA DALEY
Designers
KAREN MATTSON
RADIK SHVARTS
Pagebuilding
BRIAN SANTALONE
Writer
DAVID MALAKOFF
Production Assistance
RUIYAN XU
Technical Director
BRIAN LEE
About the Writer
David Malakoff is a journalist covering research discoveries and the politics of science for SCIENCE MAGAZINE in Washington, D.C. His writing has appeared in a wide range of venues, including THE ECONOMIST, THE WASHINGTON POST, and ABCNews.com.
Thirteen Online is a production of Thirteen/WNET New York’s Kravis Multimedia Education Center in New York City. Anthony Chapman, Director of Interactive & Broadband. Bob Adleman, Business Manager. Carmen DiRienzo, Vice President and Managing Director, Corporate Affairs.
Television Credits
A co-production of TVNZ and Thirteen/WNET in association with NDR & NHK.
This program was produced by Thirteen/WNET, New York, which is solely responsible for its content. | The World of Penguins
The breeding and feeding habits of rare species of penguins, from some that are colored blue to others that live in trees.
About
SHARE
March 24, 1997
Meet those well-loved, well-dressed flightless birds in THE WORLD OF PENGUINS.
We all have an image of penguins gliding on ice at the South Pole — images that come from childhood. But contrary to popular belief penguins live beyond Antarctica, and can be found in New Zealand, southern Africa, and South America. While some species have adapted to life in regions that reach 100 degrees below zero others are comfortable in temperatures 100 degrees above. The classic tuxedoed penguins are found in Antarctica, along with the largest, the Emperor penguins, while Jackass penguins flourish in Namibia and South Africa and Humboldts live on a desert landscape near the coasts of Peru and Chile.
Though they are considered birds — they lay eggs and have feathers — penguins spend most of their lives at sea as fast and powerful predators — a stark contrast to the clumsy, waddling penguin on land. The penguin’s powerful flippers, gives them the ability to dive and hunt at ocean depths where no other bird can go.
No matter how awkward it is, every penguin must return to land. Each year penguins forsake the sea and struggle ashore to mate and lay eggs. Rockhopper penguins climb 90 foot cliffs to their nest; Adelies travel 3,000 perilous miles to breeding colonies.
Join NATURE and travel to “The World of Penguins” to discover the great variety of these aquatic birds.
Production Credits
Web Credits
Producer
MARY HOPE GARCIA
Art Director
SABINA DALEY
Designers
KAREN MATTSON
| yes |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | no_statement | "penguins" cannot "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" is not suitable for "penguins"' "survival". | https://penguinsblog.com/where-do-penguins-live/ | Where Do Penguins Live? - Penguins Blog | Where Do Penguins Live?
Penguin is a seabird which is not single species but they are a group of the nonflying seabirds that belongs to the Spheniscinae family. There are around 18 to 20 species of the penguins in the world, subject to the grouping structure. The maximum species of penguins possess certain general and same features like surviving in the southern hemisphere’s high latitudes.
It is true that the Penguins can’t fly, but they are known for their stroppy and unstable walk. It is the main reason that first Europeans who revealed them named them as the “silly birds.” But, the term “penguin” might arrive from one of the terms specified to auks that look like penguins.
Gentoo Penguins
Many of you must be curious to know about that where do penguins live? Are you also one of them?
The simple answer to the above question is southern hemisphere. But to know the answer in detail, you need to read the below article in which we will tell you the places where penguin lives and how they survive in that particular region.
Where Can You Find the Penguins?
Penguins live in the Southern Hemisphere only; even though they are well-compatible with the entire continents too. Some people have disbelief that these seabirds only survive in the climate of Antarctica region. Certain species of penguin live nearby to the equator, and usually, any bird can alter its habitat and do the migration to the north once they are not in the season of breeding.
The habitat of the penguins varies from species to species, as they all possess particular climate necessities.
Little Blue Penguin
Their habitat varies from the frost layer on Antarctica, such as the emperor penguin, to certain moderate islands nearby the equator, such as the Galapagos penguin. Moreover, few species of penguin live in Australia and South Africa.
Below you can view the distribution of the penguin species and their habitat in detail:
Name of Species
Natural Habitat
King Penguin
Subarctic islands, Tierra del Fuego, South Georgia Island.
Emperor Penguin
Antarctica
Adelie Penguin
Ross Sea Region in Antarctica
Chinstrap Penguin
South Sandwich Islands, Antarctica, South Orkneys, South Shetland, South Georgia Island, Bouvet, Balleny and Peter Islands
Gentoo Penguin
Falkland, South Georgia, Kerguelen, South Shetland, Heard and Macquarie Islands, and the Antarctic Peninsula
Little Blue Penguin
Southern Australia, New Zealand, Chatham Islands, and Tasmania. Some reports in Chile
Northern Little Penguin
New Zealand, nesting only on the Banks Peninsula and Motunau Island
Magellanic Penguin
Southern cone of South America. Coastal south Argentina and south Chile including the Falkland Islands
Humboldt Penguin
Coastal Peru and Chile in South America
Galapagos Penguin
Galapagos Islands
African Penguin (Jackass Penguin)
Southwestern coast of Africa
Yellow Eyed Penguin
New Zealand in the South-east coast of South Island, Foveaux Strait and Stewart Island and Auckland and Campbell Islands
Waitaha Penguin (Extinct)
Used to live in New Zealand
Fiordland Penguin
Fiordland coast and Stewart Island/Rakiura
Snares Penguin
New Zealand on the Snares Islands
Southern Rockhopper Penguin
The American Southern Rockhopper Penguin exists in the Falkland Islands and islands off Argentina and southern Chile. The Indopacific Southern Rockhopper Penguin lives in islands of the Indian and western Pacific oceans
Northern Rockhopper Penguin
Northern Rockhoppers breed on Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island in the south Atlantic Ocean, with the remains, originate on St Paul Island and Amsterdam Island in the Indian Ocean
Royal Penguin
Lives water nearby Antarctica and breed solitarily on Macquarie Island
In the above table, you can see the penguins live in the several different places. But, it is correct that the massive population of penguins might only originate in Antarctica and on adjacent landmasses.
The Habitat of Penguins
The habitat of the penguin varies according to the type of species to which they belong. Few penguins might live in the frozen environments, whereas some penguins have a preference of a warmer habitat. The thrilling cold climate is not necessarily their need.
Generally, the penguins live on dense covers of ice, and you can found them nearby the sea always. It helps them in feeding and hunting the food for themselves and their family. It is the main reason that penguins like to live adjoining watercourses of the cold water. In reality, they devote the maximum of their time inside the water; thus, their structure and functioning mainly intended for this purpose.
Besides all this, the habitat of the penguin should fulfill essential purposes, like offering sufficient foodstuff for their nourishment.
Why Do Penguins Live in Antarctica?
The largest communities of the penguins live in a world of Antarctica. But have you wondered that why they prefer to live in Antarctica?
Well! There are excellent reasons that penguins live in Antarctica, and some of them are as follows:
Antarctica is the most beautiful place for their accommodation.
Antarctica is the coolest region on the earth.
The place has very less population.
Penguins get lots of food in Antarctica.
Antarctica located at the highest place on earth.
The Antarctic is drier and colder than the region of the Arctic.
Penguins belong to the Antarctica region, and that is their natural habitat.
Penguins can’t get good food and shelter at any other place.
Can Penguins Live in the Warm Climate?
Penguins might live in a warm climate, but the water body present at that place should be cold. But, some species which are suitable for cold environments cannot persist in warm weathers.
Conversely, if the penguin of the cold climate gets born in the warm weather, it could be probable that owing to the adaptation difficulties, it might not survive for the elongated period.
It is not mandatory that penguins need icy and snowy regions for their survival. They don’t live in the Northern Hemisphere possibly like the Polar bears. Penguins are in danger of extinction, and there are decidedly fewer species left now. Thus we should try our best and study as much as we can about the habitat of penguins to make sure that it not endangered.
Do All the Penguins Survive in Cold` Weather Only?
No, there are few species of penguins that live in the tropical climate like African penguins and Galapagos penguins. Such penguins don’t need cold places for their survival like other penguins. Thus, you cannot say that these seabirds only exist in the cold areas of the earth. Diverse categories of penguins live in different region as well as the environment of the world rendering to their nature.
Conclusion:
So, if somebody asks you, that where do penguins live, we hope that now you have the precise answer in your mind.
A large number of penguin species lives in the Southern hemisphere but still there few continents on the earth where these birds do exist like Australia, South America, Europe, etc. They need a specific climate and environment for their survival, and this need varies from species to species.
If you have any query in your mind about the penguin’s habitat then, please let us know in the below comment box. We will ensure that you get the answer to all your queries as soon as possible. You can also share this informative article with all your near and dear ones who do not much about the places where penguins live.
Related Posts
David
I got interested in penguins from a young age and as I grew I realized that penguins are such fascinating birds. I made it a mission to create a website where all information about penguins could be accessed in an easy to read format.
Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 0 comments
Leave a Reply:
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. | Antarctica is the coolest region on the earth.
The place has very less population.
Penguins get lots of food in Antarctica.
Antarctica located at the highest place on earth.
The Antarctic is drier and colder than the region of the Arctic.
Penguins belong to the Antarctica region, and that is their natural habitat.
Penguins can’t get good food and shelter at any other place.
Can Penguins Live in the Warm Climate?
Penguins might live in a warm climate, but the water body present at that place should be cold. But, some species which are suitable for cold environments cannot persist in warm weathers.
Conversely, if the penguin of the cold climate gets born in the warm weather, it could be probable that owing to the adaptation difficulties, it might not survive for the elongated period.
It is not mandatory that penguins need icy and snowy regions for their survival. They don’t live in the Northern Hemisphere possibly like the Polar bears. Penguins are in danger of extinction, and there are decidedly fewer species left now. Thus we should try our best and study as much as we can about the habitat of penguins to make sure that it not endangered.
Do All the Penguins Survive in Cold` Weather Only?
No, there are few species of penguins that live in the tropical climate like African penguins and Galapagos penguins. Such penguins don’t need cold places for their survival like other penguins. Thus, you cannot say that these seabirds only exist in the cold areas of the earth. Diverse categories of penguins live in different region as well as the environment of the world rendering to their nature.
Conclusion:
So, if somebody asks you, that where do penguins live, we hope that now you have the precise answer in your mind.
A large number of penguin species lives in the Southern hemisphere but still there few continents on the earth where these birds do exist like Australia, South America, Europe, etc. | yes |
Ornithology | Can penguins survive in warm weather? | no_statement | "penguins" cannot "survive" in "warm" "weather".. "warm" "weather" is not suitable for "penguins"' "survival". | https://www.sealifeparkhawaii.com/conservation-n-education/animal-profiles/penguins | Learn About Penguin Habitat | Sea Life Park Hawaii | Penguins
Did You Know That Not All Penguins Live in the Ice & Snow?
Contrary to popular belief, all 17 species of penguins are found in the Southern Hemisphere and only two species, the Emperor and the Adele penguin, live exclusively on the continent of Antarctica. The others are found in places such as Australia, New Zealand, South America, and Africa.
At Sea Life Park you can see Humboldt Penguins. These penguins are found in Chile and Peru. They get their name from the Humboldt Current, which flows up from Antarctica along the coast of South America. So the warm Hawaiian weather is actually quite comfortable for them, and if they ever need to cool off they can always take a swim.
The water in the penguin habitat is salt water – penguins are actually a type of seabird! Sea Life Park pumps about 12 million gallons of fresh sea water through our habitats every day. We do not put any kind of chemicals into that water, so algae grows naturally in our habitats. This algae called diatoms actually absorb harmful sunlight and produce atmospheric oxygen.
Adaptations
Penguins are birds however they cannot fly. They have many adaptations for swimming and survival in the water. Their wings are shaped like paddles, which enables them to swim up to speeds of 9 miles per hour. They can also dive about 1 to 2 meters deep, and hold their breath for about 1 minute. However, the deepest penguin dive was recorded at 1, 752 feet.
Why Are Penguins Black & White?
A penguins coloration is actually a type of camouflage called counter-shading. The back is black because looking down through the water the dark color blends in with the dark colors of the ocean, and the front is white because if a predator was looking up, the penguin would blend in with the light from the sun reflecting on the water.
Anatomy
Thermoregulation: Not only are the feathers colored as camouflage, but they are so tightly packed together, with 70 feathers per square inch or the size of a quarter; that they serve as a waterproof wet suit. This allows the penguins to stay warm in the cold water. The feathers overlap and are coated with oil to make a waterproof dive suit for the penguin. Blubber also provides insulation and energy storage. Despite all of those feathers, penguins go through a yearly molt. During that time, they lose all their feathers and cannot go in the water, therefore they do not feed. The molt occurs at the end of every summer or early fall right after the breeding season. After the molt they get a new soft coat of feathers. This yearly routine occurs throughout the penguin’s entire life, which is about 20 to 30 years in the wild.
Breathing air: When swimming long distances, the penguin breathes by “porpoising,” swimming like dolphins close to the surface with quick leaps into the air to catch a breath. When chasing prey, they surface every 2-3 minutes, but the emperor has been timed at 18 minutes underwater.
Legs: The legs of a penguin help steer, acting as rudders. Just like most other seabirds, their feet are webbed.
Eyes: The penguin is believed to have very powerful eye muscles. This allows it to see prey more clearly by pulling the blurred underwater images together, as in the use of a face mask when a person is snorkeling or diving.
Salt-Excreting Gland: Penguins get water from the foods they eat and by drinking saltwater. Special glands extract excess salt from their blood. The salt solution is expelled from the nose. Droplets flow down grooves on the bill, and then are shaken off.
Predators
Penguins have many predators such as seals, sea lions, killer whales, and sharks. However, the most dangerous time for a penguin is while still in the egg and as a chick. Other birds prey on young chicks and eggs. For the penguins living in South America, like the Humboldt Penguin, their eggs are a food source for snakes, lizards, and mongoose. On top of all of these, penguins must survive their biggest threats; which are pollution, habitat destruction, and over fishing. All of which are caused by humans. Only one species of penguin is labeled endangered as of right now, which is the yellow-eyed penguin in New Zealand. However, 4 species, including the Humboldt Penguin are considered threatened. | Penguins
Did You Know That Not All Penguins Live in the Ice & Snow?
Contrary to popular belief, all 17 species of penguins are found in the Southern Hemisphere and only two species, the Emperor and the Adele penguin, live exclusively on the continent of Antarctica. The others are found in places such as Australia, New Zealand, South America, and Africa.
At Sea Life Park you can see Humboldt Penguins. These penguins are found in Chile and Peru. They get their name from the Humboldt Current, which flows up from Antarctica along the coast of South America. So the warm Hawaiian weather is actually quite comfortable for them, and if they ever need to cool off they can always take a swim.
The water in the penguin habitat is salt water – penguins are actually a type of seabird! Sea Life Park pumps about 12 million gallons of fresh sea water through our habitats every day. We do not put any kind of chemicals into that water, so algae grows naturally in our habitats. This algae called diatoms actually absorb harmful sunlight and produce atmospheric oxygen.
Adaptations
Penguins are birds however they cannot fly. They have many adaptations for swimming and survival in the water. Their wings are shaped like paddles, which enables them to swim up to speeds of 9 miles per hour. They can also dive about 1 to 2 meters deep, and hold their breath for about 1 minute. However, the deepest penguin dive was recorded at 1, 752 feet.
Why Are Penguins Black & White?
A penguins coloration is actually a type of camouflage called counter-shading. The back is black because looking down through the water the dark color blends in with the dark colors of the ocean, and the front is white because if a predator was looking up, the penguin would blend in with the light from the sun reflecting on the water.
| yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/the-biggest-problem-with-carbon-offsetting-is-that-it-doesnt-really-work/ | The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn't really ... | The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work
Airlines and oil companies love talking about carbon offsetting. But to be serious about tackling climate change, they need to stop carbon emissions from getting into the atmosphere in the first place.
Share
What is carbon offsetting?
Offsetting is a way of paying for others to reduce emissions or absorb CO2 to compensate for your own emissions. For example, by planting trees to suck carbon out of the atmosphere as they grow, or by delivering energy-efficient cooking stoves to communities in developing countries. Sounds great, right?
Sadly, the way out of the climate emergency is just not that simple.
Don’t get me wrong – protecting forests and restoring natural ecosystems is vital both for wildlife and the climate, but we should be doing that as well as cutting emissions directly, not as a substitute.
The big problem with offsets isn’t that what they offer is bad – tree planting or renewable energy and efficiency for poor communities are all good things – but rather that they don’t do what they say on the tin. They don’t actually cancel out – er, offset – the emissions to which they are linked.
Offsetting projects simply don’t deliver what we need – a reduction in the carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. Instead, they’re a distraction from the real solutions to climate change. As a result, offsetting allows companies like BP and Shell as well as airlines to continue with their unsustainable behaviour while shifting their responsibility for the climate onto the consumer.
Planting trees can’t replace slashing carbon emissions
Many companies use offsetting to appear environmentally friendly, even when their whole business is based around burning fossil fuels. Airports like Heathrow and airlines such as Easyjet offer a carbon offsetting service, allowing passengers to pay to plant up to 12 trees per month. Oil giant BP runs a Target Neutral programme which incorporates a range of offsetting projects, including protecting forests in Brazil.
Tree planting is frequently lauded by companies such as Shell and BP as the answer to the climate emergency. Forests are one of our best lines of defence against climate change and restoring them is crucial, but this can’t be a substitute for reducing carbon emissions directly.
A newly-planted tree can take as many as 20 years to capture the amount of CO2 that a carbon-offset scheme promises. We would have to plant and protect a massive number of trees for decades to offset even a fraction of global emissions. Even then, there is always the risk that these efforts will be wiped out by droughts, wildfires, tree diseases and deforestation.
When trees and plants die, whether from fires or logging or simply old age, most of the carbon they have trapped in their trunks, branches and leaves returns to the atmosphere. Changes in the climate mean that droughts and higher temperatures will strain forests in the future. The risk is that trees planted as part of offsetting projects could become a source of emissions if they die prematurely. Carbon “stored” in trees or other ecosystems is not the same as fossil carbon left underground.
Carbon offsetting and climate justice
Then there’s the issue of climate colonialism, which Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò defines as “the domination of less powerful countries and peoples by richer countries through initiatives meant to slow the pace of climate breakdown.” It’s cheaper to set up offsetting projects in the Global South, which means that they may come at the cost of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, or they may be on land that would be better used for meeting local community needs.
For example, Amnesty International reports that the Sengwer people of Embobut forest in Kenya were violently forced from their homes and dispossessed of their ancestral lands as part of a government plan to reduce deforestation. The Sengwer people were moved without being consulted, and never consented to the plans for their removal – a violation of both Kenyan and international law.
Just as action on climate change shouldn’t harm ordinary workers in the UK, it shouldn’t come at a cost of already-persecuted people’s land rights. As Harpreet Kaur Paul says, “Climate justice means having the courage to imagine equity and fight for it”, and this principle should be at the front of everyone’s mind as we work to tackle the climate emergency.
Carbon offsetting plans are essentially PR plans
Offsetting schemes provide a good story that allows companies to swerve away from taking meaningful action on their carbon emissions. Offset schemes also serve to make fossil fuels more palatable to increasingly eco-conscious consumers.
Heathrow and BP would love for everyone to think they can continue with business as usual with no cost to the climate. But the truth is that the need to cut carbon emissions means they will have to change the way they operate – and there’s no way around that. We need to prevent emissions from getting into the atmosphere in the first place – and that means climate-wrecking industries have to completely change the way they do business.
Companies like BP, Shell, airlines and other high carbon pollution-creating industries want to use offsetting to continue business as usual. We can’t ignore the reality – there’s no way we can plant our way out of the climate emergency.
If we’re serious about tackling climate change, there is only one answer to the problem: these companies and industries need to put people and planet over profit by completely overhauling their business models.
Alia Al Ghussain
Take action
While the UK government claims to be a climate leader, many of its policies are taking us in the opposite direction. Tell the prime minister it's time to lead by example.
Thanks for signing
You don’t have to leave your email address or phone number, but if you do, we’ll use these to keep you updated on how you can get involved through petitions, campaigning, volunteering and donating. You can opt out at any time. We take the security of your data seriously. Your information is safe and secure with us – read our privacy policy
Share
Sign up for emails
You don’t have to leave your phone number, but if you do, we’ll use it to keep you updated on how you can get involved through petitions, campaigning, volunteering and donating. You can opt out at any time. We take the security of your data seriously. Your information is safe and secure with us – read our privacy policy. | Offsetting projects simply don’t deliver what we need – a reduction in the carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. Instead, they’re a distraction from the real solutions to climate change. As a result, offsetting allows companies like BP and Shell as well as airlines to continue with their unsustainable behaviour while shifting their responsibility for the climate onto the consumer.
Planting trees can’t replace slashing carbon emissions
Many companies use offsetting to appear environmentally friendly, even when their whole business is based around burning fossil fuels. Airports like Heathrow and airlines such as Easyjet offer a carbon offsetting service, allowing passengers to pay to plant up to 12 trees per month. Oil giant BP runs a Target Neutral programme which incorporates a range of offsetting projects, including protecting forests in Brazil.
Tree planting is frequently lauded by companies such as Shell and BP as the answer to the climate emergency. Forests are one of our best lines of defence against climate change and restoring them is crucial, but this can’t be a substitute for reducing carbon emissions directly.
A newly-planted tree can take as many as 20 years to capture the amount of CO2 that a carbon-offset scheme promises. We would have to plant and protect a massive number of trees for decades to offset even a fraction of global emissions. Even then, there is always the risk that these efforts will be wiped out by droughts, wildfires, tree diseases and deforestation.
When trees and plants die, whether from fires or logging or simply old age, most of the carbon they have trapped in their trunks, branches and leaves returns to the atmosphere. Changes in the climate mean that droughts and higher temperatures will strain forests in the future. The risk is that trees planted as part of offsetting projects could become a source of emissions if they die prematurely. Carbon “stored” in trees or other ecosystems is not the same as fossil carbon left underground.
| no |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/planting-trees-offsets-carbon | How Planting Trees Offsets Carbon | One Tree Planted | Get news, updates, & event Info delivered right to your inbox:
Planting Trees Helps to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
If you’ve been paying attention to the climate crisis, you’re probably aware that humans are at least partially responsible — and that we release massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other Green House Gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere every year - around 40 billion tons. So what can you do to address your impact and flatten the carbon curve? You can begin by bringing more attention to your lifestyle and habits — and how much CO2 those activities release as a result.
What Is Your Carbon Footprint?
A carbon footprint refers to how much CO2 we produce in our day-to-day lives. The more energy you use, the bigger your carbon footprint — even if you’re far removed from the smoke stacks and power plants that combust fossil fuels and power our lives. So how can you lower your carbon footprint?
Here Are Some Ideas to Lower Your Carbon Footprint
Choose to walk, bike, carpool or use public transportation when available
Because our lifestyles and access to resources vary, carbon reduction looks different for everybody — but it's likely that if you look around and consider how you can reduce your carbon emissions, something will stand out as a clear next step.
How do Carbon Offsets Work?
One solution that’s poorly understood but gets talked about a lot are carbon offsets, which essentially means paying for a process that is verified to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But how does this work? At the basic level, carbon offsets are a form of trade. You trade your hard earned dollars for the ability to offset any part of your carbon footprint that you can't avoid. Maybe you need to travel often for work, can’t afford to update your home right now, or live rurally and don’t have access to public transportation.
While the most effective action is to reduce your emissions in the first place, carbon offsets can offer a cost-effective way to lower your impact by creating a benefit for the planet and supporting Earth's natural filtration systems. Currently, carbon offsetting projects are based on the conservation of existing forests.The trees are already in various stages of maturity and their carbon absorption is verified via an auditing process through which trees are checked annually at the start of a project and then again every several years. Auditors typically check some of the same trees every time they come to review the forest, as well as many other random trees in the designated plot of land.
Your payment goes towards ensuring those trees can continue to grow and suck up carbon without the risk of being cut down.
Planting Trees Will Sequester Carbon in the Future
Because trees use carbon dioxide to build their trunks, branches, roots and leaves, they are natural carbon absorbers and help to clean the air. In fact, one mature tree can absorb up to 22lbs per year during their first 20 years of growth! And the benefits don’t stop there: healthy trees hold the soil together, provide a home for wildlife, regulate temperatures, slow the flow of water through landscapes, grow vital foods and medicines, and more.
But as awesome as tree planting is, any project is only as effective as the planning that goes into it. While it’s always important to prioritize trees that are native to a planting area, different species accumulate carbon at different rates. And while it may be tempting to plant fast growing trees that can absorb more in the short term, the better option is to plant a mix of fast and slow-growing trees to ensure steady and timely carbon sequestration.
Forests and Carbon Sequestration
Based on our carbon calculation methodology, there's a range between 4.5 and 40.7 tons of Carbon Dioxide removed per year per hectare during the first 20 years of tree growth. The rate of removal depends on the location and type of forest and the statistic is measured on an area basis rather than a tree basis. This is a good approach because, of course, forests are composed of many types of trees. Furthermore, the initial trees planted during a restoration project may not be the same trees present 20 years later - some trees will die naturally, and some trees will regenerate naturally from seed in the soil or brought in by the wind or by animals.That said, deciduous trees, like oak, are generally better at storing carbon than their coniferous counterparts because their wood is denser — but there are exceptions to this. Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine and Redwoods stand out amongst evergreens, and other species like London Plane, Teak, and Eucalyptus have also proven quite effective. When planting, careful balancing of ecological integrity and carbon sequestration capability is essential to ensure the success of the project — and the effectiveness of your offsets.
So all we need to do is plant more trees, right? Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. While reforestation is an essential part of an effective climate change mitigation strategy, it’s important to note that planting trees alone won’t fix the climate crisis.
Equally as important is forest conservation, reducing our emissions, and prioritizing planetary health. It's all interconnected, and we should be taking all of these actions to reduce our collective global greenhouse gas emissions.
Choose an amount to donate:
2550100500Other
USD
Get news, updates, & event Info delivered right to your inbox:
Meaghan Weeden
Meaghan works to share our story far and wide, manages our blog calendar, coordinates with the team on projects + campaigns, and ensures our brand voice is reflected across channels. With a background in communications and an education in environmental conservation, she is passionate about leveraging her creativity to help the environment! | Get news, updates, & event Info delivered right to your inbox:
Planting Trees Helps to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
If you’ve been paying attention to the climate crisis, you’re probably aware that humans are at least partially responsible — and that we release massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other Green House Gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere every year - around 40 billion tons. So what can you do to address your impact and flatten the carbon curve? You can begin by bringing more attention to your lifestyle and habits — and how much CO2 those activities release as a result.
What Is Your Carbon Footprint?
A carbon footprint refers to how much CO2 we produce in our day-to-day lives. The more energy you use, the bigger your carbon footprint — even if you’re far removed from the smoke stacks and power plants that combust fossil fuels and power our lives. So how can you lower your carbon footprint?
Here Are Some Ideas to Lower Your Carbon Footprint
Choose to walk, bike, carpool or use public transportation when available
Because our lifestyles and access to resources vary, carbon reduction looks different for everybody — but it's likely that if you look around and consider how you can reduce your carbon emissions, something will stand out as a clear next step.
How do Carbon Offsets Work?
One solution that’s poorly understood but gets talked about a lot are carbon offsets, which essentially means paying for a process that is verified to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But how does this work? At the basic level, carbon offsets are a form of trade. You trade your hard earned dollars for the ability to offset any part of your carbon footprint that you can't avoid. Maybe you need to travel often for work, can’t afford to update your home right now, or live rurally and don’t have access to public transportation.
While the most effective action is to reduce your emissions in the first place, carbon offsets can offer a cost-effective way to lower your impact by creating a benefit for the planet and supporting Earth's natural filtration systems. Currently, carbon offsetting projects are based on the conservation of existing forests. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://carbonfund.org/how-planting-trees-offsets-carbon/ | How Planting Trees Offsets Carbon - Carbonfund | How Planting Trees Offsets Carbon
Planting trees helps reduce your carbon footprint
The clearing and burning of forests accounts for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is approximately equal to all of the fossil fuels burned in the United States every year and is more than the annual carbon footprint of the entire world’s transportation sector. The Environmental Defense Fund believes that “slowing or stopping deforestation is a near-term, cost-effective option for significantly reducing global emissions.” The EPA estimates that carbon dioxide makes up about 81% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Planting trees is an excellent way to offset the carbon emissions you have generated through your energy consumption. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, here are 5 facts about energy consumption:
One gasoline-powered passenger vehicle driven for one year = 76.7 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity used = 7.2 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
What is your carbon footprint?
A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gasses (including carbon dioxide, methane and others) that are generated by our actions. Usually, the bulk of an individual’s carbon footprint will come from transportation, housing and food production. The average American’s annual carbon footprint is a staggering 50,000 pounds of carbon equivalent emissions from everything we do and buy. Understanding your impact is an important way to comprehend how your personal behavior affects climate change. A carbon footprint calculator will measure things like your electricity & gasoline consumption, your home heating usage, travel mileage and consumer shipping totals.
Planting trees will sequester carbon in the future
Forests sequester carbon by capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transforming it into biomass through photosynthesis. In one year, a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange. Forests mostly store carbon in trees and soil which is why it is so important to not only plant new trees (reforestation) but to keep existing forests standing (preservation). Reforestation is an important step toward getting our climate back under control in the future. Simply put, reforestation is the process of planting trees in areas where they were once cut down or setting aside land for natural regeneration. Your tree planting purchases will make a tremendous difference in these areas that have been ravaged by clearcutting and resource mismanagement for decades. Forest preservation is another key component to fighting global warming. This means keeping existing forests intact to reduce deforestation. In addition to helping to capture carbon emissions, forest preservation can also have added benefits to the native soil, wildlife and local communities for many years down the road. Carbonfund has many forestry projects around the globe to help in the conservation effort. Many of these projects are in Brazil with others being located in Panama and in the United States. Supporting tree planting projects is an excellent way to ensure that we are leaving a healthier planet for future generations to come. | How Planting Trees Offsets Carbon
Planting trees helps reduce your carbon footprint
The clearing and burning of forests accounts for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is approximately equal to all of the fossil fuels burned in the United States every year and is more than the annual carbon footprint of the entire world’s transportation sector. The Environmental Defense Fund believes that “slowing or stopping deforestation is a near-term, cost-effective option for significantly reducing global emissions.” The EPA estimates that carbon dioxide makes up about 81% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Planting trees is an excellent way to offset the carbon emissions you have generated through your energy consumption. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, here are 5 facts about energy consumption:
One gasoline-powered passenger vehicle driven for one year = 76.7 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity used = 7.2 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
What is your carbon footprint?
A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gasses (including carbon dioxide, methane and others) that are generated by our actions. Usually, the bulk of an individual’s carbon footprint will come from transportation, housing and food production. The average American’s annual carbon footprint is a staggering 50,000 pounds of carbon equivalent emissions from everything we do and buy. Understanding your impact is an important way to comprehend how your personal behavior affects climate change. A carbon footprint calculator will measure things like your electricity & gasoline consumption, your home heating usage, travel mileage and consumer shipping totals.
Planting trees will sequester carbon in the future
Forests sequester carbon by capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transforming it into biomass through photosynthesis. In one year, a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://terrapass.com/blog/what-is-the-effectiveness-of-tree-planting-offsets/ | What Is the Effectiveness of Tree-Planting Offsets? | What Is the Effectiveness of Tree-Planting Offsets?
Have you ever wondered how carbon is offset? There are several different ways that it can be done, but one of the most popular — and most utilized — is planting trees. And the mechanism behind this is pretty simple: just think back to sixth-grade science, where we all learned that trees take in carbon dioxide, along with sunlight and water, for photosynthesis.
As a byproduct, trees give off oxygen, which is necessary for life, and they store CO2, which has become a unavoidable byproduct for all the things we do today. Using trees for their natural ability to sequester, or capture, carbon has been instrumental in slowing atmospheric CO2 buildup and giving us a chance in the face of climate change.
However, there are limits to what trees can do. And while there are other emerging forms of offsetting, including some that are very promising, it is still better to refrain from emitting CO2 in the first place, if possible. Below is a look at how effective trees are at storing carbon, how reliable tree planting is for carbon offsets, and how this form of offsetting stacks up against other types of carbon credit systems.
How Do Offsets Work?
Basically, carbon offsets work by sequestering, or capturing, of CO2 through mechanisms that have measurable CO2-absorbing capacities. The amounts are then purchased by individuals or companies that are looking to offset their emissions. That’s what offsetting is in its simplest form.
Sequestering carbon is usually done through organic means, with trees being the current best option, as they take in CO2 for photosynthesis. Protecting forests can also be used as a form of offsetting, but this is much more complicated as the trees already exist under these circumstances. Planting trees creates new carbon stores that can be very effective if done properly.
Why Use Carbon Offsets?
Some actions cannot — at least currently — be done without emitting carbon. Whether it’s flying on an airplane or building a house that uses carbon-intensive concrete, there are certain things that emit carbon, and there’s no way around it. (Although, there are some promising developments in aviation biofuels and carbon-injected concrete, highlighting that all current carbon emissions can possibly be replaced with better options.)
For actions that put carbon in the air, carbon offsetting is the best way to remove these emissions. This should be offsetting’s main function: to negate the CO2 being emitted that we cannot directly stop by changing our own actions or habits. It is essential to minimize our carbon output in tandem with deploying offsetting measures, allowing for those offsets to go further than if we kept with the status quo.
Biking instead of driving directly keeps CO2 out of the air, which means there is less overall carbon that needs to be offset because of this direct action. Sure, when you forgo a flight to take an electric train, the flight still takes off, but you free up space for someone else. We can’t stop flying altogether, but if we can lower the amount of daily flights, we can buy time until we figure out carbon-free synthetic fuels or biofuels to decarbonize the skies.
How Much Carbon Can Trees Capture?
Different types of trees sequester different amounts of carbon, depending on the species and the location. On average, a typical hardwood tree absorbs around 20 kilograms (about 50 pounds) of CO2 per year, with fluctuations based on the age of the tree and where it is located.
At this rate, each tree sequesters about 1 metric ton of carbon within the first 40-50 years of its life, which is relatively impressive, especially if the tree can stay standing for several hundred years — and is part of a larger forest of planted trees that all take in the same amount of CO2.
Human activities currently emit around 40 billion metric tons of carbon per year. So, at our current rate, we would need to plant 40 billion trees each year to negate our total emissions each year. This would be next to impossible, as in addition to the logistical challenges of planting so many trees, we would literally run out of room for any more after just a few years of planting tens of billions of seedlings. Fortunately, we have the ability to lower our emissions from the source to bring down our annual emissions from 40 billion metric tons to something more manageable — and we can utilize different means of offsets in addition to planting trees.
Are There Different Methods of Planting Trees for Creating Carbon Offsets?
There are several ways that tree-planting outcomes can be more or less beneficial when it comes to creating carbon offsets. First of all, location matters. Trees in the northern or southern reaches of the world sequester much less CO2 than those within the tropics. This is because of a shortened growing season toward the polar ends of the earth — tropical trees are optimized for year-round photosynthesis and respiration. Evergreen trees in northern boreal forests may stay green throughout the winter, but they greatly slow down the processes that take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Aside from planting trees based on location, it is also important to plant the most optimized trees in any area — with the type of planting being even more important than the type of tree. While most tree planting is done in rows, utilizing monoculture schemes with only one species planted per plot, there is a much more beneficial method available: polyculture planting.
Polyculture planting is typically used in small-scale farming where multiple different crops are planted instead of just one. Monoculture crops are typically more widely used, especially for large-scale farming and tree planting — this is what you usually see with corn, wheat, palm oil, citrus, or any other area that has trees or plants that all look the same planted in rows.
Using polyculture methods, however, the unnatural lines of trees are eschewed in favor of something that more closely resembles how nature intended: trees and plants all mixed together, planted in a way that makes the area look more like a forest or naturally treed area.
The main drawbacks of this type of planting is that it takes longer to create and is harder to manage — but the benefits are incredible. It improves soil biodiversity, promotes healthy microfauna biodiversity (a fancy way to describe insects and small creatures), and guards against diseases that can quickly and easily spread through monoculture rows. These features make the entire area healthier than traditional monoculture areas, which has a dynamic, incredibly positive impact on the environment. But that’s not all that it accomplishes — polyculture planting also ensures more compensation and benefits for local communities in the area.
What Are Some of the Most Used Forms of Offsetting?
In addition to planting trees, there are emerging synthetic carbon capture devices and other direct carbon capture technologies that are becoming more widespread. There are four main types of offsetting that are currently being used, to differing degrees. Tree planting remains head and shoulders above the rest as far as utilization and popularity, but the other three are valid methodologies that are all seeing an increase in their usage rates as offsetting becomes more and more widespread and important.
Here are the four main types of offsetting.
Most Popular: Planting Trees
This is and has been the best way to capture carbon from the atmosphere and offset significant quantities of CO2. It’s what trees do; they take in CO2 for photosynthesis. Using their natural propensity for carbon uptake is so beneficial because of its practicality: Trees can be planted almost anywhere on Earth, and they require very little maintenance after planting.
Furthermore, we know a great deal about how to plant them, how much carbon they absorb on average, and which trees absorb more CO2 over a set number of years. This allows for a reasonable estimate of how much CO2 can be offset based on the number of trees that are planted. For this reason, and so many more factors, tree planting continues to be the best form of carbon offsetting — though the other options are getting better at a hopeful pace.
Becoming Popular: Forest Conservation
This is a great way to store a lot of carbon — and help communities with important forest resources that do not want to develop them. Compensating forested areas in exchange for them to refrain from cutting down trees is not a new idea, and it is unclear where exactly it originated. While it may seem uncomplicated and straightforward, creating offsets from conservation is tricky because the trees already exist, as opposed to planting trees that create new carbon stores.
Old growth forests absorb more CO2 than newly planted trees, which makes this form of offset more potent per acre than planting. It also confers social benefits to the regions that are compensated for protecting these forests and keeping CO2 stored in the trees. They get to benefit monetarily from their forest resources without having to exploit them — a win for everybody.
Preserving forests, especially tropical forests, not only sequesters CO2, it protects wildlife biodiversity and keeps our planet’s ecological systems regulated. We need them, so these forest conservation offsetting initiatives are crucial for so many reasons.
Less Utilized: Carbon Avoidance
This is an emerging type of offsetting that is little used at the moment — but it will become much bigger in the coming years. It involves avoiding carbon that would normally have entered the atmosphere by changing behaviors and then creating offsets out of this.
There are also other ways it can be done, such as the push to replace wood-burning stoves with renewable methanol cookstoves in Africa. Offsets are created out of these types of projects from the avoided emissions the new technologies provide. The improved tech emits less carbon, and in turn, the project is funded by the person or group that is purchasing the offsets. And, much like the other examples, this helps create a socially positive impact as well. Carbon avoidance offsets are becoming more and more popular for good reason.
Emerging: CCUS Industrial Applications
Some of the emerging technologies and applications are amazing — just don’t expect giant carbon-sucking fans that take ambient CO2 out of the air. At least not yet.
What we do have are a wide range of CCUS (carbon capture storage and utilization) options that can be fitted or retrofitted to certain processes, such as fossil fuel burning, which cannot be carbon-free by nature. What can be done is to capture the carbon these processes emit and store it in solid form, or use it to create other products, so the carbon stays in the ground rather than released into the air.
There are also some exciting new applications coming out of this, such as concrete that keeps CO2 permanently locked in a solid state within blocks — and the CO2 actually makes the concrete stronger because of the bonds it creates. Imagine living in a house that is extra sturdy due to the fact that it eliminated a chunk of CO2 emissions from a fossil fuel plant.
The Verdict on Tree-Planting Offsets
Offsetting is great. It helps ensure CO2 that is emitted is accounted for and sequestered, or captured, somewhere else. It’s also an important part of the grand carbon cycle. However, avoiding carbon from being emitted in the first place is an even better way to ensure it doesn’t remain in the atmosphere. After all, if it’s not emitted, it can’t stay in the air. It’s as simple as that.
We are still emitting too much carbon for offsetting to handle. We need to minimize our emissions to get anywhere near net-zero: There simply isn’t enough space to use tree planting as the only strategy to get to net-zero carbon emissions. We need to utilize a combination of different offsetting strategies and carbon reductions through conscious actions. There could be technological advancements that will lead to more artificial sequestration — such as direct carbon capture machines that literally suck carbon out of the air (they already exist, they’re just not really feasible yet) — but for the foreseeable future we are simply emitting more than we can offset.
While we still need to minimize our emissions to make carbon neutrality more realistic for everyone, the good news is that we can rely on the awesome power of trees to sequester and offset our excess CO2 — now and into the foreseeable future. Terrapass offers some of the highest-quality, most trustworthy carbon offsets driven by tree planting, all certified and verified by leading carbon registries to ensure transparency and — most importantly — real reductions in emissions. | What Are Some of the Most Used Forms of Offsetting?
In addition to planting trees, there are emerging synthetic carbon capture devices and other direct carbon capture technologies that are becoming more widespread. There are four main types of offsetting that are currently being used, to differing degrees. Tree planting remains head and shoulders above the rest as far as utilization and popularity, but the other three are valid methodologies that are all seeing an increase in their usage rates as offsetting becomes more and more widespread and important.
Here are the four main types of offsetting.
Most Popular: Planting Trees
This is and has been the best way to capture carbon from the atmosphere and offset significant quantities of CO2. It’s what trees do; they take in CO2 for photosynthesis. Using their natural propensity for carbon uptake is so beneficial because of its practicality: Trees can be planted almost anywhere on Earth, and they require very little maintenance after planting.
Furthermore, we know a great deal about how to plant them, how much carbon they absorb on average, and which trees absorb more CO2 over a set number of years. This allows for a reasonable estimate of how much CO2 can be offset based on the number of trees that are planted. For this reason, and so many more factors, tree planting continues to be the best form of carbon offsetting — though the other options are getting better at a hopeful pace.
Becoming Popular: Forest Conservation
This is a great way to store a lot of carbon — and help communities with important forest resources that do not want to develop them. Compensating forested areas in exchange for them to refrain from cutting down trees is not a new idea, and it is unclear where exactly it originated. While it may seem uncomplicated and straightforward, creating offsets from conservation is tricky because the trees already exist, as opposed to planting trees that create new carbon stores.
Old growth forests absorb more CO2 than newly planted trees, which makes this form of offset more potent per acre than planting. It also confers social benefits to the regions that are compensated for protecting these forests and keeping CO2 stored in the trees. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.patch.io/blog/does-planting-trees-really-offset-carbon | Does Planting Trees Really Offset Carbon? | Patch | Last summer, Science published a controversial study on the potential of planting trees to combat the effects of climate change. The report found that we could increase existing forestsâwithout impacting existing cities or agricultureâby more than 25 percent around the world. The resulting 0.9 billion hectares of new trees could absorb 25 percent of our current carbon dioxide emissions, returning us to levels from nearly a century ago.
These staggering numbers proved to be a bit of an overpromise, as the team later published a correction, acknowledging that forest management is not a silver bullet solution, and noting that suitable land for planting trees will shrink as global temperatures continue to rise.
While the climate crisis undoubtedly requires a more multifaceted approach, scientists agree planting trees remains an affordable and promising strategy for mitigating climate change. However, not every tree planting project is intended to offset carbon. For organizations interested in reducing their carbon footprint through tree planting, itâs helpful to understand the difference between investing in planting trees and investing in verified forestry projects.
How does planting trees remove carbon dioxide?
Carbon dioxide accounts for the largest percentage of greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change by trapping heat and warming the planet. During photosynthesis, a tree absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, using it to produce carbohydrates as food.â
All plants remove carbon to some degree. But woody perennials, such as trees, are particularly effective as they can store carbon long-term in the form of cellulose (wood) for hundreds of years. As trees grow, their roots also help store carbon in the soil. According to the USDA Forest Service, American forests and harvested wood currently absorb more than 14 percent of the United Statesâ carbon emissions every year.
While trees mainly pull carbon from the atmosphere, forests also release carbon dioxide as trees die and decompose. Responsible forest management includes monitoring this natural cycle to enhance carbon capture.Â
While all trees absorb carbon, not every tree planting initiative offers carbon offsets, which are credits that companies or individuals can receive to compensate their carbon footprint. Planting trees for carbon sequestration requires an in-depth verification process to ensure the project is contributing to the health of the planet.
Verified forestry projects
Third-party verification services use a standard methodology to evaluate the emissions impact of planting trees, considering aspects such as:
Permanence. How long does the impact last? Will the trees be protected from deforestation?
Leakage. Are there unintended consequences caused by the project, reducing the impact? A project may pay farmers to avoid cutting down a forest for grazing, but if the farmers use the money to cut down another plot of trees, the impact is net zero.
Concerns about Verification
Cost is the main barrier to investing in verified carbon offset tree planting. The verification process can cost over $100,000 and take years, which translates to higher costs for organizations purchasing carbon credits.
Reliability. While verification is currently the most common way to quantify carbon sequestration, itâs not always reliable. Some carbon offset verifiers have recently received criticism for over crediting or mis-crediting projects.   Â
Non-verified tree planting projects
Non-verified tree planting projects may help mitigate the effects of climate change, but unlike verified reforestation or afforestation projects, they are not designed for carbon sequestration.
For example, Eden Reforestation Projects has planted more than 583 million trees around the world since 2005, employing people to restore and protect forests on a massive scale. Communities suffering from deforestation are often living in extreme poverty, and Eden aims to lift those communities out of poverty through reforestation. Carbon reduction is a potential co-benefit, but it is not the mission.
Benefits of non-verification
Affordability. A project may decide against pursuing verification for planting trees due to the cost and time barriers, even if they are focused on carbon sequestration. In the absence of verification fees, more of the projectâs revenue may be going directly toward tree planting effortsâmaking non-verified tree planting projects more affordable than verified forestry projects. (Eden, for example, can plant a tree for just 10 cents.)Â
Integrated mission. Tree planting projects with a different mission than carbon reductionâsuch as animal conservation or economic developmentâoften integrate sustainability into their goals. If a company has a lean budget or no need to quantify their carbon footprint within a cap-and-trade system, then a non-verified project may make sense.
Concerns with non-verification
Unknown impact. Typically, non-verified tree planting projects arenât able to measure the amount of carbon they remove from the atmosphere.Â
Improper management. Without the rigor of verification, improper forest management is possible. While planting a tree seems simple, our ecosystems are delicate. For example, monocultures of fast-growing species popular for tree planting projects, like acacia and eucalyptus, offer few biodiversity benefits and may even harm species-rich forests.Â
How many trees have to be planted to impact climate change?
While itâs clear that planting trees does offset carbon dioxide emissions, the potential impact has as much to do with quality as quantity. With a problem as complex as climate change, we need robust solutionsâverified or not. No matter which type of tree planting project fits an organizationâs needs and interests, itâs important to investigate how it goes beyond âjust planting treesâ and demonstrates meaningful ecological, economic, and social impact.
By clicking âAcceptâ, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information. | Last summer, Science published a controversial study on the potential of planting trees to combat the effects of climate change. The report found that we could increase existing forestsâwithout impacting existing cities or agricultureâby more than 25 percent around the world. The resulting 0.9 billion hectares of new trees could absorb 25 percent of our current carbon dioxide emissions, returning us to levels from nearly a century ago.
These staggering numbers proved to be a bit of an overpromise, as the team later published a correction, acknowledging that forest management is not a silver bullet solution, and noting that suitable land for planting trees will shrink as global temperatures continue to rise.
While the climate crisis undoubtedly requires a more multifaceted approach, scientists agree planting trees remains an affordable and promising strategy for mitigating climate change. However, not every tree planting project is intended to offset carbon. For organizations interested in reducing their carbon footprint through tree planting, itâs helpful to understand the difference between investing in planting trees and investing in verified forestry projects.
How does planting trees remove carbon dioxide?
Carbon dioxide accounts for the largest percentage of greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change by trapping heat and warming the planet. During photosynthesis, a tree absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, using it to produce carbohydrates as food.â
All plants remove carbon to some degree. But woody perennials, such as trees, are particularly effective as they can store carbon long-term in the form of cellulose (wood) for hundreds of years. As trees grow, their roots also help store carbon in the soil. According to the USDA Forest Service, American forests and harvested wood currently absorb more than 14 percent of the United Statesâ carbon emissions every year.
While trees mainly pull carbon from the atmosphere, forests also release carbon dioxide as trees die and decompose. Responsible forest management includes monitoring this natural cycle to enhance carbon capture. Â
| yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/reduce-co2-emissions/how-many-trees-offset-carbon-emissions/ | How Many Trees Needed to Offset Your Carbon Emissions? | How Many Trees Needed to Offset Your Carbon Emissions?
Many people wonder, how many trees are needed to offset carbon emissions?
On average, each person in the US releases about 16.5 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year, a quantity equivalent to the emissions from about 46 barrels of oil or approximately 22,046 pounds of coal, making the carbon footprint per person in the US one of the highest in the world.7
Fortunately, to minimize the adverse effects of these greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, US citizens are taking active steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
Keep reading to learn how…
How Trees Offset Carbon Emissions
Forestry offset programs are one of the tactics adopted by some to offset their emissions. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the number of trees they need to plant to offset their emissions. The process of computing the number of trees required to offset the emissions from each person is fairly complex, and online carbon footprint calculators from reputable sources offer the best bet for obtaining accurate estimates.
Nevertheless, given a single tree offsets about 20 kg (44 pounds) of carbon dioxide each year, individuals in the US emitting 17 tons of emissions will need to plant about 500 trees each year, to successfully offset their carbon footprint.14
This figure varies based on a host of contextual factors, including the region where the trees are planted and the exact ecosystems of the location. Trees planted in the tropical and subtropical regions tend to sequester more carbon dioxide than those planted in other regions.
In contrast, trees planted in marshlands and wetlands offer the highest sequestration volumes of all other ecosystems.
Trees play a vital role in offsetting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but what exactly do they do?
The Carbon Cycle
To understand the importance of trees, one has to begin by looking at the carbon cycle.
The term “carbon cycle” refers to the process through which carbon atoms move from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere, and vice versa.13 Within the cycle, oceans, sediments, rocks, and living organisms on the earth’s surface are the main carbon storages.
The carbon stored in oceans is released into the atmosphere through a continuous exchange process between the ocean waters and the earth’s atmosphere.9 Soil-based carbon is released in a different process, when organisms die or in instances when sediments and rocks are degraded.
Role of Trees in the Carbon Cycle
Degraded or deforested lands release significant volumes of carbon in the atmosphere and are driven mainly by human activities, such as poor agricultural practices and human-induced soil erosion.
Trees remove carbon emissions by storing them for a long, long time, effectively removing them from the atmosphere.
You can calculate how many trees you’d need to need to offset you emissions using this tree calculator. Simply increase the number of trees (or the age and circumference of the tree) to see it’s equivalent in carbon emissions.
Other human carbon sources that release GHG emissions into the atmosphere include:
coal mines
gasoline vehicles
carbon-based industrial activities
The role of trees in the carbon cycle is to remove carbon from the atmosphere by restoring it into the soil- a process called carbon sequestration.13 The trees do this through photosynthesis, where they extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it to make their food. Carbon sequestered in this manner is stored as biomass in the trees, or biowaste in the soil.
Statistics on The Role of Trees in Carbon Sequestration
The following statistics illustrate the importance of trees in offsetting carbon emissions:1
As of 2018, old forested lands in the US sequestered about 644 million tons of equivalent carbon dioxide emissions, while new lands converted into forests created carbon sinks that eliminated 111 tons of equivalent carbon dioxide emissions
Between 2018 and 1990, the US experienced a forest cover reduction of 2.7 million acres.
The above statistics imply that old and new forested lands combined remove carbon emissions similar to those released by about 190 coal-fired plants.3
The potential for emission offsetting with trees is also relatively high, considering an additional 100 acres of forest can remove 115 tons of carbon dioxide per year.1 Unfortunately, the US may be unable to sustain these gains considering that the nation’s forested land is declining, as indicated by a 2.7 million reduction in forested acreage between 2018 and 1990.
Given that these trends are likely also happening in other parts of the world, climate change practitioners need to initiate quick actions to increase forest cover both locally and abroad.
One way to do this is by engaging in large-scale and small-scale tree planting projects in areas that promise the highest impact—some of the areas include tropical, sub-tropical regions, and wetlands.
Number of Trees to Offset Emissions in Tropical and Subtropical Regions
While, on average, trees across the globe offset about 44 pounds of carbon dioxide each year, the figure is slightly higher for tropical trees for two main reasons.14
Why Tropical and Subtropical Trees Sequester More Carbon Dioxide
First, trees within the tropics grow faster than other regions of the globe, implying a faster pace of sequestering carbon back into the soil.
These unique attributes of tropical forests make them highly suitable for conducting large-scale reforestation efforts to combat climate change. To offset a specified volume of emissions, one is likely to plant fewer trees in the tropics compared to other regions of the world.
Unique Attributes of Tropical and Subtropical Lands
The tropical and subtropical regions are sections of the earth between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn latitudes.
Given the position of these latitudes, tropical regions are located at roughly the middle sections of the earth, accounting for 36 percent of the earth’s landmass, and hosting a third of the global population.8
Temperatures within the tropics range between 77 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit (25 and 28 degrees Celsius), largely due to the all-year-round sun exposure experienced in the region. Rainfall in regions experiences a much wider variation, with some areas receiving as much as 4,000 mm per year, while others receive as little as 500 mm.12 Due to the huge climatic and ecosystem similarities in the tropics, the regions have similar animal and trees species.
Statistics on the Role of Tropical Lands in Carbon Sequestration
The value of the tropics in carbon offsetting is clear, especially when one takes a global outlook perspective.
Based on current information from the Global Forest Watch Climate, if current trends of loss in tree cover within the tropics continues, it will be impossible to keep global warming to within a 2-point degree, as envisioned by the prevailing climate change agreements.5
Yearly carbon dioxide emissions from tree cover losses within the tropics were about 4.8 gigatons between 2015 and 2017.
The figure is 63 percent higher than the previous 14 years combined
Tropical trees can offset about 23 percent of total global emissions
From the numbers, it’s clear that tropical tree covers are reducing, with devastating effects to the planet. For perspective, the 4.8 gigatons of emissions released from the reduction in tropical tree cover are equivalent to emissions from 85 million gasoline cars over their entire life cycle.3
More importantly, reforesting tropical trees is likely to contribute immensely to reducing CO2 emission globally, considering that tropical trees can reduce about a fifth of global emissions.
Important to note, however, is that the ability of tropical trees to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is not infinite.
Researchers note that if global warming increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial limits, tropical trees will lose more carbon than they can accumulate.
Sadly, some of the hottest forests in South America have reached this tipping point, where they emit more carbon than they store. This trend calls for quick action to reverse the devastation by planting more trees in tropical regions such as the Amazon rainforest.
The Number of Trees to Offset Emissions in Wetlands
Trees grown in wetlands tend to sequester more carbon dioxide than those planted in other regions of the globe. Granted that, on average, trees sequester about 44 pounds of carbon dioxide, the figure for wetlands is likely higher than this for two main reasons.
Why Wetlands Sequester More Carbon Dioxide
First, wetlands in general are oxygen-starved, as most of the soils are submerged. Thus, the decomposition rate in the regions is much slower than in other parts of the globe, leading to a higher accumulation of organic matter.
Secondly, many wetlands reduce erosion by trapping soils, so more carbon is stored within the soil sediments. These factors lead to higher sequestration volumes, implying for a specified volume of emissions, one is likely to plant fewer trees in wetlands compared to other regions.
Unique Attributes of Wetlands
Wetlands refer to areas where the soil is submerged in water either throughout the year or during specific seasons.
Most wetlands on earth are found within the tropics, with every continent except Antarctica having some form of wetlands. Generally, wetlands are classified into coastal and inland wetlands.4
The former comprises wetlands within coastal regions. They are mostly found at estuaries, where seawater meets the land. On the other hand, inland wetlands are located away from coastal areas along rivers, in isolated depressions or, in some cases, in low-lying areas where groundwater flows to the surface.
Statistics on the Role of Wetlands in Carbon Sequestration
Trees in wetlands sequester carbon dioxide into the soil in two main ways, namely photosynthesis and sediment trapping.
Through photosynthesis, the trees convert carbon dioxide into biomass and biowaste, sequestering carbon back into the earth in the process. The biomass is stored as food or biomaterial within the trees, while biowaste is released into the ground as litter, organic matter, or peats.
The following statistics indicate the importance of wetlands in carbon sequestration:
Wetlands in the US store about 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide yearly.2
A 0.09 to 0.88 meter rise in sea level due to global warming will likely reduce the area of coastal wetlands.6
A temperature rise of 2-9 degrees Fahrenheit is likely to adversely affect flora and fauna of most wetlands.6
Notably, wetlands play a crucial role in carbon offsetting.
The 15 billion carbon sink provided by wetlands sequesters about 55 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a figure equivalent to the emissions from about 23 tons of burned coal.3
Unfortunately, as the effects of global warming take root, the carbon sinks provided by wetlands are likely to reduce. Specifically, increased sea levels and global warming will likely have devastating effects on wetlands. This point is important to note- just like tropical trees, the sequestration potential of wetlands is not infinite.
While wetlands are some of the largest carbon stores globally, their disruption is likely to increase the volume of emissions they generate, to a point where they are more than carbon dioxide sequestered back into the soil.
This point is particularly true, considering wetlands are also the most significant global sources of methane, another harmful greenhouse gas, with 100 times more potency than carbon dioxide.10 According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, methane emissions are highest in inundated wetlands, necessitating actions to protect such wetlands, so that the methane is not released into the atmosphere.2
Some of the effective interventions include:
stopping the draining of wetlands
controlling wetland fires
restoring or reforesting the locations
Using Trees to Offset Your Carbon Emissions
US Citizens are among the largest global emitters of greenhouse gases, with each individual in the nation releasing about 22,046 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere.7
To offset this massive volume of emissions, each person in the country would need to plant about 150-200 trees (depending on the species) every year. Individuals keen on offsetting their emissions should consider reforestation in areas with the highest impact for best results.
Tropical and subtropical regions are one such area that has immense potential to offset emissions compared to other parts of the globe. The trees in this region grow faster than other places, and, in the process, they release more biomass into the soil, sequestering higher volumes of carbon dioxide.
Planting trees in these regions is likely to deliver excellent results, considering that tropical and subtropical regions have the potential of offsetting 23 percent of global emissions.5
This potential is not infinite, though, considering trees can emit more than they offset at high global temperatures. Some trees in the South American tropics have reached this tipping point, thanks to the steady rise in global warming over the years.11 So, it’s wise to act fast, before climate change takes away one of the best options for mitigating it.
Wetlands are another area with immense offsetting potential, due to the slow decomposition in the region, leading to higher organic matter accumulation and the carbon trapping ability of the wetland soil. Planting trees to rehabilitate wetlands is necessary, considering that they will emit more than they offset without such efforts.
If disturbed, these regions are likely to release more methane into the atmosphere than the carbon dioxide they extract from the environment.
All in all, reforestation initiatives in tropical regions and wetlands are exceedingly important in attempts to combat climate change, especially considering these regions sequester more carbon dioxide than other parts of the globe.
9National Ocean’s Service. (2021). What is the carbon cycle? From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Justice: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/carbon-cycle.html
10Pearce, F. (n.d.). Scientists Zero in on Trees as a Surprisingly Large Source of Methane. Retrieved August 8, 2021 from YaleEnvironment360: https://e360.yale.edu/features/scientists-probe-the-surprising-role-of-trees-in-methane-emissions
Quick Links
Follow Us
Share
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By using this site you consent to our use of cookies. Please view our privacy policy for more information.AgreePrivacy policy | How Many Trees Needed to Offset Your Carbon Emissions?
Many people wonder, how many trees are needed to offset carbon emissions?
On average, each person in the US releases about 16.5 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year, a quantity equivalent to the emissions from about 46 barrels of oil or approximately 22,046 pounds of coal, making the carbon footprint per person in the US one of the highest in the world.7
Fortunately, to minimize the adverse effects of these greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, US citizens are taking active steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
Keep reading to learn how…
How Trees Offset Carbon Emissions
Forestry offset programs are one of the tactics adopted by some to offset their emissions. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the number of trees they need to plant to offset their emissions. The process of computing the number of trees required to offset the emissions from each person is fairly complex, and online carbon footprint calculators from reputable sources offer the best bet for obtaining accurate estimates.
Nevertheless, given a single tree offsets about 20 kg (44 pounds) of carbon dioxide each year, individuals in the US emitting 17 tons of emissions will need to plant about 500 trees each year, to successfully offset their carbon footprint.14
This figure varies based on a host of contextual factors, including the region where the trees are planted and the exact ecosystems of the location. Trees planted in the tropical and subtropical regions tend to sequester more carbon dioxide than those planted in other regions.
In contrast, trees planted in marshlands and wetlands offer the highest sequestration volumes of all other ecosystems.
Trees play a vital role in offsetting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but what exactly do they do?
The Carbon Cycle
To understand the importance of trees, one has to begin by looking at the carbon cycle.
The term “carbon cycle” refers to the process through which carbon atoms move from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere, and vice versa.13 Within the cycle, oceans, sediments, rocks, | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://youmatter.world/en/plant-trees-save-earth-offset/ | Carbon offsets: planting trees isn't always a good sustainability ... | More and more companies are implementing carbon offsetting programs based on planting trees. Though on paper planting trees to compensate for CO2 emissions may seem like a good idea, it raises some concern.
So if you are looking for websites that plant trees, I must encourage you to think twice because many times, reforestation doesn’t work as a relevant solution to climate change – particularly if we’re talking about companies betting on carbon offsetting as the first step of their sustainability strategy.
The truth is that, as a climate change solution, planting trees is a quite complex issue. As such, the massive development of tree planting startups and programs isn’t necessarily good news for the fight against global warming.
Let’s try to better understand why.
Planting trees will not save the climate
Let’s start by remembering that planting trees is not a miraculous solution to tackle global warming, as we’ve covered in a previous article where we’ve highlighted the importance of building up soil.
Yes, if managed wisely and respectfully, trees can part of the solution thanks to their natural carbon storage function.
The reforestation efforts needed to offset our emissions using trees would be far too great given the intensity of our carbon emissions and as such, planting trees programs aren’t able to meet CO2 capture requirements.
Well, right, but how about planting a couple as part of a reforestation effort to offset a company’s carbon emissions? What can possibly be wrong with that?
Is planting trees a good sustainability strategy?
Actually, many wrong things may happen as a result of financing the plantation of trees.
Starting with many reforestation projects that are poorly designed and consist of planting monocultures in inappropriate ecosystems and end up doing more bad than good as they bring invasive specifies or compete with other trees for water.
Or, not so bad but still misleading, tree plantations that are managed as economic projects rather than as ecosystems, using climate change as an “excuse” to get funded.
So here’s a tip for you: if you’re looking into a project where many different tree species are being or will be planted, really think twice. Most specifications recommend planting around 2-4 species, depending on the project.
Also, when poorly maintained and managed in the medium term, reforestation projects may not last long, or at least not enough to absorb carbon sustainably and effectively.
As a result, even though projects to plant trees may be implemented with the best intention, without adequate resources allocated to their management, many trees end up not thriving – and thus not having a significant impact as a carbon sink.
Trees: the scapegoat of global emissions
What’s also concerning is that the current fuss around tree planting projects as a strategy to offset carbon emissions is a diversion from the real challenges that a meaningful climate transition encompasses.
How so?
Because by giving the illusion that planting trees is a relevant and effective solution to offset carbon emissions and mitigate climate change, private and public actors end up doing it for their own personal branding.
We see them saying they are acting to protect the planet when in fact, they often bet on misleading carbon offsetting programs while the real sources of emissions – which come from the supply and operation chains – keep running and polluting as usual.
And so, through carbon accounting sleight of hand, many companies and individuals nowadays use tree planting as an alibi to say they are “carbon neutral” or that they have “zero emissions” or even “zero impact”.
It is thanks to these carbon offsetting programs that airports or fossil-fuel companies can claim they are “carbon neutral” since they compensate for their emissions by planting trees.
Another nonsense – one highly questionably from an ethical perspective – are companies that are marketing their products as “climate neutral”. This kind of gives us, consumers, the feeling that their purchases don’t have a negative impact, doesn’t it?
Seriously, do we really think that planted trees really make up for the pollution from manufacturing – in terms of energy and materials used, to say the least – of millions of thousands of, for example, plastic cans?
You get where I’m heading when I say reforestation and planting tree programs are being usurped as they are so often used to hide – aka compensate for – global emissions, don’t you?
Plant trees to save Earth? The issue is way more complex.
Let us remember that the real challenge today is, first of all, to radically transform our production models and reduce our consumption so that carbon emissions get reduced right at the source.
And such reductions – drum rolls – mean a huge redesign of our social and economic structures. We’ll go there another time.
For now, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase – between 1 and 2% per year before Covid19 – each year. Contrarily, they must fall by 5% per year over the next 30 years to meet our climate objectives and guess what? Virtually no company is able to say today that its carbon emissions are falling in absolute terms.
Planting trees will not solve this background problem.
All the energy and money used by private actors to plant trees would probably be better invested in developing solid climate strategies. Strategies that are based on a profound reorganisation of business models and manufacturing mechanisms that need to have the circular economy, eco-design or biomimicry principles at their core.
Trees aren’t a technology, they are just trees.
Should we concede that all the buzz around reforestation has a positive externality, as it allows people to invest some money in financing projects that at least do something better than fuelling overproduction or rent schemes? After all, planting trees is always better than not doing it, right?
I’m not sure.
Because another problem is emerging: with the boom in tree planting projects, forests are gradually becoming a purely commercial object that’s slowly becoming part of the start-up scene.
The future of trees is now dependant on growth prospects, marketing strategies or scale-ups made possible by investors seeking quick returns. Trees have never been this sexy – nor seen as valuable outside of their natural context, the natural world – have they?
That’s right, trees have undoubtedly become attractive to a business world that’s searching for climate virtue and spends little effort paying for tree planting programs. But from an ecological point of view, this is a very dangerous road to travel.
Because today’s largely deregulated market capitalism has never really proven, throughout history, that it is able to put the general interest above its own interests – it simply isn’t designed that way.
Therefore, there’s a huge risk that with all this tree planting fuss, forests – which are originally a complex ecosystem, capable of storing carbon but also enriching soils, serving as a shelter for biodiversity and making territories resilient – will gradually be completely impoverished by the multiplication of climate compensation projects.
Forests would then become an exploitable (and overexploited) resource like every other, rather than being valued and cherish as (part of) an ecosystem whose diversity builds up – natural, cultural and social – resilience and should, therefore, be protected and wisely restored.
Planting fewer trees and saving the Earth by not Let’s not commodifying it.
Abnormal! Ridiculous! Absurd! How is it possible!?
We’re far from reacting like this as we see thousands of hectares of forests being destroyed every year to give room to agricultural sites, mining or industrial facilities or urbanisation projects.
Native forests – incredible biodiversity hotspots – are being destroyed and replaced by monocultures in places like the Amazon or Congo. While from a carbon counting perspective (or ecological KPI) that might look like something good since it will allow for a larger number of trees to be planted – overall it is not.
Because when it comes to biodiversity and ecosystemic health – which is ultimately connected to human health – it is the number of hectares preserved in existing, primary or sustainably managed forests and their resilience that truly matters.
The use of wood is also a much more fundamental success criterion: wood that dies or is transformed into cardboard does not store carbon sustainably. But these criteria are not of interest to the business world, because they do not speak to those who look at the world only with return on investment glasses or data that can be communicated to investors and shareholders.
Let’s leave trees and forests alone
Through financing plantation projects, sometimes with good intentions, companies end up doing more harm than good. Voluntarily or not, they end up contributing to the commodification of life and the commercialisation of ecosystems.
This is the exact opposite of what should be put in place to protect nature – which should be more aligned with preservation, restoration and regeneration.
That’s why it is important to raise awareness of the fact that focusing on a company’s business model and carbon impacts can be reduced at the source. Acting across supply chains and making more responsible – and bold – choices in terms of land use and forest-related products is very important.
This is what society expects from responsible businesses – and what future generations need, in order to have a liveable planet. They businesses to go the extra mile while leaving forests alone, managed by forest actors with expertise in ecological matters rather than by the harmful economic and market logic.
Note: this piece contains some ideas which were originally written by Clément Fournier, whose article is available here] | And so, through carbon accounting sleight of hand, many companies and individuals nowadays use tree planting as an alibi to say they are “carbon neutral” or that they have “zero emissions” or even “zero impact”.
It is thanks to these carbon offsetting programs that airports or fossil-fuel companies can claim they are “carbon neutral” since they compensate for their emissions by planting trees.
Another nonsense – one highly questionably from an ethical perspective – are companies that are marketing their products as “climate neutral”. This kind of gives us, consumers, the feeling that their purchases don’t have a negative impact, doesn’t it?
Seriously, do we really think that planted trees really make up for the pollution from manufacturing – in terms of energy and materials used, to say the least – of millions of thousands of, for example, plastic cans?
You get where I’m heading when I say reforestation and planting tree programs are being usurped as they are so often used to hide – aka compensate for – global emissions, don’t you?
Plant trees to save Earth? The issue is way more complex.
Let us remember that the real challenge today is, first of all, to radically transform our production models and reduce our consumption so that carbon emissions get reduced right at the source.
And such reductions – drum rolls – mean a huge redesign of our social and economic structures. We’ll go there another time.
For now, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase – between 1 and 2% per year before Covid19 – each year. Contrarily, they must fall by 5% per year over the next 30 years to meet our climate objectives and guess what? Virtually no company is able to say today that its carbon emissions are falling in absolute terms.
Planting trees will not solve this background problem.
All the energy and money used by private actors to plant trees would probably be better invested in developing solid climate strategies. Strategies that are based on a profound reorganisation of business models and manufacturing mechanisms that need to have the circular economy, eco-design or biomimicry principles at their core.
| no |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://chinadialogue.net/en/nature/10230-planting-more-trees-can-help-offset-carbon-emissions/ | Planting more trees can help offset carbon emissions | China Dialogue | {selectFilter('topic')}" :class="activeFilter === 'topic' ? 'open' : ''" data-topics="[{"term_id":758,"name":"Business","slug":"business","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":758,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Coverage of the policies and infrastructure shaping efforts to green global trade and investment, including China's Belt and Road Initiative","parent":0,"count":1158,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"36","cat_ID":758,"category_count":1158,"category_description":"Coverage of the policies and infrastructure shaping efforts to green global trade and investment, including China's Belt and Road Initiative","cat_name":"Business","category_nicename":"business","category_parent":0},{"term_id":759,"name":"Cities","slug":"cities","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":759,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Tracking efforts to create healthier urban spaces and communities through eco-city design, better waste management and a circular economy","parent":0,"count":517,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"38","cat_ID":759,"category_count":517,"category_description":"Tracking efforts to create healthier urban spaces and communities through eco-city design, better waste management and a circular economy","cat_name":"Cities","category_nicename":"cities","category_parent":0},{"term_id":761,"name":"Climate","slug":"climate","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":761,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Coverage of global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and manage the impacts of climate change and extreme weather","parent":0,"count":1673,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"41","cat_ID":761,"category_count":1673,"category_description":"Coverage of global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and manage the impacts of climate change and extreme weather","cat_name":"Climate","category_nicename":"climate","category_parent":0},{"term_id":757,"name":"Energy","slug":"energy","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":757,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Tracking the shift in energy finance and investment in China and elsewhere from coal, oil and gas to renewables such as wind and solar","parent":0,"count":1052,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"33","cat_ID":757,"category_count":1052,"category_description":"Tracking the shift in energy finance and investment in China and elsewhere from coal, oil and gas to renewables such as wind and solar","cat_name":"Energy","category_nicename":"energy","category_parent":0},{"term_id":763,"name":"Food","slug":"food","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":763,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Tracking the policies and changes in land use, agriculture and meat production that shape our environment and food choices","parent":0,"count":487,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"47","cat_ID":763,"category_count":487,"category_description":"Tracking the policies and changes in land use, agriculture and meat production that shape our environment and food choices","cat_name":"Food","category_nicename":"food","category_parent":0},{"term_id":764,"name":"Nature","slug":"nature","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":764,"taxonomy":"category","description":"A focus on global biodiversity and developments in wildlife conservation, protected areas, nature-based solutions and land rights","parent":0,"count":864,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"50","cat_ID":764,"category_count":864,"category_description":"A focus on global biodiversity and developments in wildlife conservation, protected areas, nature-based solutions and land rights","cat_name":"Nature","category_nicename":"nature","category_parent":0},{"term_id":760,"name":"Pollution","slug":"pollution","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":760,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Coverage of policies and technologies to address air, water and soil pollution in China and elsewhere resulting from development","parent":0,"count":937,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"39","cat_ID":760,"category_count":937,"category_description":"Coverage of policies and technologies to address air, water and soil pollution in China and elsewhere resulting from development","cat_name":"Pollution","category_nicename":"pollution","category_parent":0},{"term_id":762,"name":"Transport","slug":"transport","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":762,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Coverage of transport policies, technologies and infrastructure in China and elsewhere to reduce road, railway, shipping and aviation emissions","parent":0,"count":184,"filter":"raw","cd_tag_id":null,"cd_type":null,"cd_topic_id":"44","cat_ID":762,"category_count":184,"category_description":"Coverage of transport policies, technologies and infrastructure in China and elsewhere to reduce road, railway, shipping and aviation emissions","cat_name":"Transport","category_nicename":"transport","category_parent":0}]"> Topic
Large-scale tree planting efforts in India, China and South Korea have removed more than 12 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the past 20 years, according to a new analysis.
Examining different afforestation, reforestation, and forest restoration (ARR) programmes in the three countries, a report by Michael Wolosin, president of Forest Climate Analytics, shows how efforts to restore and expand forests have already provided significant carbon removal benefits.
The analysis also shows how countries can protect, expand and improve the management of forested lands, which act as crucial âcarbon sinksâ to keep emissions out of the atmosphere â a key component to meeting the Paris Agreementâs goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
By stopping deforestation and allowing young secondary forests to grow back, the worldâs cumulative âforest sinkâ could grow by more than 100 billion metric tonnes of carbon by 2100, according to a summary of the latest research on forests and climate change by the Woods Hole Research Center. This is about ten times the current rate of annual global fossil fuel emissions.
Unique approaches
India, China and South Korea have each approached ARR differently, and for various reasons, with their governments either spearheading the programmes or merely acquiescing to them.
In both South Korea and China, environmental crises forced the countries to take action. For South Korea, the main issue was soil erosion, which moved from being an environmental issue to a political one following a flood that killed more than 300 people in the 1970s.
But ARR efforts, championed by President Park Chung-hee, were already well underway in South Korea by this time. In 1967, the bureau in charge of forests was removed from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and given its own ministry. Local communities were also deeply integrated into the forestry programme and village communities had to volunteer for the project â and only they were allowed to use firewood from the commons. South Koreaâs rapid urbanisation also lessened human pressure on forests. Although forest cover declined a little overall its density increased tremendously.
In China, deforestation was largely driven by the timber industry and although commercial forests were planted, extraction far exceeded supply. By the late 1970s, deforestation had caused the Gobi Desert to encroach on Chinaâs rich agricultural lands, threatening its food security.
In response, the government launched the largest forestation programme ever envisioned; the Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP) set out to plant 100 billion trees over 73 years, which would establish 35 million hectares of protective forest across northern China. In an area accounting for 42% of Chinaâs land mass, the plan aimed to increase forest cover from 5% to 15%.
But timber extraction continued and Chinaâs environment degraded further. In May 1993, a cataclysmic sandstorm, dubbed the âblack windâ, killed hundreds of people and destroyed hundreds of thousands of hectares of cropland. And in 1998, a devastating flood killed hundreds and left 15 million people homeless.
The state responded by allocating 725 billion yuan (US$113 billion) into 20 new programmes aimed at afforesting about 55.6 million hectares. âIn other words, China intended to afforest nearly half of its available land in just one decade,â says Wolosin in the report.
The largest was the Grain for Green Project (GGP) which paid landholders with grain and/or cash subsidies for re-establishing grasslands and forests on degraded or steeply-sloped farmland, or on barren lands.
These initiatives did have an impact but afforestation may not have been as successful as the government has claimed; the survival rate of trees in Chinaâs 1952-2005 afforestation projects was 24%, while just 15% of trees survived over the same period in the drier regions of the TNSFP, according to Wolosinâs analysis.
Indiaâs bottom-up model
Indiaâs story is radically different from that of South Korea or China. It has not faced the same crises, rather the issue of dealing with the environment and forestry has been a constant and increasing concern, pushed by civil society.
India has provided consistent budgetary support for forestry efforts. From 1952 to 1980, about 0.39% of the total central planning outlays were allocated to afforestation, increasing to more than 1% from 1985 to 1997. Nevertheless, the recent granting of rights to forest communities and their involvement in forest management may prove even more significant.
Because Indiaâs focus on these issues has been led from the bottom-up, the data are the least reliable of the three countries analysed. No ministry exclusively deals with forestry and India has invested the least per hectare in its afforestation initiatives. However, if these are linked more effectively to local communities than in other countries, they may be more successful and sustainable.
This was emphasised by Bhaskar Singh Karky, resource economist at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, at a side event at the recent climate talks in Bonn. Speaking about the challenges Nepal faces due to glacier retreat, air pollution and climate change impacts, Karky said that planting more trees and saving forests are among the most important solutions.
âThis is ecosystem-based adaptation. This is community based. It promotes a green economy through biodiversity conservation. It is also in line with the Paris Agreement and the sustainable development goals,â he said.
He added: âThe forestry sector offers solutions to the climate problem but we have to push it through a combination of carrot and sermon rather than carrot and stick.
âWe have to convince the farmers on the one side, and global policymakers on the other.â
Chinaâs high investment model and South Koreaâs urbanisation and forest cover programmes hold important lessons. But Indiaâs low-cost model may be the most easily replicable for poorer countries.
While Indiaâs afforestation efforts have led to the least carbon sequestration among the three, it may also be the most economical way of removing carbon from the atmosphere.
China Dialogue uses cookies to provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser. It allows us to recognise you when you return to China Dialogue and helps us to understand which sections of the website you find useful.
Required Cookies
Required Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
Cloudflare - Cloudflare is a service used for the purposes of increasing the security and performance of web sites and services. Read Cloudflare's privacy policy and terms of service.
Enable or Disable Cookies
Functional Cookies
China Dialogue uses several functional cookies to collect anonymous information such as the number of site visitors and the most popular pages. Keeping these cookies enabled helps us to improve our website.
Google Analytics - The Google Analytics cookies are used to gather anonymous information about how you use our websites. We use this information to improve our sites and report on the reach of our content. Read Google's privacy policy and terms of service.
Enable or Disable Cookies
Advertising Cookies
This website uses the following additional cookies:
Google Inc. - Google operates Google Ads, Display & Video 360, and Google Ad Manager. These services allow advertisers to plan, execute and analyze marketing programs with greater ease and efficiency, while enabling publishers to maximize their returns from online advertising. Note that you may see cookies placed by Google for advertising, including the opt out cookie, under the Google.com or DoubleClick.net domains.
Twitter - Twitter is a real-time information network that connects you to the latest stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find interesting. Simply find the accounts you find compelling and follow the conversations.
Facebook Inc. - Facebook is an online social networking service. China Dialogue aims to help guide our readers to content that they are interested in, so they can continue to read more of what they enjoy. If you are a social media user, then we are able to do this through a pixel provided by Facebook, which allows Facebook to place cookies on your web browser. For example, when a Facebook user returns to Facebook from our site, Facebook can identify them as part of a group of China Dialogue readers, and deliver them marketing messages from us, i.e. more of our content on biodiversity. Data that can be obtained through this is limited to the URL of the pages that have been visited and the limited information a browser might pass on, such as its IP address. In addition to the cookie controls that we mentioned above, if you are a Facebook user you can opt out by following this link.
Linkedin - LinkedIn is a business- and employment-oriented social networking service that operates via websites and mobile apps. | Examining different afforestation, reforestation, and forest restoration (ARR) programmes in the three countries, a report by Michael Wolosin, president of Forest Climate Analytics, shows how efforts to restore and expand forests have already provided significant carbon removal benefits.
The analysis also shows how countries can protect, expand and improve the management of forested lands, which act as crucial âcarbon sinksâ to keep emissions out of the atmosphere â a key component to meeting the Paris Agreementâs goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
By stopping deforestation and allowing young secondary forests to grow back, the worldâs cumulative âforest sinkâ could grow by more than 100 billion metric tonnes of carbon by 2100, according to a summary of the latest research on forests and climate change by the Woods Hole Research Center. This is about ten times the current rate of annual global fossil fuel emissions.
Unique approaches
India, China and South Korea have each approached ARR differently, and for various reasons, with their governments either spearheading the programmes or merely acquiescing to them.
In both South Korea and China, environmental crises forced the countries to take action. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.carbonfootprint.com/plantingtrees.html | UK Tree Planting - carbonfootprint.com | UK Tree Planting
Planting is a great way to help sequester carbon emissions. Through photosynthesis trees absorb carbon dioxide to produce oxygen and wood. By ensuring that the trees planted are native broad leaf species you can help to preserve the UK's environment and biodiversity. Planting takes place in school locations and other biodiversity sites. All trees are high quality cell grown 'whips' (year old saplings).
By supporting our programme not only are you planting trees in your region of the UK you will also be helping to:
Tree Buddying Concept
For every tree that you pledge, a tonne of carbon will also be saved through supporting the VCS Tree Buddying programme. In this way, you can be confident that your emissions are immediately offset through high quality internationally verified carbon offsets, in addition to the trees that will be planted on your behalf, which will continue sequestering additional carbon emissions as they grow during their lifetime.
Are you a school looking for free trees?
Gallery from Corporate Planting Events
'Carbon Footprint Ltd organised a super afternoon of planting at school. Sixty of our children dug, planted and backfilled their way through 200 trees to develop the grounds, support wildlife and of course, improve the air quality at school. Many thanks for their buoyant enthusiasm.'
Richard Gasser, Headteacher, Park Junior School | UK Tree Planting
Planting is a great way to help sequester carbon emissions. Through photosynthesis trees absorb carbon dioxide to produce oxygen and wood. By ensuring that the trees planted are native broad leaf species you can help to preserve the UK's environment and biodiversity. Planting takes place in school locations and other biodiversity sites. All trees are high quality cell grown 'whips' (year old saplings).
By supporting our programme not only are you planting trees in your region of the UK you will also be helping to:
Tree Buddying Concept
For every tree that you pledge, a tonne of carbon will also be saved through supporting the VCS Tree Buddying programme. In this way, you can be confident that your emissions are immediately offset through high quality internationally verified carbon offsets, in addition to the trees that will be planted on your behalf, which will continue sequestering additional carbon emissions as they grow during their lifetime.
Are you a school looking for free trees?
Gallery from Corporate Planting Events
'Carbon Footprint Ltd organised a super afternoon of planting at school. Sixty of our children dug, planted and backfilled their way through 200 trees to develop the grounds, support wildlife and of course, improve the air quality at school. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/could-global-co2-levels-be-reduced-by-planting-trees | Could Atmosphere CO2 Levels be Reduced by Planting Trees ... | For reference, combined with oceans, the terrestrial biosphere including plants and trees already remove about 45% of the CO2 emitted by human activities each year.
Other scientists report that plants and trees globally are responding to elevated CO2 levels by taking up more CO2.
This makes sense. Here at CO2Meter, our customers report to us that in controlled conditions like indoor greenhouses, doubling or tripling the CO2 levels can act as fertilizer, which increases the growth and productivity of plants.
What is the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
The most current CO2 levels reported in July 2023, is 419.17ppm.
The table by CO2 earth below, presents the most up-to-date, daily average reading for atmospheric CO2 on the planet.
Units = parts per million (ppm).
Measurement location = Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.
What happens when CO2 is high in the atmosphere?
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change and many other key effects. Human activities alone have raised the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content by 50% in less than 200 years.
Here are some additional direct effects on our atmosphere due to CO2 levels:
Global Warming: When there is an excess of carbon dioxide, more heat is retained, leading to an increase in global temperature, an occurrence known as global warming.
Ocean Acidification: When CO2 is absorbed by the ocean it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid. This process increases the acidity of the oceans, which can harm marine life (particularly organisms with calcium carbonate shells, such as coral reefs and types of plankton).
Disruption of Ecosystems: Plant and animals are fairly sensitive to changes in temperature and climate. As CO2 levels rise and change the atmosphere, some species may struggle to adapt, leading to disruptions in ecosystems and biodiversity loss.
Impact on Agriculture: Changes in climate patterns can also affect agricultural productivity, leading to shifts in crop yields and distribution. Some regions may experience reduced crop productivity, while others might benefit from longer growing seasons.
Health Impacts: High CO2 levels and associated climate changes can also have indirect effects on human health, such as an increase in heat-related illnesses. This increase can spread disease carried by insects, and worsen air quality due to factors like higher levels of ground-level ozone.
What is the main cause of CO2 levels increasing in our atmosphere?
Many resources show that the main cause of CO2 levels increasing is due to human activities. These activities involve the burning of oil, coal, and gas, as well as deforestation as the primary cause of increase.
All of these processes alone release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, directly affecting our ecosystem and accumulating over time. These activities all have various impacts including rising temperatures, disruption of communities, and changes in our climate patterns.
Addressing the issue of rising CO2 levels requires tremendous global efforts in order to reduce emissions and transition to more sustainable and cleaner practices, as well as adopting practices to further move our society.
Could enough trees be planted to impact CO2 levels in our atmosphere?
Unfortunately, not likely. Here's why.
A typical hardwood tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. This means it will sequester approximately 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
One ton of CO2 is a lot. However, on average human activity puts about 40 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year. This means we would theoretically have to plant 40 billion trees every year, then wait for decades to see any positive effect. By the time 40 years had passed, the trees we had originally planted would only cancel out the increased CO2 levels today.
To put that into further perspective, that offset in massive volume of emissions would equal out individually to each person in the country planting about 150-200 trees (depending upon the species) every year.
But others disagree.
For example, National Geographic says "An area the size of the United States could be restored as forests, with the potential of erasing nearly 100 years of carbon emissions." This is based off of the first study of its kind to determine how many trees the earth could actually support.
The other issue is the impact of CO2 on tree growth and the species of trees that thrive best on high CO2 levels.
For example, research from NASA indicates that the current increase in CO2 levels have resulted in a significant greening increase over the last 35 years. This increase in leaves on plants and trees is actually equivalent to planting a forest twice the size of the continental United States. Yet, the shorter lifespans of these trees as the result of faster growth give them less time to absorb CO2 than was anticipated. This implies that the trees will die sooner and before they're big enough to store a significant amount of carbon from our atmosphere.
So should we really continue to plant trees?
Science Magazine published a report titled, "The global tree restoration potential" which concluded that there may seem to be enough land to increase the worlds forest areas by approximately one third. The downside to this is that the potential for land space can diminish quite quickly given global temperature rising. Additionally the report states, "Even if global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the area available for forest restoration could be reduced by a fifth by 2050 because it would be too warm for some tropical forests."
This same topic was researched in 2016, where a research group of 800,000 volunteers in India planted 50 million tree saplings in an effort to re-green the country. While there are many good reasons to combat deforestation, this project would have to be replicated 800 times to cancel out the CO2 created by humans.
This does not mean that there is still not some importance in doing so, however. Global CO2 levels could be reduced by planting trees as national geographic concludes, "If we act now we could cut carbon dioxide emissions by at least 25% these levels would not have been seen until almost a century ago".
Aren't loggers required to replace the trees they cut down?
In many countries there are regulations that require logging companies to replace the trees they log. According to AppalachianWood.org "Three quarters of all the trees planted in America last year were planted by forest product companies and private timberland owners. And logging companies pay a special fee to fund for replanting and reforestation when they buy the right to harvest a section of timber on state or national forests." Americans plant at least 1.6 billion trees or about 6 trees for each one we use.
"Between 2015 and 2020, the rate of deforestation was estimated at 10 million hectares (38,000 square miles) per year, down from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. The area of primary forest worldwide has decreased by over 80 million hectares 310,000 square miles) since 1990."
For example, more than half the potential to restore trees can be found in the following countries: Russia (373 million); Canada (78 million); Australia (58 million); Brazil (50 million); and China (40 million).
So the answer seems to be that planting trees, while a good idea, would not in itself cancel all of the effects of human production of CO2 and many trees would actually die off before they are large enough.
What is the best way to offset CO2 levels?
While planting trees are important, trees alone aren't enough. As a single person, what can you do to help offset the rise in CO2 levels?
1. Reforestation. If you own land, plant trees on it. As the old Chinese proverb goes, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” Here are the trees that convert the most CO2:
2. Renewable energy. There are dozen's of small ways you can take advantage of renewable energy around your home, from solar panels to roof-mounted solar water heaters to paying a few dollars extra to the utility company each month for their carbon offset program. Building a new house? Talk to your architect about using thermal mass walls to retain both heating and cooling.
3. Community projects are a great way to get involved and help the climate. The advantage of these projects is that you will spend time with like-minded people and see for yourself what works and what doesn't in their homes and businesses.
4. Waste to energy initiatives are programs that convert organic waste into energy. The only way these can happen is by supporting government officials and politicians who are also committed to these goals.
5. Changing transport. Common sense says that taking a train instead of a plane doesn't matter since the plane would make the trip with or without you. However, for personal transport, electric cars finally make sense. If everything you know about electric cars is over a year old, it's time to research them again.
We can take steps to reduce CO2 emissions now, or we can wait and see what happens. Only good science and good data will give us a valid answer.
These resources should provide you with reliable and up-to-date information on the impacts of high CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the broader context of climate change. Always verify the credibility. | Americans plant at least 1.6 billion trees or about 6 trees for each one we use.
"Between 2015 and 2020, the rate of deforestation was estimated at 10 million hectares (38,000 square miles) per year, down from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. The area of primary forest worldwide has decreased by over 80 million hectares 310,000 square miles) since 1990. "
For example, more than half the potential to restore trees can be found in the following countries: Russia (373 million); Canada (78 million); Australia (58 million); Brazil (50 million); and China (40 million).
So the answer seems to be that planting trees, while a good idea, would not in itself cancel all of the effects of human production of CO2 and many trees would actually die off before they are large enough.
What is the best way to offset CO2 levels?
While planting trees are important, trees alone aren't enough. As a single person, what can you do to help offset the rise in CO2 levels?
1. Reforestation. If you own land, plant trees on it. As the old Chinese proverb goes, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” Here are the trees that convert the most CO2:
2. Renewable energy. There are dozen's of small ways you can take advantage of renewable energy around your home, from solar panels to roof-mounted solar water heaters to paying a few dollars extra to the utility company each month for their carbon offset program. Building a new house? Talk to your architect about using thermal mass walls to retain both heating and cooling.
3. Community projects are a great way to get involved and help the climate. The advantage of these projects is that you will spend time with like-minded people and see for yourself what works and what doesn't in their homes and businesses.
4. Waste to energy initiatives are programs that convert organic waste into energy. | no |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/04/opinion/environment/climate-change-trees-carbon-removal.html | Let's Not Pretend Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution | Let’s Not Pretend Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution
Dr. Hausfather was a contributing author to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. He is the climate research lead at Stripe and a research scientist with Berkeley Earth.
Trees are our original carbon removal technology: Through photosynthesis, they pull carbon dioxide out of the air and store it. They have lately been touted as a climate savior, a way to rapidly reduce the carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere as we cut our emissions. A “trillion trees” initiative was launched with much fanfare at the World Economic Forum in Davos back in 2020, and it was one of the few climate solutions embraced by the Trump administration. Planting trees and protecting forests are a major part of many corporate efforts to offset emissions.
But there’s a catch. Carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere is only temporarily stored in trees, vegetation and soil, while a sizable part of our emissions today, will remain in the atmosphere, much of it for centuries and some of it for millenniums to come.
Trees can quickly and cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere today. But when companies rely on them to offset their emissions, they risk merely hitting the climate “snooze” button, kicking the can to future generations who will have to deal with those emissions.
We have a saying in the climate science world: “Carbon is forever.” Around 20 percent of the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere today will still be in the atmosphere many thousands of years from now. This means that to effectively undo emissions, the carbon we take out of the atmosphere needs to stay out. There is a real risk that, in a warming world with more wildfires, with pests preying on trees and with drying soil, carbon in tree plantations could end up back in the atmosphere sooner rather than later. For carbon to be permanently removed by planting trees, forests would have to remain in place for thousands of years. On top of that, the trees would have to be planted on land that would have been forest-free for those same thousands of years had the trees not been planted.
Companies using trees to offset their emissions often sign a 40-year contract. But the companies selling and buying carbon credits may not be around in 40 years. There is a real risk that no one will be left holding the bag if tree plantations are clear-cut for development, go up in flames or are devoured by mountain pine beetles a few decades hence. In short, the timelines over which carbon removal needs to occur are fundamentally inconsistent with the planning horizons of private companies today.
There is another option for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Our current emissions come primarily from burning fossil fuels that spent millions of years underground before being dug up. If we put carbon back into the ground, put it into deep oceans or turn it into rocks, we can keep it out of the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, effectively counteracting the long-term impact of our current emissions.
There are only a handful of facilities in Europe and North America that are currently doing permanent carbon removal; the technologies have been deployed outside the lab for less than a decade, and they are still quite expensive, with prices typically in the hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon removed. But a growing number of scientists are working toward scaling them up and reducing costs. (I recently joined the team at Stripe Climate to help support early-stage technologies and build a market for permanent carbon removal.)
In the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, my co-authors and I found that society needs to rapidly reduce emissions over the coming decades to avoid potentially catastrophic changes to our climate. We also showed that removing carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere would be an “essential element,” alongside rapid emissions reductions, to meet our climate goals.
How much carbon removal will ultimately depend on how quickly and fully we can cut emissions. Most of our models show that to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, we’ll need to remove around 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year by 2050 — a bit more than annual U.S. emissions today. Over the next 80 years, we may need to remove more than 600 billion tons, an amount greater than 15 years of current global emissions.
Why will we need so much carbon removal? The science is clear that to stop the world from continuing to warm, we need to get emissions to “net zero.” But there will always be some remaining emissions and some greenhouse gases will be extremely difficult and costly to fully eliminate. Our models suggest we will need at least a few billion tons of carbon removal each year to counterbalance the remaining hard-to-eliminate emissions. Emerging technologies have the potential to meet this need.
It is also increasingly likely that the world will pass 1.5 degrees Celsius — our most ambitious climate target — in the next decade or so. In the recent IPCC report, more than 96 percent of scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by the end of the century overshoot it on the way there. Once we overshoot 1.5 degrees Celsius, even getting emissions all the way down to zero will not cool the world back down. This is the brutal math of climate change, and it means that the only way to bring global temperatures back down in the future is through the large-scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
To date, carbon removal efforts by companies and governments have largely relied on trees and soil. But even under a best-case scenario, these can only provide around half of the removal needed. We only have so much available arable land in which to plant the number of trees we need to store enough carbon.
While carbon removal is often conflated with carbon offsets, the vast majority of offsets currently sold pay someone else to avoid emissions rather than removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Offset markets are plagued byhot air, with many actors gaming the system by claiming carbon credits for actions they were already planning to take, such as building a clean energy project or not cutting down a forest they own. In one case, an environmental group even provided offsets that were sold to oil companies, making the dubious claim that they would otherwise allow the forests they own to be logged.
Permanent removals, on the other hand, are harder to game. There is little market value to permanently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so it is much easier to prove that money spent actually results in removal. And the risk of accidental rerelease is orders of magnitude smaller. That’s why the well-respected Science Based Targets initiative only allows measures that permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere to offset remaining emissions — and only alongside deep emissions reductions.
The private sector can help jump-start permanent removals by purchasing them today. For example, Frontier — a recently announced initiative — will purchase nearly $1 billion of permanent carbon removal over the next nine years to help support early-stage technologies and figure out what approaches work and can scale in decades to come. But voluntary investments by the private sector can only take us so far; ultimately, removing carbon from the atmosphere will have to be incentivized by government policy, either through a price on carbon or subsidies for carbon removal.
The scale of permanent carbon removal that will be needed to meet our most ambitious climate goals is staggering, compared to the small amount of removal that has taken place to date. We are playing catch-up here, as we are on many climate fronts. We need to use this decade to figure out what works and what can scale in the decades to come: experimenting with a wide variety of approaches like direct air capture, enhanced rock weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, biomass carbon removal and storage, and ocean biomass sinking among others.
To tackle climate change, we need to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. But we also need to invest in bringing down the cost of technologies to remove billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the future. Trees and soil are not a panacea for removing carbon. While governments should be encouraged to enhance the amount of carbon stored in trees, plants, and soil, we should be skeptical of claims that rely on temporary removals to justify additional “forever” emissions.
Zeke Hausfather was a contributing author to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. He is the climate research lead at Stripe and a research scientist with Berkeley Earth. | Let’s Not Pretend Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution
Dr. Hausfather was a contributing author to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. He is the climate research lead at Stripe and a research scientist with Berkeley Earth.
Trees are our original carbon removal technology: Through photosynthesis, they pull carbon dioxide out of the air and store it. They have lately been touted as a climate savior, a way to rapidly reduce the carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere as we cut our emissions. A “trillion trees” initiative was launched with much fanfare at the World Economic Forum in Davos back in 2020, and it was one of the few climate solutions embraced by the Trump administration. Planting trees and protecting forests are a major part of many corporate efforts to offset emissions.
But there’s a catch. Carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere is only temporarily stored in trees, vegetation and soil, while a sizable part of our emissions today, will remain in the atmosphere, much of it for centuries and some of it for millenniums to come.
Trees can quickly and cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere today. But when companies rely on them to offset their emissions, they risk merely hitting the climate “snooze” button, kicking the can to future generations who will have to deal with those emissions.
We have a saying in the climate science world: “Carbon is forever.” Around 20 percent of the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere today will still be in the atmosphere many thousands of years from now. This means that to effectively undo emissions, the carbon we take out of the atmosphere needs to stay out. There is a real risk that, in a warming world with more wildfires, with pests preying on trees and with drying soil, carbon in tree plantations could end up back in the atmosphere sooner rather than later. For carbon to be permanently removed by planting trees, forests would have to remain in place for thousands of years. On top of that, the trees would have to be planted on land that would have been forest-free for those same thousands of years had the trees not been planted.
| no |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2021/03/how-much-can-planting-trees-actually-offset-a-citys-carbon-emissions/ | How much can planting trees offset a city's emissions? | How much can planting trees offset a city’s emissions?
In attempts to prevent global temperatures from exceeding two degrees Celsius, environmentalists are trying to pack some of our atmospheric carbon away in storage. One way to do that is to plant more trees. And while rural areas may seem like the most obvious places to do the planting, researchers have found that cities could have a substantial amount of “reforestable” land too.
Because cities have limited space that may not be suitable for reforestation, their potential to help curb emissions on the global scale is often overlooked. And a lack of scientific research on the topic has added to the uncertainty. To fill the gap, authors of a recent article published in Environmental Research Letters show that some urban areas can offset a significant amount of their greenhouse gas emissions by reforesting areas covered in shrubs or grass.
The study assessed the carbon sequestration potential of more than seven thousand cities around the globe. Using land cover data from 2017 and forest regrowth predictions, the research team estimated the amount of suitable land that cities have available for reforestation, and how big of a dent doing so could put in carbon emissions.
The researchers found that urban areas—defined as having 50 thousand people or more—have the potential to offset 82 metric tons of carbon equivalents each year, or about 1 percent of the total emissions from cities. While this amount is starkly lower than the potential of rural areas to offset emissions through reforestation (1,600 metric tons of carbon equivalents each year), it’s not insignificant. The potential effect was much higher for 1,189 mostly small cities, which could cut their emissions up to 25 percent through reforesting. The study also showed that 77 percent of the reforestation potential is in the southern hemisphere, likely because the majority of urban land mass is located in the Global South.
While reforestation efforts in urban areas could have a significant effect on reaching carbon sequestration goals, the authors urge that the decision to reforest is a local one, as each city will have its unique cultural, socioeconomic and ecological considerations. But it’s clear that while any reforestation attempts will require thoughtful planning, the authors write that because cities have the concentrated human, financial and political resources, they are better positioned to undertake resource-intensive projects. “Urban natural climate solutions should find a place on global and local agendas.” | How much can planting trees offset a city’s emissions?
In attempts to prevent global temperatures from exceeding two degrees Celsius, environmentalists are trying to pack some of our atmospheric carbon away in storage. One way to do that is to plant more trees. And while rural areas may seem like the most obvious places to do the planting, researchers have found that cities could have a substantial amount of “reforestable” land too.
Because cities have limited space that may not be suitable for reforestation, their potential to help curb emissions on the global scale is often overlooked. And a lack of scientific research on the topic has added to the uncertainty. To fill the gap, authors of a recent article published in Environmental Research Letters show that some urban areas can offset a significant amount of their greenhouse gas emissions by reforesting areas covered in shrubs or grass.
The study assessed the carbon sequestration potential of more than seven thousand cities around the globe. Using land cover data from 2017 and forest regrowth predictions, the research team estimated the amount of suitable land that cities have available for reforestation, and how big of a dent doing so could put in carbon emissions.
The researchers found that urban areas—defined as having 50 thousand people or more—have the potential to offset 82 metric tons of carbon equivalents each year, or about 1 percent of the total emissions from cities. While this amount is starkly lower than the potential of rural areas to offset emissions through reforestation (1,600 metric tons of carbon equivalents each year), it’s not insignificant. The potential effect was much higher for 1,189 mostly small cities, which could cut their emissions up to 25 percent through reforesting. The study also showed that 77 percent of the reforestation potential is in the southern hemisphere, likely because the majority of urban land mass is located in the Global South.
While reforestation efforts in urban areas could have a significant effect on reaching carbon sequestration goals, the authors urge that the decision to reforest is a local one, as each city will have its unique cultural, socioeconomic and ecological considerations. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/16/carbon-offset-projects-carbon-emissions | A complete guide to carbon offsetting | Carbon offsetting | The ... | A complete guide to carbon offsetting
Carbon offset schemes allow individuals and companies to invest in environmental projects around the world in order to balance out their own carbon footprints. The projects are usually based in developing countries and most commonly are designed to reduce future emissions. This might involve rolling out clean energy technologies or purchasing and ripping up carbon credits from an emissions trading scheme. Other schemes work by soaking up CO2 directly from the air through the planting of trees.
Some people and organisations offset their entire carbon footprint while others aim to neutralise the impact of a specific activity, such as taking a flight. To do this, the holidaymaker or business person visits an offset website, uses the online tools to calculate the emissions of their trip, and then pays the offset company to reduce emissions elsewhere in the world by the same amount – thus making the flight "carbon neutral".
Offset schemes vary widely in terms of the cost, though a fairly typical fee would be around £8/$12 for each tonne of CO2 offset. At this price, a typical British family would pay around £45 to neutralise a year's worth of gas and electricity use, while a return flight from London to San Francisco would clock in at around £20 per ticket.
Increasingly, many products are also available with carbon neutrality included as part of the price. These range from books about environmental topics through to high-emission cars (new Land Rovers include offsets for the production of the vehicle and the first 45,000 miles of use).
Over the past decade, carbon offsetting has become increasingly popular, but it has also become – for a mixture reasons – increasingly controversial.
Is the whole concept of offsetting a scam?
Traditionally, much of the criticism of offsetting relates to the planting of trees. Some of these concerns are valid, but in truth most of the best-known carbon offset schemes have long-since switched from tree planting to clean-energy projects – anything from distributing efficient cooking stoves through to capturing methane gas at landfill sites. Energy-based projects such as these are designed to make quicker and more permanent savings than planting trees, and, as a bonus, to offer social benefits. Efficient cooking stoves, for instance, can help poor families save money on fuel and improve their household air quality – a very real benefit in many developing countries.
Even in the case of energy-based schemes, however, many people argue that offsetting is unhelpful – or even counterproductive – in the fight against climate change. For example, writer George Monbiotfamously compared carbon offsets with the ancient Catholic church's practice of selling indulgences: absolution from sins and reduced time in purgatory in return for financial donations to the church. Just as indulgences allowed the rich to feel better about sinful behaviour without actually changing their ways, carbon offsets allow us to "buy complacency, political apathy and self-satisfaction", Monbiot claimed. "Our guilty consciences appeased, we continue to fill up our SUVs and fly round the world without the least concern about our impact on the planet … it's like pushing the food around on your plate to create the impression that you have eaten it."
A similar if more humorous point is made by the spoof website CheatNeutral.com, which parodies carbon neutrality by offering a similar service for infidelity. "When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere," the website explains. "CheatNeutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and not cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience."
CheatNeutral may be tongue-in-cheek but the indulgence and cheating analogies have both become de facto arguments against carbon offsetting. But do the comparisons stand up? Not according to David Roberts, staff writer at Grist. "If there really were such a thing as sin, and there was a finite amount of it in the world, and it was the aggregate amount of sin that mattered rather than any individual's contribution, and indulgences really did reduce aggregate sin, then indulgences would have been a perfectly sensible idea," Roberts has written, mirroring similar claims made by others sympathetic to offsetting. "The comparison is a weak and transparent smear, which makes me wonder why critics rely so heavily on it."
And what about the claim that people use offsetting as a way to avoid changing their unenvironmentally friendly ways? This is nonsense, too, according to the offset schemes themselves, which claim that most of their customers are also taking steps to reduce their emissions directly. A report from Britain's National Consumer Council and Sustainable Development Commission agreed with this perspective: "a positive approach to offsetting could have public resonance well beyond the CO2 offset, and would help to build awareness of the need for other measures."
Ultimately, the question of whether the concept of offsetting is valid must come down to the individual. If you offset to assuage guilt and to make yourself feel better about high-carbon activities such as flying, that can't be good. If you offset as part of cutting your footprint, or as an incentive to be greener (after all, the less you emit, the less it will cost you to go carbon neutral) then that can't be bad – especially if the offset projects offer extra benefits such as poverty reduction in the developing world.
Do offset projects actually deliver the carbon benefits they promise?
Arguments about guilty consciences aside, the key issue for anyone who does want to offset is whether the scheme you're funding actually achieves the carbon savings promised. This boils down not just to the effectiveness of the project at soaking up CO2 or avoiding future emissions. Effectiveness is important but not enough. You also need to be sure that the carbon savings are additional to any savings which might have happened anyway.
Take the example of an offset project that distributes low-energy lightbulbs in a developing country, thereby reducing energy consumption over the coming years. The carbon savings would only be classified as additional if the project managers could demonstrate that, for the period in which the carbon savings of the new lightbulbs were being counted, the recipients wouldn't have acquired low-energy bulbs by some other means.
The problem is that it's almost impossible to prove additionality with absolute certainly, as no one can be sure what will happen in the future, or what would have happened if the project had never existed. For instance, in the case of the lightbulb project, the local government might start distributing low-energy bulbs to help reduce pressure on the electricity grid. If that happened, the bulbs distributed by the offset company would cease to be additional, since the energy savings would have happened even if the offset project had never happened.
Partly because of the difficulty of ensuring additionality, many offset providers guarantee their emissions savings. This way, if the emissions savings don't come through or they turn out to be "non-additional", the provider promises to make up the loss via another project.
As the offset market grows, some offset companies have enough capital to invest in projects speculatively: they fund an offset project and then sell the carbon savings once the cuts have actually been made. This avoids the difficulty of predicting the future – and also avoids the claim that a carbon cut made some years in the future is worth less than a cut made now.
These kinds of guarantees and policies provide some reassurances, but do they mean anything in the real world? Without actually visiting the offset projects ourselves, how can individuals be sure that the projects are functioning as they should?
To try and answer these questions, the voluntary offset market has developed various standards, which are a bit like the certification systems used for fairly traded or organic food. These include the Voluntary Gold Standard (VGS) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS). VGS-certified offsets are audited according to the rules laid out in the Kyoto protocol and must also show social benefits for local communities. The VCS, meanwhile, aims to be just as rigorous but without being as expensive or bureaucratic to set up, thereby allowing a greater range of innovative small-scale projects.
Offsets with these standards offer extra credibility, but that still doesn't make them watertight. Heather Rogers, author of Green Gone Wrong, visited a number of offset schemes in India and found all kinds of irregularities. One VGS-certified biomass power plant refused to allow her around, though staff there reported a number of concerns such as trees being chopped down and sold to the plant, which was designed to run on agricultural wastes.
Even if offset projects do work as advertised, some environmentalists argue that they're still a bad idea. If we're to tackle climate change, they argue, the projects being rolled out by offset companies should be happening anyway, funded by governments around the world, while companies and individuals reduce their carbon footprints directly. Only in this way – by doing everything possible to make reductions everywhere, rather than polluting in one place and offsetting in another – does the world have a good chance of avoiding runaway climate change, such critics claim.
On the other hand, some carbon-neutrality advocates suggest offsetting carbon-intensive activities such as flights two or three or even ten times over. This, they argue, allows individuals not just to stop their total carbon footprint from going up, but actually to make it fall.
The price of offsetting
Many people are confused by the low prices of carbon offsets. If it's so bad for the environment to fly, can a few pounds really be enough to counteract the impact? The answer is that, at present, there are all kinds of ways to reduce emissions very inexpensively. After all, a single low-energy lightbulb, available for just £1 or so, can over the space of six years save 250kg of CO2 – equivalent to a short flight. That's not to say that offsetting is necessarily valid, or that plugging in a low-energy lightbulb makes up for flying. The point is simply that the world is full of inexpensive ways to reduce emissions. In theory, if enough people started offsetting, or if governments started acting seriously to tackle global warming, then the price of offsets would gradually rise, as the low-hanging fruit of emissions savings – the easiest and cheapest "quick wins" – would get used up.
Another frequent point of confusion about the cost of offsetting is that different offset companies quote different prices for offsetting the same activity. There are two reasons for this. First, there are various ways of estimating the precise impact on climate change of certain types of activity – including flying, which affects global temperature in various different ways. Second, different types of offset project will inevitably have different costs – especially given that projects may be chosen not just for the CO2 impacts but for their broader social benefits. | A complete guide to carbon offsetting
Carbon offset schemes allow individuals and companies to invest in environmental projects around the world in order to balance out their own carbon footprints. The projects are usually based in developing countries and most commonly are designed to reduce future emissions. This might involve rolling out clean energy technologies or purchasing and ripping up carbon credits from an emissions trading scheme. Other schemes work by soaking up CO2 directly from the air through the planting of trees.
Some people and organisations offset their entire carbon footprint while others aim to neutralise the impact of a specific activity, such as taking a flight. To do this, the holidaymaker or business person visits an offset website, uses the online tools to calculate the emissions of their trip, and then pays the offset company to reduce emissions elsewhere in the world by the same amount – thus making the flight "carbon neutral".
Offset schemes vary widely in terms of the cost, though a fairly typical fee would be around £8/$12 for each tonne of CO2 offset. At this price, a typical British family would pay around £45 to neutralise a year's worth of gas and electricity use, while a return flight from London to San Francisco would clock in at around £20 per ticket.
Increasingly, many products are also available with carbon neutrality included as part of the price. These range from books about environmental topics through to high-emission cars (new Land Rovers include offsets for the production of the vehicle and the first 45,000 miles of use).
Over the past decade, carbon offsetting has become increasingly popular, but it has also become – for a mixture reasons – increasingly controversial.
Is the whole concept of offsetting a scam?
Traditionally, much of the criticism of offsetting relates to the planting of trees. Some of these concerns are valid, but in truth most of the best-known carbon offset schemes have long-since switched from tree planting to clean-energy projects – anything from distributing efficient cooking stoves through to capturing methane gas at landfill sites. Energy-based projects such as these are designed to make quicker and more permanent savings than planting trees, and, as a bonus, to offer social benefits. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | yes_statement | "planting" "trees" can "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" can help "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | http://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/urban-forests | Urban Forests and Climate Change | Climate Change Resource ... | Issues
The urban environment presents important considerations for global climate change. Over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas (1). Because cities are more dense and walkable (2), urban per capita emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are almost always substantially lower than average per capita emissions for the countries in which they are located (3, 4). Urban areas are also more likely than non-urban areas to have adequate emergency services (5), and so may be better equipped to provide critical assistance to residents in the case of climate-related stress and events such as heat waves, floods, storms, and disease outbreaks. However, cities are still major sources of GHG emissions (6). Studies suggest that cities account for 40-70% of all GHG emissions worldwide due to resource consumption and energy, infrastructure, and transportation demands (7). Highly concentrated urban areas, especially in coastal regions and in developing countries, are disproportionately vulnerable to extreme weather and infectious disease.
Urban forests play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Active stewardship of a community’s forestry assets can strengthen local resilience to climate change while creating more sustainable and desirable places to live.
Benefits of Urban Forests
The term "urban forest" refers to all trees within a densely populated area, including trees in parks, on streetways, and on private property. Though the composition, health, age, extent, and costs of urban forests vary considerably among different cities, all urban forests offer some common environmental, economic, and social benefits. Trees in a community help to reduce air and water pollution, alter heating and cooling costs, and increase real estate values. Trees can improve physical and mental health, strengthen social connections, and are associated with reduced crime rates. Trees, community gardens, and other green spaces get people outside, helping to foster active living and neighborhood pride.
Carbon capture and energy savings Urban forests-like any forest-help mitigate climate change by capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, and by influencing energy needs for heating and cooling buildings; trees typically reduce cooling costs, but can increase or decrease winter heating use depending on their location around a building and whether they are evergreen or deciduous. In the contiguous United States alone, urban trees store over 708 million tons of carbon (approximately 12.6% of annual carbon dioxide emissions in the United States) and capture an additional 28.2 million tons of carbon (approximately 0.05% of annual emissions) per year (8, 9). The value of urban carbon sequestration is substantial: approximately $2 billion per year, with a total current carbon storage value of over $50 billion (8). Shading and reduction of wind speed by trees can help to reduce carbon emissions by reducing summer air conditioning and winter heating demand and, in turn, the level of emissions from supplying power plants (10). Shading can also extend the useful life of street pavement by as much as ten years, thereby reducing emissions associated with the petroleum-intensive materials and operation of heavy equipment required to repave roads and haul away waste (11). Establishing 100 million mature trees around residences in the United States would save an estimated $2 billion annually in reduced energy costs (12, 1). However, this level of tree planting would only offset less than 1% of United States emissions over a 50-year period (14).
Provision of usable goods The sustainable use of wood, food, and other goods provided by the local urban forest may also help mitigate climate change by displacing imports associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide emitted during production and transport. Urban wood is a valuable and underutilized resource. At current utilization rates, forest products manufactured from felled urban trees are estimated to save several hundred million tons of CO2 over a 30-year period. Furthermore, wood chips made from low-quality urban wood may be combusted for heat and/or power to displace an additional 2.1 million tons of fossil fuel emissions per year (15).
Adaptation to climate and weather changes Urban forests enable cities to better adapt to the effect of climate change on temperature patterns and weather events. Cities are generally warmer than their surroundings (typically by about 1-2°C, though this difference can be as high as 10°C under certain climactic conditions (16, 17)), meaning that average temperature increases caused by global warming are frequently amplified in urban areas. Urban forests help control this "heat island" effect by providing shade and by reducing urban albedo (the fraction of solar radiation reflected back into the environment), and through cooling evapotranspiration (4, 10, 16). Cities are also particularly susceptible to climate-related threats such as storms and flooding. Urban trees can help control runoff from these by catching rain in their canopies and increasing the infiltration rate of deposited precipitation. Reducing stormwater flow reduces stress on urban sewer systems by limiting the risk of hazardous combined sewer overflows (18). Furthermore, well-maintained urban forests help buffer high winds, control erosion, and reduce drought (10, 18, 19).
Increased community resilience Urban forests provide critical social and cultural benefits that may strengthen community resilience to climate change. Street trees can hold spiritual value, promote social interaction, and contribute to a sense of place and family for local residents (21). Overall, forested urban areas appear to have potentially stronger and more stable communities (21). Community stability is essential to the development of effective long-term sustainable strategies for addressing climate change (22). For example, neighborhoods with stronger social networks are more likely to check on elderly and other vulnerable residents during heat waves and other emergencies (23).
Likely Changes
Urban forests help control the causes and consequences of climate-related threats. However, forests may also be negatively impacted by climate change.
Although increased CO2 levels and warmer temperatures may initially promote urban tree growth by accelerating photosynthesis, too much warming in the absence of adequate water and nutrients stresses trees and retards future development (24). Warmer winter temperatures increase the likelihood of winter kill, in which trees, responding to their altered environment, prematurely begin to circulate water and nutrients in their vascular tissue. If rapid cooling follows these unnatural warm periods, tissues will freeze and trees will sustain injury or death.
Warmer winter temperatures favor many populations of tree pest and pathogen species normally kept at low levels by cold winter temperatures (24). Although climate change may reduce populations of some species, many others are better able than their arboreal hosts to adapt to changing environments due to their short lifecycles and rapid evolutionary capacity (19, 24). The consequences of these population changes are compounded by the fact that hot, dry environments enrich carbohydrate concentrations in tree foliage, making urban trees more attractive to pests and pathogens (24).
Climate change alters water cycles in ways that impact urban forests. Increased winter precipitation puts urban forests at greater risk from physical damage due to increased snow and ice loading (25). Increased summer evaporation and transpiration creates water shortages often exacerbated by urban soil compaction and impermeable surfaces. More frequent and intense extreme weather events increase the likelihood of severe flooding, which may uproot trees and cause injury or death to tree root systems if waterlogged soils persist for prolonged periods (25).
Especially cold regions may benefit from increased tourism, agricultural productivity, and ease of transport as a result of climate change (3, 4). However, the potential positive implications of climate change are far eclipsed by the negative (3.c). Rising temperatures, increased pest and pathogen activity, and water cycle changes impose physiological stresses on urban forests that compromise forest ability to deliver ecosystem services that protect against climate change. Climate change will also continue to alter species ranges and regeneration rates, further affecting the health and composition of urban forests (20, 26). Proactive management is necessary to protect urban forests against climate-related threats, and to sustain desired urban forest structures for future generations.
Options for Management
City "climate action plans" often incorporate urban forestry into climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, recognizing that healthy trees and forests can strengthen a community’s ability to withstand and manage climate-related threats. Active urban forest management for climate change strengthens community resilience to climate change impacts (as well as other potential disasters), and creates more livable, desirable places to live, work and play.
Mitigation. Climate change mitigation in urban areas focuses primarily on reducing GHG emissions. Urban forest managers can help aid reductions efforts by preferentially allocating resources to trees that are more effective at mitigating emissions. Large-stature species with dense wood tend to store the most carbon (26), for instance, and trees of certain species may exhibit more desirable lifetime carbon capture-to-emissions ratios (27, 28). Maintaining tree canopy in perpetuity also sustains carbon storage within urban trees and forests and allows carbon to accumulate within urban soils. Urban soils in the United States are estimated to store approximately 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon (29).
Other effective mitigation strategies include strategically planting trees around buildings to promote energy efficiency, enlarging and improving planting sites to improve tree longevity and increase stormwater infiltration, and including trees in street improvement projects (28). Using wood in place of fossil-fuel intensive materials, such as steel and concrete, is also an important mitigation action. Wood, a renewable resource, sequesters atmospheric carbon as it grows; substituting wood products for fossil fuel-intensive alternatives in building construction thereby reduces net GHG emissions (30). Facilitating natural regeneration in cities where possible and working to reduce fossil fuel consumption associated with tree planting and maintenance also helps decrease emissions (27, 31, 32).
Adaptation. Incorporating climate resilience into tree planting and urban forest management plans helps improve the adaptive capacity of a community’s tree canopy. Planting a diverse mix of pest-tolerant, well-adapted, low-maintenance, long-lived, and drought-resistant trees ensures greater resilience (27, 28), while planting small groves of especially water-tolerant species in areas receiving peak volumes of stormwater runoff reduces flooding and pollutant transport (28). Establishing and adhering to a regular maintenance cycle can help protect cities from extreme weather events. Young trees must be pruned early and often to encourage development of strong branching structures that are less vulnerable to storm and wind damage, and hazardous or diseased trees must be removed (28). Although urban forests, like all other ecosystems, can never be totally invulnerable to climate change impacts, thoughtful management can improve resilience and help cities and communities better adapt to change.
Urban forest cover is a key mediating variable between climate change impacts and particularly vulnerable population demographics, such as the young, the elderly, and the poor. These populations often suffer disproportionate negative impacts from the multiple health hazards associated with climate change, especially when located near freeways, industry, rivers, landfills, and other areas with little green space. Developing a location-specific list of "climate smart" tree species and planting sites can serve as a useful first step towards increasing urban forest cover in these areas.
Local governance. Due to limited staff and budget resources, many cities rely on partnerships with private landowners, organized citizen groups, and nonprofit agencies in order to effectively manage urban ecosystems. In some areas, citizens participate in advisory commissions that provide input to local officials on policy and regulations governing urban forests. In others, partnerships promote innovative greening strategies that complement or augment existing programs (33, 34). Collaborative governance across traditional boundaries engages constituents, increases environmental and political awareness across generations, and enables communities to better address complex issues such as climate change (35, 36, 37).
Heat Island Effect: presents basic information on urban heat islands and the influence of trees on the heat island effect, including related research and demonstration projects.
Seattle reLeaf: portal for urban forestry in the city of Seattle, Washington. Site includes resources for community involvement, information on urban tree planting, care, and restoration, and the City’s urban forest management plan.
These summaries represent Forest Service research related to urban areas and climate change. More examples will be added as our Research Roundup is updated.
Assessment of disturbance impacts on U.S. forest carbon sequestration Researchers are estimating forest carbon lost due to hurricane and insect disturbances in order to produce more accurate estimates of carbon sequestration by U.S. forests. Equations created to estimate total forest carbon loss based on damage could be adapted in the future to project carbon loss due to any disturbance impact. Contact: Steve McNulty
Baltimore Ecosystem Study Studies on carbon dioxide concentration, CO2 and H2O flux, and the effects of multiple air pollutants on urban forests are being conducted in Baltimore. Urban conditions may represent possible future scenarios: elevated carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrogen deposition and elevated temperatures. A 40 m Forest Service lookout tower near Baltimore is used to conduct air quality and meteorological flux research. This is the first permanent tower to estimate carbon flux and carbon sequestration in an urban/suburban forest ecosystem. Metropolitan areas have an average tree cover of 33.4% (urban counties) and support 25% of the USA's total tree canopy cover, and their inclusion in climate models is essential for accuracy. Contact: John Hom
Comparison of Methods for Estimating Urban Forest Carbon Storage Elena Aguaron-Fuente and Greg McPherson authored a chapter in the book Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems. They found substantial variability in sequestration estimates produced by four methods-i Tree Streets, i-Tree Eco, the CUFR Tree Carbon Calculator, and Urban General Equations-and concluded that the latter could be used to produce conservative estimates from remotely sensed data compared to urban-based species-specific equations. Contact: E. Gregory McPherson
Effects of urban climate on land surface phenology Researchers are studying urban climate drivers and their effects on land surface phenology variation to determine if a higher urban index (level of "urbanness") affects specific aspects of forest vegetation timing and development. Results of this study may yield urban index thresholds which could be used by urban planners to avoid altering the development of urban forest vegetation. Contact: William Hargrove
Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide Trees sequester and store carbon in their tissue at differing rates and amounts based on such factors as tree size at maturity, life span, and growth rate. Concurrently, tree care practices release carbon back to the atmosphere based on fossil-fuel emissions from maintenance equipment (e.g., chain saws, trucks, chippers). Management choices such as tree locations for energy conservation and tree disposal methods after removal also affect the net carbon effect of the urban forest. Different species, decomposition, energy conservation, and maintenance scenarios were evaluated to determine how these factors influence the net carbon impact of urban forests and their management. If carbon (via fossil-fuel combustion) is used to maintain vegetation structure and health, urban forest ecosystems eventually will become net emitters of carbon unless secondary carbon reductions (e.g., energy conservation) or limiting decomposition via long-term carbon storage (e.g., wood products, landfills) can be accomplished to offset the maintenance carbon emissions. Management practices to maximize the net benefits of urban forests on atmospheric carbon dioxide are discussed. Contact: David J. Nowak
Impacts of Disturbances and Climate on Carbon Sequestration and Biofuels Currently, U.S. forests and forest products offset about 20% of the nation's fossil fuel emissions. However, recent findings cast doubt on the sustainability of this offset. First, the strength of the U.S. forest carbon offset may be weakening due to forest ageing, climate variability, and increasing natural disturbances. Second, climate change is expected to further increase frequencies of insect outbreaks and wildfire, and alter species composition in forest ecosystems, consequently influencing forest carbon pools in a significant way. These current and projected forest carbon cycle dynamics need to be considered in strategic forest planning and management decisions in coming decades if the nation's forests are to provide stable or even increasing ecosystem services. Contact: Yude Pan, Richard Birdsey
Technology development to support a national early warning system for environmental threats Scientists and collaborators have launched the ForWarn tool, the strategic research component of the national early warning system, to help natural resource managers rapidly detect, identify, and respond to unexpected changes in the nation’s forests. ForWarn produces maps showing potential forest disturbance across the conterminous United States at 231-meter resolution every 8 days, based on images obtained over the preceding 24-day analysis window. Contact: William Hargrove
Tree Growth and Longevity Working Group and Database An international research symposium held September 12-13, 2011 at the Morton Arboretum heralded a rousing start for this new group. The meeting brought 150 internationally renowned researchers and practitioners to learn the current state of knowledge concerning urban tree growth, mortality, and longevity, identify important gaps in our knowledge, discuss promising new methodologies, prioritize research and education needs, and outline a course of action for future research and outreach. Contact: E. Gregory McPherson
Updated US National Carbon Storage and Sequestration Estimates The latest research on urban forests in the United States reveals that urban whole tree carbon storage densities average 7.69 kg C per m2 of tree cover and sequestration densities average 0.28 kg C per m2 of tree cover per year. Total tree carbon storage in U.S. urban areas (c. 2005) is estimated at 643 million metric tons ($50.5 billion value; 95% CI = 597 million and 690 million metric tons) and annual sequestration is estimated at 25.6 million metric tons ($2.0 billion value; 95% CI = 23.7 million to 27.4 million metric tons). Estimates are presented by state and include the latest urban tree cover data and field data from urban areas across the United States. Contact: David J. Nowak
Urban Ecosystems and Social Dynamics Healthy urban forests have the ability to cut heating and air conditioning use, resulting in reduced costs and atmospheric emissions from power plants. Tree shade reduces air temperature and the amount of radiant energy absorbed and stored by built surfaces. Additionally, trees reduce the velocity of wind, slowing the infiltration of outside air. Research shows that properly selected, located, and managed trees can drastically reduce city and residential energy costs and lessen our reliance on new power plants. Contact: Greg McPherson
Urban Forests and CO2 Reduction Urban forests improve air quality by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and absorbing air pollutants. Trees can directly sequester carbon dioxide as woody and foliar biomass while they grow. Properly planted and managed trees can also reduce the need for heating and air conditioning, resulting in fewer emissions released into the atmosphere. A study of one Southwest region's six million trees reveals that the trees remove and store approximately 304,000 tons of atmospheric CO2, 12,000 tons of ozone, and 9,000 tons of particulates. Contact: Greg McPherson
Urban Forests and Climate Change: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Protocols PSW's Center for Urban Forest Research is leading a team in the development of greenhouse gas reporting protocols for urban forests. The Urban Forest Reporting Protocols will use state-of-the-art science from the Center for Urban Forest Research to provide cities, utilities, and other organizations with an opportunity to predict, measure, and verify the role of urban trees in fighting global climate change. Contact: Greg McPherson | Mitigation. Climate change mitigation in urban areas focuses primarily on reducing GHG emissions. Urban forest managers can help aid reductions efforts by preferentially allocating resources to trees that are more effective at mitigating emissions. Large-stature species with dense wood tend to store the most carbon (26), for instance, and trees of certain species may exhibit more desirable lifetime carbon capture-to-emissions ratios (27, 28). Maintaining tree canopy in perpetuity also sustains carbon storage within urban trees and forests and allows carbon to accumulate within urban soils. Urban soils in the United States are estimated to store approximately 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon (29).
Other effective mitigation strategies include strategically planting trees around buildings to promote energy efficiency, enlarging and improving planting sites to improve tree longevity and increase stormwater infiltration, and including trees in street improvement projects (28). Using wood in place of fossil-fuel intensive materials, such as steel and concrete, is also an important mitigation action. Wood, a renewable resource, sequesters atmospheric carbon as it grows; substituting wood products for fossil fuel-intensive alternatives in building construction thereby reduces net GHG emissions (30). Facilitating natural regeneration in cities where possible and working to reduce fossil fuel consumption associated with tree planting and maintenance also helps decrease emissions (27, 31, 32).
Adaptation. Incorporating climate resilience into tree planting and urban forest management plans helps improve the adaptive capacity of a community’s tree canopy. Planting a diverse mix of pest-tolerant, well-adapted, low-maintenance, long-lived, and drought-resistant trees ensures greater resilience (27, 28), while planting small groves of especially water-tolerant species in areas receiving peak volumes of stormwater runoff reduces flooding and pollutant transport (28). Establishing and adhering to a regular maintenance cycle can help protect cities from extreme weather events. | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | no_statement | "planting" "trees" cannot "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" does not "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.sciencenews.org/article/planting-trees-climate-change-carbon-capture-deforestation | Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to solve climate change | Share this:
Trees are symbols of hope, life and transformation. They’re also increasingly touted as a straightforward, relatively inexpensive, ready-for-prime-time solution to climate change.
When it comes to removing human-caused emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from Earth’s atmosphere, trees are a big help. Through photosynthesis, trees pull the gas out of the air to help grow their leaves, branches and roots. Forest soils can also sequester vast reservoirs of carbon.
Earth holds, by one estimate, as many as 3 trillion trees. Enthusiasm is growing among governments, businesses and individuals for ambitious projects to plant billions, even a trillion more. Such massive tree-planting projects, advocates say, could do two important things: help offset current emissions and also draw out CO2 emissions that have lingered in the atmosphere for decades or longer.
Can trees save the world?
Lately, society has been putting a lot of pressure on trees to get us out of the climate change emergency we’re in. There’s no doubt that trees make life better in many respects, but there are right ways and plenty of wrong ways to protect and grow the forests.
Even in the politically divided United States, large-scale tree-planting projects have broad bipartisan support, according to a spring 2020 poll by the Pew Research Center. And over the last decade, a diverse garden of tree-centric proposals — from planting new seedlings to promoting natural regrowth of degraded forests to blending trees with crops and pasturelands — has sprouted across the international political landscape.
Trees “are having a bit of a moment right now,” says Joe Fargione, an ecologist with The Nature Conservancy who is based in Minneapolis. It helps that everybody likes trees. “There’s no anti-tree lobby. [Trees] have lots of benefits for people. Not only do they store carbon, they help provide clean air, prevent soil erosion, shade and shelter homes to reduce energy costs and give people a sense of well-being.”
Conservationists are understandably eager to harness this enthusiasm to combat climate change. “We’re tapping into the zeitgeist,” says Justin Adams, executive director of the Tropical Forest Alliance at the World Economic Forum, an international nongovernmental organization based in Geneva. In January 2020, the World Economic Forum launched the One Trillion Trees Initiative, a global movement to grow, restore and conserve trees around the planet. One trillion is also the target for other organizations that coordinate global forestation projects, such as Plant-for-the-Planet’s Trillion Tree Campaign and Trillion Trees, a partnership of the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society and other conservation groups.
A carbon-containing system
Forests store carbon aboveground and below. That carbon returns to the atmosphere by microbial activity in the soil, or when trees are cut down and die.
Yet, as global eagerness for adding more trees grows, some scientists are urging caution. Before moving forward, they say, such massive tree projects must address a range of scientific, political, social and economic concerns. Poorly designed projects that don’t address these issues could do more harm than good, the researchers say, wasting money as well as political and public goodwill. The concerns are myriad: There’s too much focus on numbers of seedlings planted, and too little time spent on how to keep the trees alive in the long term, or in working with local communities. And there’s not enough emphasis on how different types of forests sequester very different amounts of carbon. There’s too much talk about trees, and not enough about other carbon-storing ecosystems.
Subscribe to Science News
Get great science journalism, from the most trusted source, delivered to your doorstep.
“There’s a real feeling that … forests and trees are just the idea we can use to get political support” for many, perhaps more complicated, types of landscape restoration initiatives, says Joseph Veldman, an ecologist at Texas A&M University in College Station. But that can lead to all kinds of problems, he adds. “For me, the devil is in the details.”
The root of the problem
The pace of climate change is accelerating into the realm of emergency, scientists say. Over the last 200 years, human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane, have raised the average temperature of the planet by about 1 degree Celsius (SN: 12/22/18 & 1/5/19, p. 18).
The world’s oceans and land-based ecosystems, such as forests, absorb about half of the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and other industrial activities. The rest goes into the atmosphere. So “the majority of the solution to climate change will need to come from reducing our emissions,” Fargione says. To meet climate targets set by the 2015 Paris Agreement, much deeper and more painful cuts in emissions than nations have pledged so far will be needed in the next 10 years.
We invest a lot in tree plantings, but we are not sure what happens after that.
Lalisa Duguma
But increasingly, scientists warn that reducing emissions alone won’t be enough to bring Earth’s thermostat back down. “We really do need an all-hands-on-deck approach,” Fargione says. Specifically, researchers are investigating ways to actively remove that carbon, known as negative emissions technologies. Many of these approaches, such as removing CO2 directly from the air and converting it into fuel, are still being developed.
But trees are a ready kind of negative emissions “technology,” and many researchers see them as the first line of defense. In its January 2020 report, “CarbonShot,” the World Resources Institute, a global nonprofit research organization, suggested that large and immediate investments in reforestation within the United States will be key for the country to have any hope of reaching carbon neutrality — in which ongoing carbon emissions are balanced by carbon withdrawals — by 2050. The report called for the U.S. government to invest $4 billion a year through 2030 to support tree restoration projects across the United States. Those efforts would be a bridge to a future of, hopefully, more technologies that can pull large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.
The numbers game
Earth’s forests absorb, on average, 16 billion metric tons of CO2 annually, researchers reported in the March Nature Climate Change. But human activity can turn forests into sources of carbon: Thanks to land clearing, wildfires and the burning of wood products, forests also emit an estimated 8.1 billion tons of the gas back to the atmosphere.
That leaves a net amount of 7.6 billion tons of CO2 absorbed by forests per year — roughly a fifth of the 36 billion tons of CO2 emitted by humans in 2019. Deforestation and forest degradation are rapidly shifting the balance. Forests in Southeast Asia now emit more carbon than they absorb due to clearing for plantations and uncontrolled fires. The Amazon’s forests may flip from carbon sponge to carbon source by 2050, researchers say (SN Online: 1/10/20). The priority for slowing climate change, many agree, should be saving the trees we have.
Forests in flux
While global forests were a net carbon sink of about 7.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year from 2001 to 2019, forests in areas such as Southeast Asia and parts of the Amazon began releasing more carbon than they store. Tap map to enlarge
Just how many more trees might be mustered for the fight is unclear, however. In 2019, Thomas Crowther, an ecologist at ETH Zurich, and his team estimated in Science that around the globe, there are 900 million hectares of land — an area about the size of the United States — available for planting new forests and reviving old ones (SN: 8/17/19, p. 5). That land could hold over a trillion more trees, the team claimed, which could trap about 206 billion tons of carbon over a century.
That study, led by Jean-Francois Bastin, then a postdoc in Crowther’s lab, was sweeping, ambitious and hopeful. Its findings spread like wildfire through media, conservationist and political circles. “We were in New York during Climate Week [2019], and everybody’s talking about this paper,” Adams recalls. “It had just popped into people’s consciousness, this unbelievable technology solution called the tree.”
To channel that enthusiasm, the One Trillion Trees Initiative incorporated the study’s findings into its mission statement, and countless other tree-planting efforts have cited the report.
But critics say the study is deeply flawed, and that its accounting — of potential trees, of potential carbon uptake — is not only sloppy, but dangerous. In 2019, Science published five separate responses outlining numerous concerns. For example, the study’s criteria for “available” land for tree planting were too broad, and the carbon accounting was inaccurate because it assumes that new tree canopy cover equals new carbon storage. Savannas and natural grasslands may have relatively few trees, critics noted, but these regions already hold plenty of carbon in their soils. When that carbon is accounted for, the carbon uptake benefit from planting trees drops to perhaps a fifth of the original estimate.
Trees are having a bit of a moment right now.
Joe Fargione
There’s also the question of how forests themselves can affect the climate. Adding trees to snow-covered regions, for example, could increase the absorption of solar radiation, possibly leading to warming.
“Their numbers are just so far from anything reasonable,” Veldman says. And focusing on the number of trees planted also sets up another problem, he adds — an incentive structure that is prone to corruption. “Once you set up the incentive system, behaviors change to basically play that game.”
Adams acknowledges these concerns. But, the One Trillion Trees Initiative isn’t really focused on “the specifics of the math,” he says, whether it’s the number of trees or the exact amount of carbon sequestered. The goal is to create a powerful climate movement to “motivate a community behind a big goal and a big vision,” he says. “It could give us a fighting chance to get restoration right.”
Other nonprofit conservation groups, like the World Resources Institute and The Nature Conservancy, are trying to walk a similar line in their advocacy. But some scientists are skeptical that governments and policy makers tasked with implementing massive forest restoration programs will take note of such nuances.
“I study how government bureaucracy works,” says Forrest Fleischman, who researches forest and environmental policy at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. Policy makers, he says, are “going to see ‘forest restoration,’ and that means planting rows of trees. That’s what they know how to do.”
Counting carbon
How much carbon a forest can draw from the atmosphere depends on how you define “forest.” There’s reforestation — restoring trees to regions where they used to be — and afforestation — planting new trees where they haven’t historically been. Reforestation can mean new planting, including crop trees; allowing forests to regrow naturally on lands previously cleared for agriculture or other purposes; or blending tree cover with croplands or grazing areas.
In the past, the carbon uptake potential of letting forests regrow naturally was underestimated by 32 percent, on average — and by as much as 53 percent in tropical forests, according to a 2020 study in Nature. Now, scientists are calling for more attention to this forestation strategy.
If it’s just a matter of what’s best for the climate, natural forest regrowth offers the biggest bang for the buck, says Simon Lewis, a forest ecologist at University College London. Single-tree commercial crop plantations, on the other hand, may meet the technical definition of a “forest” — a certain concentration of trees in a given area — but factor in land clearing to plant the crop and frequent harvesting of the trees, and such plantations can actually release more carbon than they sequester.
Comparing the carbon accounting between different restoration projects becomes particularly important in the framework of international climate targets and challenges. For example, the 2011 Bonn Challenge is a global project aimed at restoring 350 million hectares by 2030. As of 2020, 61 nations had pledged to restore a total of 210 million hectares of their lands. The potential carbon impact of the stated pledges, however, varies widely depending on the specific restoration plans.
Levels of protection
The Bonn Challenge aims to globally reforest 350 million hectares of land. Allowing all to regrow naturally would sequester 42 gigatons of carbon by 2100. Pledges of 43 tropical and subtropical nations that joined by 2019 — a mix of plantations and natural regrowth — would sequester 16 gigatons of carbon. If some of the land is later converted to biofuel plantations, sequestration is 3 gigatons. With only plantations, carbon storage is 1 gigaton.
Amount of carbon sequestered by 2100 in four Bonn Challenge scenarios
SOURCE: S.L. LEWIS ET AL/NATURE 2019; graphs: T. Tibbitts
In a 2019 study in Nature, Lewis and his colleagues estimated that if all 350 million hectares were allowed to regrow natural forest, those lands would sequester about 42 billion metric tons (gigatons in chart above) of carbon by 2100. Conversely, if the land were to be filled with single-tree commercial crop plantations, carbon storage drops to about 1 billion metric tons. And right now, plantations make up a majority of the restoration plans submitted under the Bonn Challenge.
Striking the right balance between offering incentives to landowners to participate while also placing certain restrictions remains a tricky and long-standing challenge, not just for combating the climate emergency but also for trying to preserve biodiversity (SN: 8/1/20, p. 18). Since 1974, Chile, for example, has been encouraging private landowners to plant trees through subsidies. But landowners are allowed to use these subsidies to replace native forestlands with profitable plantations. As a result, Chile’s new plantings not only didn’t increase carbon storage, they also accelerated biodiversity losses, researchers reported in the September 2020 Nature Sustainability.
The reality is that plantations are a necessary part of initiatives like the Bonn Challenge, because they make landscape restoration economically viable for many nations, Lewis says. “Plantations can play a part, and so can agroforestry as well as areas of more natural forest,” he says. “It’s important to remember that landscapes provide a whole host of services and products to people who live there.”
But he and others advocate for increasing the proportion of forestation that is naturally regenerated. “I’d like to see more attention on that,” says Robin Chazdon, a forest ecologist affiliated with the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia as well as with the World Resources Institute. Naturally regenerated forests could be allowed to grow in buffer regions between farms, creating connecting green corridors that could also help preserve biodiversity, she says. And “it’s certainly a lot less expensive to let nature do the work,” Chazdon says.
Indeed, massive tree-planting projects may also be stymied by pipeline and workforce issues. Take seeds: In the United States, nurseries produce about 1.3 billion seedlings per year, Fargione and colleagues calculated in a study reported February 4 in Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. To support a massive tree-planting initiative, U.S. nurseries would need to at least double that number.
A tree-planting report card
From China to Turkey, countries around the world have launched enthusiastic national tree-planting efforts. And many of them have become cautionary tales.
China kicked off a campaign in 1978 to push back the encroaching Gobi Desert, which has become the fastest-growing desert on Earth due to a combination of mass deforestation and overgrazing, exacerbated by high winds that drive erosion. China’s Three-North Shelter Forest Program, nicknamed the Great Green Wall, aims to plant a band of trees stretching 4,500 kilometers across the northern part of the country. The campaign has involved millions of seeds dropped from airplanes and millions more seedlings planted by hand. But a 2011 analysis suggested that up to 85 percent of the plantings had failed because the nonnative species chosen couldn’t survive in the arid environments they were plopped into.
A woman places straw in March 2019 to fix sand in place before planting trees at the edge of the Gobi Desert in China’s Minqin County. Her work is part of a private tree-planting initiative that dovetails with the government’s decades-long effort to build a “green wall” to hold back the desert.WANG HE/GETTY IMAGES PLUS
More recently, Turkey launched its own reforestation effort. On November 11, 2019, National Forestation Day, volunteers across the country planted 11 million trees at more than 2,000 sites. In Turkey’s Çorum province, 303,150 saplings were planted in a single hour, setting a new world record.
Within three months, however, up to 90 percent of the new saplings inspected by Turkey’s agriculture and forestry trade union were dead, according to the union’s president, Şükrü Durmuş, speaking to the Guardian (Turkey’s minister of agriculture and forestry denied that this was true). The saplings, Durmuş said, died due to a combination of insufficient water and because they were planted at the wrong time of year, and not by experts.
Some smaller-scale efforts also appear to be failing, though less spectacularly. Tree planting has been ongoing for decades in the Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh in northern India, says Eric Coleman, a political scientist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, who’s been studying the outcomes. The aim is to increase the density of the local forests and provide additional forest benefits for communities nearby, such as wood for fuel and fodder for grazing animals. How much money was spent isn’t known, Coleman says, because there aren’t records of how much was paid for seeds. “But I imagine it was in the millions and millions of dollars.”
Coleman and his colleagues analyzed satellite images and interviewed members of the local communities. They found that the tree planting had very little impact one way or the other. Forest density didn’t change much, and the surveys suggested that few households were gaining benefits from the planted forests, such as gathering wood for fuel, grazing animals or collecting fodder.
But massive tree-planting efforts don’t have to fail. “It’s easy to point to examples of large-scale reforestation efforts that weren’t using the right tree stock, or adequately trained workforces, or didn’t have enough investment in … postplanting treatments and care,” Fargione says. “We … need to learn from those efforts.”
Speak for the trees
Forester Lalisa Duguma of World Agroforestry in Nairobi, Kenya, and colleagues explored some of the reasons for the very high failure rates of these projects in a working paper in 2020. “Every year there are billions of dollars invested [in tree planting], but forest cover is not increasing,” Duguma says. “Where are those resources going?”
Trees can buy time for tech testing
If done right, planting trees might give researchers time to develop some of these carbon-capture technologies.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration
Plant biomass is used to produce electricity, fuel or heat. Any CO2 released is captured and stored.
Direct air capture
Chemical processes that capture CO2 from ambient air and concentrate it, so that it can be injected into a storage reservoir.
Carbon mineralization
Through chemical reactions, CO2 from the atmosphere becomestrapped in existing rock.
Geologic sequestration
CO2 is captured and injected into deep underground formations.
images: T. Tibbitts
In 2019, Duguma raised this question at the World Congress on Agroforestry in Montpellier, France. He asked the audience of scientists and conservationists: “How many of you have ever planted a tree seedling?” To those who raised their hands, he asked, “Have they grown?”
Some respondents acknowledged that they weren’t sure. “Very good! That’s what I wanted,” he told them. “We invest a lot in tree plantings, but we are not sure what happens after that.”
It comes down to a deceptively simple but “really fundamental” point, Duguma says. “The narrative has to change — from tree planting to tree growing.”
The good news is that this point has begun to percolate through the conservationist world, he says. To have any hope of success, restoration projects need to consider the best times of year to plant seeds, which seeds to plant and where, who will care for the seedlings as they grow into trees, how that growth will be monitored, and how to balance the economic and environmental needs of people in developing countries where the trees might be planted.
“That is where we need to capture the voice of the people,” Duguma says. “From the beginning.”
Even as the enthusiasm for tree planting takes root in the policy world, there’s a growing awareness among researchers and conservationists that local community engagement must be built into these plans; it’s indispensable to their success.
“It will be almost impossible to meet these targets we all care so much about unless small farmers and communities benefit more from trees,” as David Kaimowitz of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization wrote March 19 in a blog post for the London-based nonprofit International Institute for Environment and Development.
For one thing, farmers and villagers managing the land need incentives to care for the plantings and that includes having clear rights to the trees’ benefits, such as food or thatching or grazing. “People who have insecure land tenure don’t plant trees,” Fleischman says.
The old cliché — think globally, act locally — may offer the best path forward for conservationists and researchers trying to balance so many different needs and still address climate change.
“There are a host of sociologically and biologically informed approaches to conservation and restoration that … have virtually nothing to do with tree planting,” Veldman says. “An effective global restoration agenda needs to encompass the diversity of Earth’s ecosystems and the people who use them.”
Trustworthy journalism comes at a price.
Scientists and journalists share a core belief in questioning, observing and verifying to reach the truth. Science News reports on crucial research and discovery across science disciplines. We need your financial support to make it happen – every contribution makes a difference.
From the Nature Index
Science News was founded in 1921 as an independent, nonprofit source of accurate information on the latest news of science, medicine and technology. Today, our mission remains the same: to empower people to evaluate the news and the world around them. It is published by the Society for Science, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) membership organization dedicated to public engagement in scientific research and education (EIN 53-0196483). | The world’s oceans and land-based ecosystems, such as forests, absorb about half of the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and other industrial activities. The rest goes into the atmosphere. So “the majority of the solution to climate change will need to come from reducing our emissions,” Fargione says. To meet climate targets set by the 2015 Paris Agreement, much deeper and more painful cuts in emissions than nations have pledged so far will be needed in the next 10 years.
We invest a lot in tree plantings, but we are not sure what happens after that.
Lalisa Duguma
But increasingly, scientists warn that reducing emissions alone won’t be enough to bring Earth’s thermostat back down. “We really do need an all-hands-on-deck approach,” Fargione says. Specifically, researchers are investigating ways to actively remove that carbon, known as negative emissions technologies. Many of these approaches, such as removing CO2 directly from the air and converting it into fuel, are still being developed.
But trees are a ready kind of negative emissions “technology,” and many researchers see them as the first line of defense. In its January 2020 report, “CarbonShot,” the World Resources Institute, a global nonprofit research organization, suggested that large and immediate investments in reforestation within the United States will be key for the country to have any hope of reaching carbon neutrality — in which ongoing carbon emissions are balanced by carbon withdrawals — by 2050. The report called for the U.S. government to invest $4 billion a year through 2030 to support tree restoration projects across the United States. Those efforts would be a bridge to a future of, hopefully, more technologies that can pull large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.
| yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | no_statement | "planting" "trees" cannot "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" does not "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/12/27/35-ways-reduce-carbon-footprint/ | The 35 Easiest Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint ... | The 35 Easiest Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
In the face of the recent National Climate Assessment report on the threats of climate change, the Trump administration continues to try to roll back environmental policies. Individuals, however, can make a difference by reducing their personal greenhouse gas emissions. While there are many ways to do this and save energy—such as insulating your home, putting up solar panels, and planting trees—the following are the simplest and easiest changes you can make. They require little effort or financial investment.
First calculate your carbon footprint
Your carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases and others—that you produce as you live your life. The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project determined that in order to hold the global temperature rise to 2˚C or less, everyone on earth will need to average an annual carbon footprint of 1.87 tons by 2050. Currently, the average U.S. per capita carbon footprint is 18.3 tons. By comparison, China’s per capita carbon emissions are 8.2 tons. We all have a ways to go to get to 1.87 tons.
Calculate your carbon footprint at carbonfootprint.com to find out how you’re doing. The EPA’s carbon footprint calculator can show how much carbon and money you will save by taking some of these steps.
Here are some of the easiest ways you can start to shrink your carbon footprint.
Food
1. Eat low on the food chain. This means eating mostly fruits, veggies, grains, and beans. Livestock—meat and dairy—is responsible for 14.5 percent of manmade global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from feed production and processing and the methane (25 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over 100 years) that beef and sheep belch out. Every day that you forgo meat and dairy, you can reduce your carbon footprint by 8 pounds—that’s 2,920 pounds a year. You can start by joining Meatless Mondays.
2. Choose organic and local foods that are in season. Transporting food from far away, whether by truck, ship, rail or plane, uses fossil fuels for fuel and for cooling to keep foods in transit from spoiling.
3. Buy foodstuffs in bulk when possible using your own reusable container.
Clothing
6. Don’t buy fast fashion. Trendy, cheap items that go out of style quickly get dumped in landfills where they produce methane as they decompose. Currently, the average American discards about 80 pounds of clothing each year, 85 percent of which ends up in landfills. In addition, most fast fashion comes from China and Bangladesh, so shipping it to the U.S. requires the use of fossil fuels. Instead, buy quality clothing that will last.
8. Wash your clothing in cold water. The enzymes in cold water detergent are designed to clean better in cold water. Doing two loads of laundry weekly in cold water instead of hot or warm water can save up to 500 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
Shopping
9. Buy less stuff! And buy used or recycled items whenever possible.
10. Bring your own reusable bag when you shop.
11. Try to avoid items with excess packaging.
12. If you’re in the market for a new computer, opt for a laptop instead of a desktop. Laptops require less energy to charge and operate than desktops.
13. If shopping for appliances, lighting, office equipment or electronics, look for Energy Star products, which are certified to be more energy efficient.
Home
15. Do an energy audit of your home. This will show how you use or waste energy and help identify ways to be more energy efficient.
16. Change incandescent light bulbs (which waste 90 percent of their energy as heat) to light emitting diodes (LEDs). Though LEDs cost more, they use a quarter of the energy and last up to 25 times longer. They are also preferable to compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) bulbs, which emit 80 percent of their energy as heat and contain mercury.
17. Switch lights off when you leave the room and unplug your electronic devices when they are not in use.
18. Turn your water heater down to 120˚F. This can save about 550 pounds of CO2 a year.
20. Lower your thermostat in winter and raise it in summer. Use less air conditioning in the summer; instead opt for fans, which require less electricity. And check out these other ways to beat the heat without air conditioning.
21. Sign up to get your electricity from clean energy through your local utility or a certified renewable energy provider. Green-e.org can help you find certified green energy providers.
Transportation
Because electricity increasingly comes from natural gas and renewable energy, transportation became the major source of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2017. An average car produces about five tons of CO2 each year (although this varies according to the type of car, its fuel efficiency and how it’s driven). Making changes in how you get around can significantly cut your carbon budget.
22. Drive less. Walk, take public transportation, carpool, rideshare or bike to your destination when possible. This not only reduces CO2 emissions, it also lessens traffic congestion and the idling of engines that accompanies it.
23. If you must drive, avoid unnecessary braking and acceleration. Some studies found that aggressive driving can result in 40 percent more fuel consumption than consistent, calm driving.
24. Take care of your car. Keeping your tires properly inflated can increase your fuel efficiency by three percent; and ensuring that your car is properly maintained can increase it by four percent. Remove any extra weight from the car.
25. When doing errands, try to combine them to reduce your driving.
26. Use traffic apps like Waze to help avoid getting stuck in traffic jams.
27. On longer trips, turn on the cruise control, which can save gas.
28. Use less air conditioning while you drive, even when the weather is hot.
29. If you’re shopping for a new car, consider purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle. But do factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the car as well as its operation. Some electric vehicles are initially responsible for more emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles because of manufacturing impacts; but they make up for it after three years. This app rates cars based on their mileage, fuel type and emissions from both the production of the car and, if they are EVs, from generating the electricity to run them.
Air travel
30. If you fly for work or pleasure, air travel is probably responsible for the largest part of your carbon footprint. Avoid flying if possible; on shorter trips, driving may emit fewer greenhouse gases.
32. Fly nonstop since landings and takeoffs use more fuel and produce more emissions.
33. Go economy class. Business class is responsible for almost three times as many emissions as economy because in economy, the flight’s carbon emissions are shared among more passengers; first class can result in nine times more carbon emissions than economy.
34. If you can’t avoid flying, offset the carbon emissions of your travel.
Carbon offsets
A carbon offset is an amount of money you can pay for a project that reduces greenhouse gases somewhere else. If you offset one ton of carbon, the offset will help capture or destroy one ton of greenhouse gases that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. Offsets also promote sustainable development and increase the use of renewable energy.
This calculator estimates the carbon emissions of your flight and the amount of money needed to offset them. For example, flying economy roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles produces 1.5 tons of CO2; it costs $43 to offset this carbon.
You can purchase carbon offsets to compensate for any or all of your other carbon emissions as well.
The money you pay goes towards climate protection projects. Various organizations sponsor these projects. For example, Myclimate funds the purchase of energy efficient cookstoves in Rwanda, installing solar power in the Dominican Republic, and replacing old heating systems with energy efficient heat pumps in Switzerland. Cotap sustainably plants trees in India, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda and Nicaragua to absorb CO2; you can sign up for monthly offsets here. Terrapass funds U.S. projects utilizing animal waste from farms, installing wind power, and capturing landfill gas to generate electricity. It also offers a monthly subscription for offsets.
Get politically active
35. Finally—and perhaps most importantly since the most effective solutions to climate change require governmental action—vote! Become politically active and let your representatives know you want them to take action to phase out fossil fuels use and decarbonize the country as fast as possible.
I do agree with you Kalpna, the richest people use an average of 1000x times more (the richer the more they use), since they have mansions (requires a lot more power), boats, private aeroplanes etc. Their Co2 emissions are through the roof, so carbon tax for the rich (especially ultra rich) would go a huge way to offsetting their extravagant lifestyles and the world in general and wouldn’t even impact them hardly at all.
Gee, I wonder how they got a million dollars, oh wait, because they work. And give others work. And TAX THEM? For what, they work hard and give others work and raising taxes is not ther answer, but lowering them is. But i guess its nice to have inflation and poverty, because of CO2. (My humble opinion.
Humble is down to Earth, not exploiting others for the sake of acquiring more to fill one’s voracious consumerism habits. Taxing a high carbon consumption lifestyle sounds responsible and humble to me and I think it spiritually solid to create a carbon tax on all that we do to help bring our awareness and consumerism disease to a more humble place.
Paying for your mistakes doesnt solve the problem. The biggest contributors pay so that people in poor countries end up changing their habits and end up planting more trees to compensate for the habits of the rich. This is not just nor climate justice. The perpetrators need to change their habits, their governments should govern their spending habits better.
Yeah, there should be rules for emitting Co2 (like your electric reading shouldn’t be above a reasonable number) or there’ll be fines. Taxes will be for the extra emitters, like the rich people. Taxes depend on their wealth and how much they emit.
Agreed. Taxes these days are getting harder to pay and by the time I’m dead, we will probably still have a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But then again, some things DO need carbon dioxide to live.
PGE CA is starting to make customers more aware of electric usage via monthly comparisons of your home’s usage versus more acceptable usage based on a number of specifications. Rates are also increasing based on when it’s more expensive to use during a 24 hour period. Our high rate time is 4-9PM
All these rich people don’t even care about this Earth. I mean Jeff Bezos went to space! Vladimir Putin has a yacht that’s roughly 2 million dollars. AND THEY DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. They could be helping their home, but children(or people who have been rich their whole lives) don’t understand anything about poverty. And they never will. We need to make a change for the better of humankind.
I totally agree. But also I think you mean $200 million. $2mill wouldn’t even pay for yearly upkeep for super yachts. I know as my friend works on one, and the maintenance costs are over $10mill per year 🙂 Peace.
In your list of “ways to reduce your carbon footprint” I notice that you forgot to mention the single most important thing a family can do: have one fewer children. Do I sense fear of stating the unpopular?
Popular or not, you may be wrong because people are both the cause of and solution to all their problems. People are not wolves. With wolves and chickens, the more wolves: the fewer chickens, and the fewer wolves: the more chickens. With people, it is just the opposite: the more people you get more chickens not less. That extra kid may contribute to sustainablility.
I see your viewpoint. If one is living sustainably and encourages other people to do so, the benefits of that person living on the planet (through getting other people to reduce their environmental impact) likely exceeds the personal carbon footprint of that person.
Family pet = meat production? Benefits of pets is tremendous – safety, assist handicapped, therapy animals, provide comfort and companionship, reduce blood pressure and anxiety, etc
.If you are referring to the fact that they eat pet foods, most pet foods are made from meat scraps (parts not sold for human consumption) and include vegetables.
Also, changes in feed for farm animals has reduced gas emissions.
Lol you all are all for less babies but not for less pets. Lord the internet is funny.
How about we start raising our children to be more earth friendly?? How about we expect companies ( including pet food) to produce in ways that are good for the environment? Why do we need to get rid of kids or pets?
I guess this is an old thread, but birds for instance eat the same things as their vegan owners. We had broccoli spears, edamame beans, a few pasta rotinis, a few spoons of corn kernals, and the parrot had some organic Harrison feed pellets with vitamins, plus a splay of fresh pea pods. I had mung dahl on quinoa later on with kale, he had another round of pellets for dinner, apple juice and pea pods. Parrots need adopting, if anyone wants a good pet, check your computer for parrot rescue or exchange sites. Lots of loving companions that need homes….and they like what we like to eat….bananas and oranges, but mostly local stuff, zuccini and corn this time of year and into fall.
They fear underpopulation spesifically, which is already a danger in places like China & Europe, where the elderly outnumber anyone under 12
Reply
Emma
4 years ago
Thanks for the tips. However, #32 which advises non-stop flying is unlikely to be true most of the time as non- stop flights tend to burn large quantities of fuel carrying the additional fuel mass. In general a 50/50 split is the most fuel efficient way to take a long flight.
Maybe we should consider adding one more idea. #36. Save carbon rich material from turning into CO2. Reduce your carbon footprint by keeping dead plant around longer. A leaf falls on the ground and is decomposed this year. I dry a leaf and put it a book and can be there in 100 years.
Your point about eating less meat, er maybe even going full vegan is incorrect. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter one thing what you eat. Meat might be responsible for more greenhouse gasses, but for vegitarians they cut down millions of acres of forest eacht year to provide the room to grow their crops (Just look at the soy farms in Brazil and the palm olive fields in Malaysia). Deforestation causes far more greenhouse gas emission than cattle, and it also takes away the only means by which CO2 can be removed from the air. This problem is caused by overpopulation, not meat.
We can both agree that deforestation is a big problem for climate change. However, it takes 12 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef. It is therefore much more efficient, and requires less land and deforestation, if we just eat the grain itself. It’s like cutting out the middleman, only the middleman = cows 🙂
cows can and do eat grass. Grass is a huge CO2 sink. Buy grass fed. Broccoli will use more land and give you less nutrition. Hooved animals walked this earth in large numbers before humans concentrated them in fences and farms.
Solution could be to stop over eating, veg or meat and stop wasting food. I think food industry should also be penalized. One of the culprits in my opinion are supermarkets. They buy cheap and more and waste a lot as their pricing takes wasting into account. Local govt should monitor and penalize if they waste food items and simultaneously reduce the expiry date of the food items, this will deter industry to mass produce anything edible. These are scalable and I believe would be very effective.
I’m an Ag student and I’m actually doing some research for an Ag Issues project for FFA and I noticed that you might be thinking of this the wrong way. I grew up on a commercial cattle ranch and I obviously agree with you that cutting out meat isn’t the way to go. Growing up in a rural farmland area and being a member of FFA I have always thought of the crop industry and the cattle/meat industry as a united industry: the Agricultural Industry. But I of course realize that not everyone has this experience. I don’t know if this is going to make much sense but what I’m trying to say is that this issue is not CROPS vs. MEAT. We as the agricultural industry raise cattle for dairy and meat products AND we grow the crops necessary for people who choose to be either vegan or vegetarian. It’s not really two separate industries that are competing for your attention, it’s only one. I cannot say anything about other places like Brazil and Malaysia but here in the United States, the agricultural industry is CONSTANTLY working to improve our methods of farming and ranching to emit less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I would also like to say that I am slightly disappointed in an institution like Columbia University for blaming climate change on cattle burping methane into the atmosphere. Cows do burp methane into the atmosphere, this is true, but what people always seem to forget is that this is a part of the natural carbon cycle. Key word there: NATURAL. These cattle have been doing this since the beginning of ranching methods and before that, the hundreds of thousands of Bison that used to roam the great plains did the same thing. We cannot blame cattle for doing what they are designed to do. Anyway, sorry for rambling on, hope that this possibly helped someone.
Acarnes, this is really poor logic. Cows do “naturally” produce GHGs. But we have 94.8 million cows in the US. That’s almost 1 cow for every 3 people. There is nothing natural about industrial agriculture, and quantity of the GHG source is more important than whether or not it existed in some capacity pre-industrialization. As someone mentioned above, it takes 12 lbs of grain to make 1 lb of beef (not to mention water!). If more people move to substitute more plants for beef, you can feed the same amount of people with less cows, as that 12 lbs of grain can feed more people than 1 lb of beef. This clearly reduces carbon footprint, as it reduces overall consumption and agricultural production per person. This may not be in your best interests as someone going into the Ag industry, which I’m sure informs some of your opinion there, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Only 6% of the crop grown on land cleared in Brazil for soya production, goes to feed people. 94% goes to feed animals and chickens to provide food for meat eaters. It takes much less land to feed people directly with plant food than it would to grow the food to feed the animals with which to feed those people. If we all are a vegetarian or vegan diet we would need less land and more could be left as wild forest to absorb and store carbon.
Hi Patric, I definitely see what you are saying with regards to Soy production. Indonesian and Malaysian Rainforest are cut down for both palm oil and soy production. This accounts for around 10% of the problem each, which is still a significant proportion. Beef production, however, is 85% of the problem and a lot of Soy Beans are grown as cattle feed as grazing ground is not possible without the rainforest. This means that beef and dairy production are the huge contributors to climate change as they also include a vast proportion of the requirement for soy. If veganism isn’t for you, you’d be better to switch to white meats such as chicken as they take up less physical space and require less logging or land degradation than beef production (but still have greater carbon and ethical implications than a vegan diet).
Lancet studies in England put out a study. We cannot save the planet unless we stop herding beef. Cows grow for 2 years minimum before industrial harvesting=a lot of methane farts and belches. Ruminants. The study showed less beef and less lamb on the plates of the world to save the planet. Also think of all the heart surgery from grease in our blood vessels these days. Less beef, then less colon cancer too, better health. The surgeon general in the US has stated it, but cattlemen won’t let the warning be printed on the meat packages. Eating red meat has been proved to be hazardous to human health. Lobbyists deny the truth. Big meat is full of toxic material in the animal fat, and big fish too. The meat eaters make vegans pay for their medical bills, which are enormous. Japanese eat dolphin which is loaded with mercury.
It took 150 million years to create the rain forest in Brazil. They should grow river turtles, not cattle, if they want meat in the Amazon. Cows weren’t meant to live on rich fertile forest land, trees live there and have rights to the soil they created via vegetation. It takes 1,000 gallons of water to make a pound of beef meat. Meat eater’s clothing is so hard to clean that maids must make hot, hot water and use lots of toxic soaps.
Why not just live clean? Lots of good nuts and apples to harvest. Tropical people are happy with bananas and peas, pineapple and all that juicy variety. They hardly eat the meat they grow on the fields they have created from destroyed forests. Rice is almost the divine of foods, with ginger and turmeric. Some beans and squash keep the soil good, and healthy soil grows all kinds of fruits and trees. We need good soil.
Cows eat too much before slaughter. If you must eat animal, better to eat rabbits and turtles, frog’s legs and snails. Use some locust “meat” to make your burgers. People can eat sea urchins that overpopulate the shores. People could fish them with a knife. Pig farms will have to close too. All that pollution and putrid decayed matter pigs produce will at last be gone. Farms were once sacred to nature. Soil was fertile, and so plentiful was food. The world was an Eden which will return. Nature has always favored that which really sustains her. There is enough vegan matter to feed all the billions of folks alive today, but it isn’t sourced out well. Too many meat eaters eat too much of it. Almost all of it … via the large industrial cow farms.
Patric, I agree with you at a certain point: Brazil, has and keeps the world largest green are. Only 8% of its territory is used to produce meat, beans, coconuts farms and so on. It is the only country in the world that does somethong to keep his green area. I know about it, I lived 20 years in South America and I know how tough they are regarding keeping their green amazon. I used to work for the government, I used to work with territory planning and development of sustainable activities such as economics based o local vocation and load capacity of the environment.
Hello there! Terrific points about energy conservation and carbon footprint reductions. Props to the author(s)!
I happen to run a blog devoted to renewables and energy efficiency and thought one of my articles about energy audit tools might be useful to your readers if you incorporate it in this article.
Lots of options. Get a programmable thermostat and set it so that you are comfortable but not crazy hot or cold; seal air leaks in your home; add insulation; don’t leave doors & windows open when running furnace or AC; reduce the temperature setting of your hot water heater to 120 F; choose to live close to where you work and shop so that you can walk, ride a bike, or take public transit; show up at public meetings to advocate for mixed use zoning, higher density zoning, public transit; choose renewable energy if your state/city allows you to choose your electricity supplier; eat a bit less beef, switching to a bit more poultry and/or grains, beans, veggies; buy less stuff – take care of what you own, make it last a long time, reuse, repair, use reusable water bottles and coffee cups, don’t waste $ on flashy objects that end up not really bringing you joy. No doubt you and others can think of even more options.
The point is, we don’t need to live hard, cruel lives of depravation to reduce our carbon footprints. A lot can be accomplished through thoughtful choices.
I know people who keep the heat at 80 and wear a T-shirt around inside when its 20 degrees out. Its a reasonable sacrifice to make to live at a comfortable 65, and if you can’t handle that, Goodwill has sweaters for cheap.
Going politically active doesn’t necessarily lower your carbon footprint, it can force the entire country’s carbon footprint down, and as a result, yours. For example, if you voted for a law to shut down a coal powered power plant and replace it with a solar or wind farm, you would be cutting down on an entire organization’s carbon footprint, and not just your own.
not a scientist or anything, but in order to produce single-use plastic bags they have to use crude oil and this produces a lot of greenhouse gases/carbon emissions, and they only get used once! with reusable cloth bags (sometimes people have reusable bags made of other materials), it has a different amount of emissions produced (generally less, if it’s cloth and not plastic) and then this also pays off because you aren’t producing more emissions each time you go shopping because you can reuse the bag. But someone mentioned that cars use more crude oil than a plastic bag, which is true, so walk/ride to the grocery store, or make sure you are running other errands at the same time in order to not waste fuel or anything 🙂 (and buy an EV if u can!)
hello, i am in 4rth grade, and my idea is that we try to get things that will fill the landfill, so when we don’t buy them, they will go to the landfill. when we buy fancy cloths, that is wasting water, which is not good, but old cloths are used, so you are not using new ones!
Desktops are plugged in so can use whatever power they like and function well.
Laptops need to be portable so the longer the battery life, the better. Therefore, a laptop needs to be more eco to increase their sales as people buy laptops with longer battery life.
But you also need to put in mind the performance. If loading a video on a laptop takes 2 hours to upload on a desktop it might take only 45min. Desktops have an amazing performance. Also on a desktop, you can put it in performance mode where the ratios are equwielent.
Just came upon this site in search of ways I can reduce my own carbon footprint and found some good ideas that I will try to implement. I have found that corporations, in their search of profits, tend to move their manufacturing off shore to jurisdictions where there are little or no environmental rules and then import these products back to western countries. I believe that we need a Carbon Footprint Tax on goods imported from polluting countries and that this tax be dedicated solely to reducing national carbon footprints eg. Converting coal fired generating plants to gas etc. Not sure how feasible this concept would be but it would be a way to entice polluting countries to clean up their own environmental practices. As we are having our federal elections this month in Canada I will be visiting each candidate in my riding to suggest this idea.
Reply
Patrica Pattington
3 years ago
what does getting politically active have to do with my carbon footprint ?
Going politically active doesn’t necessarily lower your carbon footprint, it can force the entire country’s carbon footprint down, and as a result, yours. For example, if you voted for a law to shut down a coal powered power plant and replace it with a solar or wind farm, you would be cutting down on an entire organization’s carbon footprint, and not just your own.
Reply
Anonymous
3 years ago
I do my part and after reading this article, I feel my husband and I definitely exceed these points. We hardly go out, so therefore we are not driving, we shower twice a week, we wash clothes on cold, (we don’t have that many loads because we don’t go out so therefore it’s basically pjs and underwear we are washing, we haven’t travelled in 18 years, we hardly eat meat, (we don’t eat much as it is), we do not buy clothing and use the clothes we have whether they are worn out or not, where we live, (Hudson Valley, no one cares what you look like), so therefore we are not getting rid of 80 tons of clothes a year. We sit in the dark at night, we hardly watch tv, we don’t use our computers. I’m 53 and he’s 69. We basically stopped living. However, what are your thoughts on pellet stoves to heat the home? We live in a trailer.
Reply
Cameron
3 years ago
Thank you so much i needed this ◕‿◕
Reply
Kella
3 years ago
This is a helpful article and thank you. I am curious, at the institutional level, what are top tier schools like Columbia doing to demonstrate their commitment to going green? Limiting staff air travel, requiring alternating in office and WFH staff schedules, etc. These institutions are leading the charge in thought, which is incredibly important, but are they also implementing these ideas more broadly?
Good Information on carbon footprints reduction.
Actually everybody is nowadays aware that how to reduce the carbon footprints, but the question is? are we really honest in following the same?
Lets commit that we will do atleast our part and if everyone will do his part… than the mother earth will be green and healthy!
Reply
Josh
2 years ago
I disagree with the suggestion to buy a laptop over a desktop, a laptop has a much lower life cycle and is not easily upgradable. If you got a desktop instead, while you might use more electricity, it is better due to avoiding more computer parts being thrown away. Desktops being upgradeable means you can swap parts that need to be upgraded instead of buying a whole new system everytime it becomes unusable. For example a monitor does not become unusable at the same rate as a CPU, but by getting a laptop you end up getting a new monitor everytime you get a new system despite the older one being perfectly fine.
Thanks for sharing! Avoiding flying is hard. But the pandemic has had a huge impact on air travel and we are seeing more and more of our clients (honeymooners) take road trips. Hopefully this has helped reduce their carbon footprint.
Stop shopping at Trader Joe’s. Most of their packaged goods are made in Turkey, China, Vietnam, Bulgaria, etc. Orange carrot juice made in Turkey in glass bottles shipped to your local TJ’s and sold for 2.99 is a carbon disaster. TJ’s is mostly frozen dinners, highly packaged and processed foods, many with artificial flavoring and colors, high sodium and sugar and non-local produce wrapped individually in plastic and stryofoam. Walmart has better governance and transparency. Avoid Trader Joe’s at all costs.
Reply
stevie
2 years ago
thank you for helpimg me on a assinment i am going to make the world a better place
Reply
Mya
2 years ago
growing your own food and owning a few chickens is a really good way to help I think. Usually eggs from commercial farms are mass produced and are less quality.
The healthcare system is full of high consumption (huge industry sector, single use everything, high energy resources.). I’m grateful resources exist but it’s best to consciously live the best you can in hopes of needing it as little as possible.
Reply
Eau
2 years ago
Animal feed is now being used that produces less methane in cows.
Btw, if you get breast cancer, the first thing you are told is do NOT eat soy. Many products include soy; oils labeled ‘vegetable oil’ are often 100% soy.
Also, not kidding: we tried plant based ‘fake meat’ and we had indigestion and gas for days.
Let’s go with Gore’s plan – less people. Not sure how he plans to achieve that.
Reply
Eau
2 years ago
Al gore has done really well with this ‘carbon offset’ business. He went from being worth $2 mil to hundreds of millions. His house in Nashville uses huge amounts of energy.
oh shoot guys this is a major problem.
we have to…..
CHANGE
it’s so nice people care about this subject, soon all we’re gonna here about is this.
Reply
Payton Fritz
2 years ago
i think everyone should start to be more observant and have more respect for the things and people that put this world into shape. I also think pollution is one of the main problems and some people can fix that but chose not too and it has damaged our world.
Reply
Mark Bell
2 years ago
no one Ever Looks at a Shark and Tells Him That he is Destroying the Environment By Eating Other Fish. So Why do People Look At Meat Eaters and Say we Destroy The Environment?
I agree with all these things, but the 8.7 tons per capita is misleading for china as china has ~1.3 billion people inside their nation while America only has ~350 million, If you don’t know per capita is basically per person. So while china may have a lower per capita they have 3 times more people. if china had the same amount of people as the united states it would equate to ~32.3 tons per capita, giving them a much higher per capita than the U.S.
Reply
Tyler Scicluna
2 years ago
To say myself, I think this will help our planet during COVID and to increase the population of endangered creatures.
Reply
Marian Chamberlain
1 year ago
Great information. Thanks.
Reply
Angela T. Cannavo
1 year ago
I’m in the midst of reading the article right now. SO GLAD TO HAVE FOUND U!!! I only recently heard on NPR that residential homes emit more carbon than I ever knew about and am madly trying to learn of all of the ways that we can contribute for the good of the climate. Am very excited to hear this news. Thank you all so much for being there and for the work that you all are doing!
You can’t say everyone “Must” go vegan. It is healthy to eat meat and other stuff, not everyone can be vegan it can make people sick if they were raised eating meat. Same with vegetables if someone who was raised eating vegetables then meat may make them sick. All though neither meat or vegetable community is wrong. Though I find it rude for you to say “Everyone must go vegan” I do support you for being vegan 🙂
Topics
Research Centers & Programs
Authors
Archives
State of the Planet is a forum for discussion on varying viewpoints. The opinions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Earth Institute or Columbia University.
This website uses cookies as well as similar tools and technologies to understand visitors' experiences. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's usage of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice.Close | If you offset one ton of carbon, the offset will help capture or destroy one ton of greenhouse gases that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. Offsets also promote sustainable development and increase the use of renewable energy.
This calculator estimates the carbon emissions of your flight and the amount of money needed to offset them. For example, flying economy roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles produces 1.5 tons of CO2; it costs $43 to offset this carbon.
You can purchase carbon offsets to compensate for any or all of your other carbon emissions as well.
The money you pay goes towards climate protection projects. Various organizations sponsor these projects. For example, Myclimate funds the purchase of energy efficient cookstoves in Rwanda, installing solar power in the Dominican Republic, and replacing old heating systems with energy efficient heat pumps in Switzerland. Cotap sustainably plants trees in India, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda and Nicaragua to absorb CO2; you can sign up for monthly offsets here. Terrapass funds U.S. projects utilizing animal waste from farms, installing wind power, and capturing landfill gas to generate electricity. It also offers a monthly subscription for offsets.
Get politically active
35. Finally—and perhaps most importantly since the most effective solutions to climate change require governmental action—vote! Become politically active and let your representatives know you want them to take action to phase out fossil fuels use and decarbonize the country as fast as possible.
I do agree with you Kalpna, the richest people use an average of 1000x times more (the richer the more they use), since they have mansions (requires a lot more power), boats, private aeroplanes etc. Their Co2 emissions are through the roof, so carbon tax for the rich (especially ultra rich) would go a huge way to offsetting their extravagant lifestyles and the world in general and wouldn’t even impact them hardly at all.
Gee, I wonder how they got a million dollars, oh wait, because they work. And give others work. And TAX THEM? | yes |
Conservation | Can planting trees offset carbon emissions? | no_statement | "planting" "trees" cannot "offset" "carbon" "emissions".. the "planting" of "trees" does not "offset" "carbon" "emissions". | https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/what-is-a-carbon-offset/ | What is a Carbon Offset? - Carbon Offset Guide | What is a Carbon Offset?
The terms carbon offset and carbon offset credit (or simply “offset credit”) are used interchangeably, though they can mean slightly different things. A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions – or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through land restoration or the planting of trees) – that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2, or an equivalent amount of other GHGs (see Text Box, below). The purchaser of an offset credit can “retire” it to claim the underlying reduction towards their own GHG reduction goals.
The key concept is that offset credits are used to convey a net climate benefit from one entity to another. Because GHGs mix globally in the atmosphere, it does not matter where exactly they are reduced.[1] From a climate change perspective, the effects are the same if an organization: (a) ceases an emission-causing activity; or (b) enables an equivalent emission-reducing activity somewhere else in the world. Carbon offsets are intended to make it easier and more cost-effective for organizations to pursue the second option.
Establishing a common denomination for different greenhouse gases
CO2 is the most abundant GHG produced by human activities, and the most important pollutant to address for limiting dangerous climate change. However, human beings create and emit numerous other GHGs, most of which have a far greater heat-trapping effect, pound for pound, than CO2. The most prevalent of these gases are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Fully addressing climate change will require reducing emissions of all GHGs. Scientists and policymakers have established “global warming potentials” (GWPs) to express the heat-trapping effects of all GHGs in terms of CO2-equivalents (annotated as “CO2e”). GWPs are defined for different time horizons, to account for differences in the residence time of different gases in the atmosphere. By convention, all carbon offset credits certified under established standards are denominated using 100-year GWPs. This makes is easier to compare the effects of different GHGs and to denominate carbon offset credits in units of CO2-equivalent emission reductions. | What is a Carbon Offset?
The terms carbon offset and carbon offset credit (or simply “offset credit”) are used interchangeably, though they can mean slightly different things. A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions – or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through land restoration or the planting of trees) – that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2, or an equivalent amount of other GHGs (see Text Box, below). The purchaser of an offset credit can “retire” it to claim the underlying reduction towards their own GHG reduction goals.
The key concept is that offset credits are used to convey a net climate benefit from one entity to another. Because GHGs mix globally in the atmosphere, it does not matter where exactly they are reduced.[1] From a climate change perspective, the effects are the same if an organization: (a) ceases an emission-causing activity; or (b) enables an equivalent emission-reducing activity somewhere else in the world. Carbon offsets are intended to make it easier and more cost-effective for organizations to pursue the second option.
Establishing a common denomination for different greenhouse gases
CO2 is the most abundant GHG produced by human activities, and the most important pollutant to address for limiting dangerous climate change. However, human beings create and emit numerous other GHGs, most of which have a far greater heat-trapping effect, pound for pound, than CO2. The most prevalent of these gases are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Fully addressing climate change will require reducing emissions of all GHGs. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://myplantin.com/blog/best-indoor-plants-that-dont-need-sunlight | Best Indoor Plants That Don't Need Sunlight | Best Indoor Plants That Don’t Need Sunlight
There’s something special about plants in our houses. They give us comfort and make our space more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention their ability to purify the air. Mostly we place plants somewhere where they can get enough bright indirect or direct sunlight. But what to do if you want to make the dark corners of your house more alive? Lucky for you, we have prepared a list of 15 houseplants that don’t need sun!
Best Tall Indoor Plants for Low Light
Snake plant
Snake plant is popular for various reasons; it’s beautiful and an excellent air purifier. The Snake plant doesn’t need too much attention; neglect isn’t a problem either, so it's generally a godsend for people who don’t have much time. It’s known for being extremely adaptable so that you can place it even in the darkest corner, and it will thrive. Water the plant every two weeks (in warmer seasons) and reduce it monthly during winter.
Choose well-drained, loose potting mixes, and pay attention to sandy soils. Potting mixes for succulent plants will be a great choice as well. The most optimal temperature range is between 70-90˚F (21-32˚C), and it can be harmful if temps drop below 50˚F (10˚C). It’s infrequent for this plant to bloom, but when it does, it has a lot of gentle, small white flowers that grow in clusters.
Dumb Cane (Dieffenbachia)
This tropical plant with broad and bright green leaves can tolerate low light. Such conditions will make its growth slower but won’t affect the plant’s health and appearance. Be careful with this green pet as it is poisonous and might harm children or animals if ingested. The best strategy for watering is to make it regular, but not too much.
Dumb Cane prefers well-draining soil with a significant amount of peat. Since this plant is tropical and fond of warmth, a temperature range between 62-80˚F (16-27˚C) is the most suitable. Its flowering occurs rarely, and its bloom is rather inconspicuous and somehow reminds Peace Lily’s flowers.
Monstera
It feels like everyone is obsessed with this plant because of its beauty. And the fact that Monstera is so easy to take care of is an excellent addition to its appearance. It generally prefers indirect bright light, but it won’t mind a low amount of it. Water the plant only when most of the soil is dry.
Ligh soil mixes with peat moss, pine bark, and perlite are the best options for this green beauty. The most suitable temperature range is 60-80˚F (16-27˚C), and in no case, it should be lower than 55˚F (13˚C). Monstera blooms only in its natural habitat or in a place that mimics its natural surroundings, so it’s rare luck to have it blooming at home.
Indoor trees that don’t need light
Janet Craig
This plant is so unpretentious that it will thrive in almost any condition. Low light isn’t a problem for it all, making this plant suitable for nearly any location. Janet Craig can tolerate many things, but soggy soil isn’t one of them, so be careful with watering. Loose and well-draining potting mixes are the best for this plant, and you can also add perlite or gravel. Temperatures of 65-80˚F (18-27˚C) work well for Dracaena. Finally, this species blooms with large white flowers that aren’t only pretty but also fragrant.
Dragon Tree
This plant can be placed literally anywhere because it’s tolerant of low-light conditions. But sometimes, lack of light affects its coloration and pace of growth. In a low-light location, Dragon trees also need less water. The best strategy for watering is to check the topsoil. If it’s dry, then it needs water. Well-draining loamy soil will optimize the development of the plant.
Keep the temperatures between 70-80˚F (21-27˚C). Also, this plant is fond of humidity, so if the air is dry, mist it every few days. Interestingly, this plant needs seven to fifteen years to produce flowers.
Rubber Tree
This tropical plant is unusually tolerant to low light because of its adaptability. But remember, low light doesn’t mean any light at all. It’s better to locate it in a room with windows. When it comes to watering, once a week is enough. And before the next watering, let the top layer of the soil dry out. Well-draining and well-aerating potting mix is the key to making the Rubber plant thrive. Avoid cold drafts and temperatures below 55˚F (13˚C) with this plant; the most suitable temperature range is 75-80˚F (24-27˚C) (during the day) and 60-65˚F (16-18˚C) (at night). This plant is theoretically capable of producing flowers, but it happens very rarely.
Other plants that don’t need sunlight indoor
Spider plant
Spider plants can be considered houseplants that don’t need sun. Well, for optimal growth, this plant needs bright indirect sunlight, but low light isn’t a big deal for it since it’s so adaptable. Water it once a week in spring and summer and less in winter. This plant can adapt to almost every potting medium, but well-draining, loamy, and moist soil is the best.
As for temperatures, the Spider plant can abide even 35˚F (2˚C), but low temperatures will affect its growth, so the best range is between 70-90˚F (21-32˚C). Spider plant blooms with tiny white flowers located at the end of the stems, so there is a chance to observe its pretty bloom.
Bromeliads
In their native habitat, tropical bromeliads prefer shady areas. And this means that they are suitable for low light conditions, especially Vrieseas, Nidularium, and Guzmania genera. But at the same time, they require a higher level of humidity, so water them once a week and keep the soil slightly moist but not soggy.
Choose a well-draining potting mix for these species. These plants are very adaptable to different temperatures. However, the range between 70-90˚F (21-32˚C) (during the day) and 50-65˚F (10-18˚C) (during the night) is the best. Bromeliads’ bloom is a beautiful bonus to their spectacular foliage, but these plants flower only once during their lifespan.
Aglaonema (Chinese Evergreen)
Aglaonema is a houseplant that doesn’t need sun. It is the right decision if you want to make darker rooms of your apartment more colorful. Water it only when the top of the soil is dry, and give preference to well-draining potting mixes.
The temperature should be kept between 70-85˚F (21-29˚C) during the day and about 60-75˚F (16-24˚C) at night. Aglainema’s flowers remind the ones that Peace Lily has, but they are not flashy at all.
ZZ plant
These plants do very well in bright indirect sunlight, but at the same time, they are the best plants for rooms without windows. If you are a serial plant killer, try ZZ because it can survive without water for months! Water it only when the substrate dries out completely. In low-light environments, modest watering once a week is just enough.
Proper drainage is vital for the ZZ plant, so choose well-draining potting mixes. Substrates for succulents will suit best. In areas with average humidity, the best temperature range for this plant is from 60-70˚F (16-21˚C). Even though these plants are considered flowering ones, they rarely produce flowers. And if they do, their bloom is tiny and almost unnoticeable.
Pothos
In terms of lighting, Pothos isn’t picky at all! You can place it even in the bathroom, and it will thrive. These plants are prone to overwatering, o use a rule of thumb and check the soil before pouring water. Pothos is also undemanding regarding the soil it grows, but we would recommend sticking to a universal potting mix. This plant is hardy and adaptable to different temperatures, but the best range is 70-90˚F (21-32˚C). Indoors, the species doesn’t tend to flower, but it is compensated by its stunning foliage.
Maidenhair Fern
Some ferns can be considered plants that don’t need sunlight indoors, for example, button fern, rabbit’s foot, Autumn fern, etc. And Maidenhair is one of such shade-loving green pets. It grows under the shade of trees in its natural habitat, so indoors, you need to mimic such conditions. To be in good shape, this plant needs regular watering. Never let the soil dry out completely. This delicate fern needs a well-draining potting mix that should be kept evenly moist.
Maidenhair fern, a house plant that doesn’t need sun, loves humidity and warmth, so the best temperatures are above 70˚F (21˚C). As for flowers, ferns can bloom only in Eastern-European folklore, but in real life, they reproduce via spores.
Ivy
This plant’s assertive nature and beauty made it famous because it can cover the ground and climb 80 ft high! So no space is wasted with ivy. Since ivies can grow everywhere, they are considered good house plants for low light, especially Algerian and English varieties. This plant isn’t problematic, but don’t forget to water it once a week. Choose well-draining and loose soil for this houseplant, and keep the temperatures from 65 to 85˚F (18-29˚C). In fall, mature ivy produces small flowers of green and white colors.
Fragrant indoor plants for low light
Mint
Since this herb prefers shade, it is an excellent choice for growing indoors under low-light conditions. In general, these small indoor plants that don’t need sunlight to have a beautiful fragrance and are so easy to grow. Watering is the key to success as mint likes moist substrate. Water it when the topsoil is dry and keep the soil evenly moist.
Thinking about the potting mix, the best option is to mix equal amounts of peat, sand, and perlite, but mint can be grown even in a bottle of water! To make the plant grow fast, keep the temps of 65-70˚F (18-21˚C) during the day and 55-60˚F (13-16˚C) at night. Mint has tiny fair purplish flowers, and it blooms when the plant is ready for reproducing.
Peace Lily
If you want to buy indoor flower plants that don’t need sunlight, then Peace lily will be there for you! This plant will make any dark corner more cheerful due to its low-light tolerance. And also, its white flowers have a light and pleasant aroma. This houseplant enjoys regular watering – once a week is enough, but it can reduce to every two weeks in winter.
Loose and rich potting soil with loam, perlite, peat moss, and coir is a recommendation for this species. The best temperature range is between 68-85˚F (20-29˚C) during the day, and it can be slightly cooler at night. Healthy Peace Lily will delight you with an elegant bloom twice a year.
FAQ
Are there indoor plants that don’t require sunlight?
As you noticed when reading this article, there are a lot of plants that grow indoors without sunlight. However, none of the plants can live without light at all as they are dependent on photosynthesis.
Which plants can grow without sunlight?
Many mentioned plants do well without sunlight, especially Spider plants, Pothos, Peace lily, Snake plants, and various ferns.
What plants are good for rooms with no light?
The most suitable one is the Spider plant. Ivy, Snake plant, Maidenhair fern, and Peace lily will also feel well in such conditions.
Do Snake plants need light?
This plant is very adaptable to harsh conditions, and lack of light isn’t a problem for it. But when it receives more indirect bright light, it starts growing faster.
How do indoor plants survive without sunlight?
Dark and shady rainforests are natural environments for a bunch of plants. They are used to such conditions because of evolutionary adaptations, making them suitable for growing in low-light rooms.
Our plant identifier with database of more than 17,000 species is also the best place to Ask the Botanist, get plant watering recommendations, adjust your plant care schedule, try disease identification, and much more! | To make the plant grow fast, keep the temps of 65-70˚F (18-21˚C) during the day and 55-60˚F (13-16˚C) at night. Mint has tiny fair purplish flowers, and it blooms when the plant is ready for reproducing.
Peace Lily
If you want to buy indoor flower plants that don’t need sunlight, then Peace lily will be there for you! This plant will make any dark corner more cheerful due to its low-light tolerance. And also, its white flowers have a light and pleasant aroma. This houseplant enjoys regular watering – once a week is enough, but it can reduce to every two weeks in winter.
Loose and rich potting soil with loam, perlite, peat moss, and coir is a recommendation for this species. The best temperature range is between 68-85˚F (20-29˚C) during the day, and it can be slightly cooler at night. Healthy Peace Lily will delight you with an elegant bloom twice a year.
FAQ
Are there indoor plants that don’t require sunlight?
As you noticed when reading this article, there are a lot of plants that grow indoors without sunlight. However, none of the plants can live without light at all as they are dependent on photosynthesis.
Which plants can grow without sunlight?
Many mentioned plants do well without sunlight, especially Spider plants, Pothos, Peace lily, Snake plants, and various ferns.
What plants are good for rooms with no light?
The most suitable one is the Spider plant. Ivy, Snake plant, Maidenhair fern, and Peace lily will also feel well in such conditions.
Do Snake plants need light?
This plant is very adaptable to harsh conditions, and lack of light isn’t a problem for it. But when it receives more indirect bright light, it starts growing faster.
How do indoor plants survive without sunlight?
| no |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://www.proflowers.com/blog/plants-that-dont-need-sun | 18 Plants that Don't Need Sun | 18 Plants that Don't Need Sun
It’s great to let the sun shine in every once in a while, but some (or all!) parts of our home might not have the opportunity to welcome in the sun’s rays. We can mostly remedy a lack of natural light with lamps and other lights, but many houseplants need direct sunlight to survive. A simple solution is to furnish your sun-deprived rooms with plants that don’t need sun.
Low-light houseplants are great for spots in a room that need touches of green, but might not have enough direct sunlight for most plants to survive. All of the plants below can thrive with indirect light and the majority of them can thrive with artificial light.
Take a look at our list of 18 plants that don’t need sun, and pick the best greenery for your home. Then, shop with ProFlowers and have your favorite indoor plants delivered today. You can even get 20% off your order right now when you sign up with email (at the top of this page on desktop, and the bottom of this page on mobile)! Our selection has many of the plants you’ll find in our list below, including:
Best Plants That Don’t Need Sun
1. Bromeliad (Bromeliaceae)
Bromeliads are tropical plants that usually come with vibrant pops of color. Their unique look and tropical feel make them a top houseplant choice. Bromeliads look best on shelves, on tabletops or even on the floor, depending on the species.
Most bromeliad species prefer bright indirect sunlight as opposed to direct light. Indirect light means that the sun is not directly hitting the plant. An example of direct light would be if your plant were outside directly under the sun, or if you placed your plant next to an open window with the sun shining directly on it. Extended exposure to full sun can damage a bromeliad’s leaves. It’s best to keep it near, but not directly in front of, a window. Bromeliads can also thrive on fluorescent lighting if natural light is not available.
2. Chinese Evergreen (Aglaonema)
Chinese evergreen plants are easy to grow and are among the many indoor plants that don’t need sunlight. Many people say it’s a great plant to start with if you’re new to caring for houseplants. Older Chinese evergreen produce flowers that look similar to calla lilies and look best on the floor next to furniture and filling in open spaces in the home. Younger Chinese evergreen are compact enough for desk, tabletop and shelf décor. These plants also made it to NASA’s list of air-filtering houseplants, so Chinese evergreen plants are both easy to care for and healthy choices for your home!
The Chinese evergreen’s specific sun needs depend on the colors of its leaves. Generally, if you have a plant with darker leaves, your specific plant prefers low light. Varieties with lighter-colored leaves like pink or orange prefer medium light. Like many other plants on this list, Chinese evergreen should not be placed in direct sunlight to avoid scorched leaves.
3. Cast Iron Plant (Aspidistra elatior)
The cast iron plant is also commonly referred to as the iron plant because of its hardy nature. It can survive a wide variety of conditions that make it a top choice for black thumbs and busy plant owners. Its rich green leaves are perfect for accenting any corners of the room that need a natural touch.
Cast irons are low-light plants that can survive almost anywhere in your home. They are slow to grow, but also really hard to kill. The only requirement is to keep them away from direct sunlight in order to keep their leaves from getting scorched or turning brown. If you want to give your cast iron plant some extra care, wipe down its leaves once a week with a damp cloth to keep the dust off. Clean leaves allow it to more easily take in the sun and all of its nutrients.
4. Dracaena (Dracaena)
The dracaena is a common houseplant that’s easy to care for in your home. This plant comes in many varieties and looks great on shelves, tabletops and as floor decor. The larger varieties, like the dracaena massangeana, have a tree-like look and work especially well as floor decor.
Dracaenas grow best in bright, indirect light, but can survive in low and medium light if needed. Dracaena’s are also among the top air-purifying plants that can filter out the toxins in your home. Take a look at our dracaena care guide to learn more in-depth information about caring for your dracaena.
5. Dumb Cane (Dieffenbachia)
Dumb canes are beautiful plants that are commonly found adorning both homes and office spaces. They are called dumb canes because all parts of the plant are poisonous. Therefore, this plant should be kept away from pets and children. It can cause swelling and other problems if consumed and can cause itching if its sap touches the skin. When handled properly with minimal contact, this plant’s danger is minimized.
Dumb canes can thrive between low and high filtered light depending on the species. Filtered light refers to sunlight that shines through something else like a sheer curtain or a window. Most species can survive on low filtered light, but may not continue to grow depending on the variety. Double-check what species your dumb cane is to see what type of light it prefers.
6. English Ivy (Hedera helix)
English ivy are beautiful climbing plants that can turn any drab wall into a fresh work of art. Ivy is also great on trellises, fences and other places that allow its vines to grow. However, keep in mind that the vines do take a couple years to grow if you’re growing from seed.
English ivy prefer bright indirect light, but can tolerate low light. The more light this ivy gets, the more beautiful color will show through its leaves. However, direct light can lead to its demise. Many other ivy varieties like the pothos listed below also work well in indirect light and shady spots.
7. Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum)
Maidenhair ferns are elegant plants that elevate any room, but are also very easy to kill! That being said, the beautiful leaves and overall look of this plant are more than worth the extra work. Many fern varieties, like the Boston fern and bird’s nest fern, thrive well in indirect sunlight.
Maidenhair ferns like indirect, bright light and are easily affected by direct sunlight. They also prefer high humidity and do not like dry soil, so they must be moist, but not overly-watered to avoid root rot. These plants also prefer distilled water over hard water (a.k.a. water that usually comes from the sink).
8. Parlor Palm (Chamaedorea elegans)
Parlor palms are lush plants that are great for your dining room or living room. Owning a parlor palm in the Victorian era was an indication of a family’s affluence. Although not as exclusive in today’s world, the parlor palm still brings a sophisticated feel to any room it occupies.
Parlor palms can grow in low light, but grow the best in medium light. They also prefer shadier areas instead of bright areas, so you don’t have to worry about keeping them too close to a window. Parlor palms can even thrive with artificial light if needed.
Shop Best Selling Plants
9. Peace Lily (Spathiphyllum)
Contrary to popular belief, a peace lily is not a true lily at all. The white “petal” is actually a leaf bract that grows around the yellow flower. Take a closer look the next time you see one! Standard peace lilies can grow between 24 to 40 inches, so they are mostly used as floor décor.
Peace lilies enjoy low to medium light and can also thrive on fluorescent light. The more light the peace lilies receive, the more likely they are to produce white flowers. They can thrive in areas with less light, but are much less likely to flower. The peace lily is also one of the best plants to purify the air. Take a look at our peace lily care guide to learn more in-depth information about caring for your peace lily.
10. Peacock Plant (Calathea makoyana)
The peacock plant is known by many names: cathedral windows, rattlesnake plant or zebra plant. These names originate from its beautiful foliage that some say resembles the beauty of a peacock’s feathers. Peacock plants are known for being very showy and for being particular with their care. They prefer humid temperatures, distilled or rain water and moist (but not damp) soil.
Peacock plants prefer low to medium light and can experience sad leaves with an excess of direct light. Pale markings on the leaves are a sign of too much sun for this plant. When shopping around for a peacock plant, its best to pick a healthier species and to avoid smaller plants with brown leaves. You’ll have more success raising a healthy peacock plant if you start with a healthy one.
11. Peperomia (Peperomia)
Peperomia are smaller plants that can make a nice green splash on your desk or table. There are more than 1000 varieties of peperomias found mainly in South and Central America. These plants prefer dry soil and can withstand a few days of missed watering thanks to their thick leaves. The leaves come in colors like gray, red, cream and green.
These plants prefer bright, indirect light and can still flourish under fluorescent lights. Peperomias can also prosper in partially shaded areas if necessary. Avoid direct light to deter burnt leaves.
12. Philodendron (Philodendron)
Philodendrons are most known for their lively foliage and distinct look. The heartleaf philodendron specifically is a hardy plant that can withstand most conditions with minimal care, including low light. Philodendrons come in climbing and non-climbing varieties and can grow as tall as three feet and as wide as six feet with proper care.
All species of philodendrons prefer bright, indirect light and can also thrive in partial shade. Be wary if your philodendron begins to have long and skinny stems with long gaps between the leaves. This is a sign that your philodendron is not getting enough light and should be moved to a brighter area. Take a look at our philodendron care guide to learn more in-depth information about caring for your philodendron.
13. Pothos (Epipremnum aureum)
Pothos plants are great beginning plants for anyone who is just starting their plant care journey. These plants can grow beautiful, long vines that are great for accenting walls and creating a tropical feel in any room. Due to this, they’re best grown as hanging plants or potted on a desk.
Pothos plants prefer medium indoor light, but can live in low light. Too much direct light can turn their leaves yellow, while a lack of light will make their beautiful leaves turn pale. Take a look at our pothos care guide to learn more in-depth information about caring for your pothos.
14. Prayer Plant (Maranta leuconeura)
When night falls, the prayer plant’s leaves become folded like hands prepared to pray. This plant is commonly known for its pink veins and oval leaves. Prayer plants look beautiful in hanging baskets thanks to their unique leaves.
Prayer plants prefer bright, indirect light, but can tolerate low light. However, if it does not get enough light during the day, the leaves will close in the evening and will not reopen. This plant’s leaves will also begin to fade if it does not get enough light. It prefers high humidity and moist soil.
15. Snake Plant (Sansevieria trifasciata)
Snake plants are also known as mother in law’s tongue. It’s suggested that this nickname comes from the leave’s sharp point. Its striped color earned its name as a “snake” plant because it slightly resembles a snake’s skin. They are visibly tall plants and hardy enough to withstand the most forgetful plant parent. Snake plants can hold up their sturdy look even with a few weeks of neglect.
Snake plants can tolerate a wide range of light conditions, but prefer indirect light. They easily rot, so it’s important to let their soil dry between waterings. Take a look at our snake plant care guide to learn more in-depth information about caring for your snake plant.
16. Spider Plant (Chlorophytum comosum)
Spider plants have long and skinny foliage that arch out from its roots. Its leave resemble the legs of a spider. Spider plants are also sometimes referred to as spider ivy and ribbon plant. These plants can produce small white flowers when cared for correctly sprout spiderettes, or baby spider plants that can be repotted to grow more spider plants.
Spider plants prefer bright, indirect sunlight and can thrive without much natural light. These plants can thrive in areas with a mix of fluorescent and natural light. Spider plants can sometimes have browning leaves. This is a result of exposure to fluoride in water. Watering with distilled or rain water can help deter browning and keep your plant nice and green.
17. Staghorn Fern (Platycerium)
Staghorn ferns are extravagant plants that are a tad picky when it comes to its living conditions. Other nicknames for the staghorn fern include antelope ears and elkhorn fern. The staghorn fern is perfect if you want a low-light plant with a unique aesthetic.
These plants prefer bright, indirect or filtered light and do not like direct sun. This plant cannot survive with artificial light, so its best to place it wherever you get the most natural sunlight without placing it directly in the way of the sun’s rays. Just like several high-maintenance plants on this list, it prefers moist, but not overly damp soil.
18. ZZ Plant (Zamioculcasi)
The ZZ plant is one of the hardiest plants around and is nearly impossible to kill. Its lush foliage and tough nature make it one of the best plants for anyone in desperate need of some green. It also has waxy looking leaves that give it a nice shine. It’s a great plant to have if you want to decorate an empty spot in your home or need another friend to add to your houseplant collection.
The ZZ plant thrives the most in bright, indirect light, but can live in very low light. It can also tolerate areas with no natural light and minimal amounts of fluorescent lights. It does not like direct light and will begin to have yellow, curling leaves if it takes in too much light.
If you’re still unsure if your plant can survive, you can always test out different spots in your home to see how it reacts. If the leaves starts to have dark, brown or dried-out leaves, then your plant is getting too much sun and should be moved to a shadier area. If the leaves are small and pale while the plant seems to have stunted growth, its not getting enough sun and should be moved to a brighter area if possible. If you feel that your plant might need extra help, take a look at our guide to reviving a dying plant so you can quickly nurse your plant back to good health.
Now that you know about some plants that don’t need sun and tips for caring for each of them, you should take a look at our guide to the best houseplants for every room to get an idea of how you can add the right touches of green to your home.
Sign Up For Tips & Get 20% Off On Your First Order
Get the latest Proflowers tips and special offers planted straight in your inbox. | 18 Plants that Don't Need Sun
It’s great to let the sun shine in every once in a while, but some (or all!) parts of our home might not have the opportunity to welcome in the sun’s rays. We can mostly remedy a lack of natural light with lamps and other lights, but many houseplants need direct sunlight to survive. A simple solution is to furnish your sun-deprived rooms with plants that don’t need sun.
Low-light houseplants are great for spots in a room that need touches of green, but might not have enough direct sunlight for most plants to survive. All of the plants below can thrive with indirect light and the majority of them can thrive with artificial light.
Take a look at our list of 18 plants that don’t need sun, and pick the best greenery for your home. Then, shop with ProFlowers and have your favorite indoor plants delivered today. You can even get 20% off your order right now when you sign up with email (at the top of this page on desktop, and the bottom of this page on mobile)! Our selection has many of the plants you’ll find in our list below, including:
Best Plants That Don’t Need Sun
1. Bromeliad (Bromeliaceae)
Bromeliads are tropical plants that usually come with vibrant pops of color. Their unique look and tropical feel make them a top houseplant choice. Bromeliads look best on shelves, on tabletops or even on the floor, depending on the species.
Most bromeliad species prefer bright indirect sunlight as opposed to direct light. Indirect light means that the sun is not directly hitting the plant. An example of direct light would be if your plant were outside directly under the sun, or if you placed your plant next to an open window with the sun shining directly on it. Extended exposure to full sun can damage a bromeliad’s leaves. It’s best to keep it near, but not directly in front of, a window. Bromeliads can also thrive on fluorescent lighting if natural light is not available.
2. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://www.livspace.com/in/magazine/6-plants-that-can-grow-without-sunlight | Top 9 Low Light Indoor Plants That Grow Without Sunlight in India | Speckle your home with greenery and bring yourself close to nature with our pick of low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight. These low-maintenance plants are tailor-made to suit your busy lives as they can thrive in indirect sunlight and don’t need regular pruning or watering. So, with these varieties of low light and no light indoor plants, you can decorate just about any corner of the home — hallways, basements, balconies and windows that don’t get any sun — without worry.
#1: Mother-In-Law’s Tongues are No Light Indoor Plants
Low-maintenance mother-in-law’s tongue also purifies indoor air
This plant earns its unique name because of the sharp edges of its leaves. If you are wondering which plant can grow without sunlight, then your first stop should be these popular plants. Not only does it grow exceptionally well without sunlight, it also purifies the air at home. Standing stiff and tall, it stores water in its foliage. So be careful not to over water the plant as the roots can rot. However, avoid this plant if you have pets at home as ingesting this can upset their stomachs. Also wear gloves when moving these low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight to prevent possible minor skin irritations.
#2: Lucky Bamboo Plants That Don’t Need Sun
One of the travellers’ favourite indoor plants without sunlight
Although it is not a bamboo plant, the lucky bamboo instantly captures hearts with its mini, bonsai-like proportions. They are especially suitable for zen-like minimalist interiors and are commonly sold in two ways — potted in soil or suspended in water. According to feng shui, the lucky bamboo plants attract auspicious energy, depending on the number of stalks clumped together. These low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight are available in various sizes to suit any corner of your home. Be sure to water it only when the soil feels dry to touch.
#3: Peace Lilies are Indoor Plants Without Sunlight
These low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight are symbolic of peace
These are yet another variety of plants that don’t need sun and purify the air at the same time. However, the peace lily does need regular watering. Also, this indoor plant has to be kept away from direct light as its leaves can get damaged. Follow these simple steps and enjoy your peace lilies as they flourish and lend a calm ambiance to your home. You can also find more desk-top indoor plants without sunlight like the peace lily from These Plants Will Make You Want to Work.
#4: Thriving Spider Plants Without Sunlight
Popular ornamental house plants that periodically produce tiny white flowers
The chaotic way in which the spider plant grows makes it an attractive option for hanging pots or baskets or just adorning the floor areas. Keep it away from direct light and water it regularly to prevent it from looking shabby and unkempt. These low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight are also easy to propagate using their new stems with flowers.
#5: No Light Indoor Plants — The Maidenhair Fern
These lush green ferns with the smell of the hills are completely pet-friendly
Also known as the Venus maidenhair fern, this plant has delicate, drooping leaves which repel water. It grows naturally in shaded and moist areas and can be easily grown in dark rooms. These low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight thrive best in moist areas like the kitchen, bathroom or laundry room. Check out the Ultimate List of Plants for Lazy People to know more.
#6: Pothos — Best Indoor Plants for Dark Rooms
The almost impossible to kill low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight
If you ask any expert which plant does not need sunlight to grow, then the pothos will be among the first names you will hear. Give it some support and watch it climb elegantly or plant it in hanging pots and admire its beautiful hanging tendrils. The pothos, also known as Devil’s Ivy, is very tough and among the best indoor plants for dark rooms. One of the plants that don’t need sun to grow, the pothos can also purify the air of carbon monoxide. Trim the vines and water periodically to keep it looking full and luscious.
#7: Bromeliads Are Low Light Indoor Plants That Grow Without Sunlight
Vibrant low light indoor plants that bloom once in their lifespan
Add a pop of colour to those empty corners with these beauties. Built for the indoors, these tropical house plants bloom in a variety of different colours. They thrive even in the shade with minimal lighting. In fact, exposure to excessive sunlight can cause potential damage to these plants that grow without sunlight.
If you are enjoying this story, also find out which plants can grow without sunlight that are low-maintenance.
#8: Parlor Palms as Indoor Plants Without Sunlight
These are low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight and look better in groups
Which plant does not need sunlight to grow and does an additional job of adding aesthetic appeal to your space? If you’re on the lookout for something like this, then you cannot go wrong with parlor palms. Brighten up your living and dining spaces with these indoor plants. Considered to be slow growers, these plants can grow up to a few feet with minimal care. These can be accommodated in low to medium lighting and in fact, are plants without sunlight as they can even grow in artificial light. With the right care, they can blossom tiny yellow flowers in the spring.
If you’re new to indoor plants, then for you, this is one of the best indoor plants for dark rooms. These low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight are also low-maintenance and purify the air in your home. They come in petite as well as bushier versions, and can complement almost any kind of decor. Try to avoid direct sunlight as this can result in parched leaves.
That concludes our list of which plants can grow without sunlight. But are there any that you should avoid? Which plants do not need sunlight to grow but are high maintenance? Here is a list of no light indoor plants that first-timers should avoid.
How Can Livspace Help You?
We hope you found our ideas useful! If you want beautiful interiors for your home, then look no further. Book an online consultation with Livspace today. Delivering safe home interiors has been our No. 1 priority. Click here to find out how interiors are being delivered following all safety protocols.
FAQs
Why choose Livspace for your home interior design?
Livspace, India's Most Trusted Home Interiors Brand, is the ideal partner to bring your dream home to life. Our design experts understand your vision and tailor every detail to your preferences. With modular solutions featuring cutting-edge technology, we ensure flawless interiors while expediting the process. What’s more, you get a flat 10-year warranty on our modular & semi-modular products, which undergo 146 quality checks, as well as a 1-year warranty on our on-site services. Consult with us today and let our designers craft your perfect space.
What services are included under home interior design at Livspace?
At Livspace, we are your one-stop destination for turning your dream home into a reality. Our expert interior designers take care of everything, from design and delivery to installation, ensuring a hassle-free experience. With end-to-end services, including modular interiors, false ceilings, civil work, painting, electrical and plumbing services, flooring, and tiling, we have got all your needs covered. Whether it's designing a new space or renovating an existing one, let us inspire you with the latest kitchen, living room, and bedroom interior designs to kickstart your home interior journey.
How much does 1, 2 & 3 BHK home interior design cost?
The Livspace interior design costs given below are approximates only; exact costs might differ according to the nature of your requirements, the size of your home and location. Talk to our designer to get a free quote today.
1BHK - Starting at 1.99L*
2BHK - Starting at 3.57L*
3BHK - Starting at 4.23L*
4BHK - Starting at 4.81L*
Modular Kitchens - Starting at 1.32L*
*The prices include only modular interiors for new homes.
You can also estimate the interior design cost of your full home with this free calculator.
Absolutely! Connecting with our interior designers has never been more convenient. Visit our Experience Centre in your city, where you can sit down with our skilled team over a cup of coffee and discuss your project in detail. Partner with the best interior designers in India, and together, we will craft beautiful and functional spaces that perfectly match your preferences and requirements. Let's turn your vision into a reality at our Experience Centre! | #7: Bromeliads Are Low Light Indoor Plants That Grow Without Sunlight
Vibrant low light indoor plants that bloom once in their lifespan
Add a pop of colour to those empty corners with these beauties. Built for the indoors, these tropical house plants bloom in a variety of different colours. They thrive even in the shade with minimal lighting. In fact, exposure to excessive sunlight can cause potential damage to these plants that grow without sunlight.
If you are enjoying this story, also find out which plants can grow without sunlight that are low-maintenance.
#8: Parlor Palms as Indoor Plants Without Sunlight
These are low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight and look better in groups
Which plant does not need sunlight to grow and does an additional job of adding aesthetic appeal to your space? If you’re on the lookout for something like this, then you cannot go wrong with parlor palms. Brighten up your living and dining spaces with these indoor plants. Considered to be slow growers, these plants can grow up to a few feet with minimal care. These can be accommodated in low to medium lighting and in fact, are plants without sunlight as they can even grow in artificial light. With the right care, they can blossom tiny yellow flowers in the spring.
If you’re new to indoor plants, then for you, this is one of the best indoor plants for dark rooms. These low light indoor plants that grow without sunlight are also low-maintenance and purify the air in your home. They come in petite as well as bushier versions, and can complement almost any kind of decor. Try to avoid direct sunlight as this can result in parched leaves.
That concludes our list of which plants can grow without sunlight. But are there any that you should avoid? Which plants do not need sunlight to grow but are high maintenance? Here is a list of no light indoor plants that first-timers should avoid.
How Can Livspace Help You?
We hope you found our ideas useful! If you want beautiful interiors for your home, then look no further. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://balconygardenweb.com/plants-that-grow-without-sunlight-17-best-plants-to-grow-indoors/ | Plants that Grow without Sunlight | 30 Best Plants to Grow Indoors | 30 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight | Best Plants to Grow Indoors
There are Plants that Grow Without Sunlight and need indirect exposure. Some even thrive in artificial light and Grow Best Indoors!
The obvious thing that everyone knows is the fact that plants need some light to grow. They can’t grow or develop properly without the proper amount of light. Luckily there are Plants that Grow Without Sunlight, and can thrive in low-light indoor conditions. When you are looking for such plants, choose ones that are known for their ability to grow in indirect light.
They are ideal shade-loving plants, naturally growing in the indirect sun. These plants adapt well to the smaller amount of light and thrive normally. To make your search easier, we’ve listed the Best Plants to Grow Indoors.
6. Calathea
One of the most beautiful foliage plants you should grow in your home. It grows well in light shade, but the plant is demanding; it has a specific minimum temperature requirement of 55 F (13 C) that should be maintained.
It prefers regular watering (but watering should be reduced in low light conditions and temperature).
7. Prayer Plant
Botanical Name: Maranta leuconeura
These are tropical plants and are a bit difficult to grow in cooler climates.
It grows well in moderate light without direct access to the sun.If the plant is kept in too much light, the leaves begin to curl and wither.
10. Chinese Evergreen
Chinese Evergreen plants are one of the best plants to grow indoors that don’t require constant, direct sunlight. If you are someone who’s new to growing houseplants, this is the plant you should start with.
11. Cast Iron Plant
The cast iron plant is very forgiving by nature, a great plant if you are always busy and forget about maintenance. It remains very much content staying indoors without the sun.
Just wipe its leaves clean with a damp cloth once a week or so, and provide it with bright indirect light.
12. Orchids
shutterstock/FotoHelin
Botanical Name: Orchidaceae
One of the key points in growing orchids the right way is never to expose them to direct sunlight. Coming in an astonishing array of colors, varieties, and mesmerizing fragrances, orchids are your best bet when it comes to Plants that Grow without Sunlight!
14. Peperomia
What makes these plants perfect for your tabletop is the fact they are some of the best plants that grow without sunlight. Whether it’s Baby Rubber Plant or Watermelon Peperomia–they all have moderate growing requirements.
Place them near a window occasionally that allows them to absorb indirect light throughout the day.
15. Dumb Cane
Botanical Name: Dieffenbachia
If you can keep this plant away from your pets and children, it can be a welcoming addition to your home. Because its sap is moderately toxic and contains calcium oxalate crystals, so be careful about the placement.
It does really well in filtered light, making it a perfect houseplant for low-light areas!
16. Spider Plant
Imagine the graceful variegated foliage of a spider plant dangling down with unique spiderettes in hanging baskets. Isn’t it enough to entice you to grow it? Also, it likes indirect light and is one of the best air-purifying plants.
Direct sunlight often causes the burning of leaves.
17. Peace Lily
Botanical Name: Spathiphyllum
If you’re looking for a houseplant with health benefits, acquire a peace lily. Also, it is forgiving and requires low care. Incredibly easy to grow, peace lily flourishes in shady locations.
18. Aloe Vera
Botanical Name: Aloe barbadensis miller
Looking for edible Plants that Grow Without Water? The most popular and number one houseplant in many countries, according to Google Trends, and rightly so because you can also eat the aloe skin and gel. This medicinal plant can grow in direct sunlight, but it tolerates low light too. Learn everything about growing aloe vera here.
23. Air Plants
Air Plants are unique and fascinating indoor plants that don’t require soil to grow. They can thrive in a wide range of lighting conditions, from low to bright indirect light, and can be a conversation starter in any room.
Want versatility? These Plants that Grow in water Without Sunlight can be styled in vases, terrariums, pots, and anything peculiar you can think of.
24. Parlor Palm
Botanical Name: Chamaedorea elegans
Parlor Palm has delicate fronds that grow from a central stem, making it a beautiful addition to any indoor space.
It can thrive in low light and requires minimal maintenance, making it an excellent choice for beginners.
25. Bird’s Nest Fern
Botanical Name: Asplenium nidus
Bird’s Nest Fern has crinkled leaves that resemble a bird’s nest and can grow up to 2 feet wide, making it a perfect statement plant for any indoor space. It can grow well in low light and high humidity conditions.
28. Umbrella Tree
Schefflera is a beautiful and easy-to-care-for indoor plant with large, umbrella-shaped leaves. It can grow well in low to bright indirect light, making it perfect for a variety of indoor environments.
29. Arrowhead Plant
Botanical Name: Syngonium podophyllum
Arrowhead Plant is a popular indoor plant with arrow-shaped leaves that are variegated in shades of green, white, and pink. It can thrive in low-light environments and can be an excellent addition to any indoor space.
What I researched about calathea, I will tell you. These plants should be watered with distilled water or rain water or water that does not have minerals, or the leaves will curl and burn. To maintain humidity the leaves should be sprayed with same type of water. The soil best for them is the one prepared for African violets. They don’t like direct sunlight and fertilize them very lightly.
The Zamioculcas Zamifolia (ZZ Plant) is perfect for your office, it really requires no natural life to grow.
I had one that grew quite large…it was in a corner of my apartment that had no natural light at all, just a small lamp it could have received light from.
Hi Jackie
The Peace Lily also does really well in a room with no windows. Many offices have them in vases with water, no soil, plus you can put a Beta fish in the vase with the plant. If you include a fish, you will have to clean it weekly and feed it every couple of days. They look very pretty. In my home I have 5 Peace Lilies, 3 are potted in soil and 2 are in vases (no fish), both ways they do very well, my potted ones are on a windowsill that gets morning sun and the vases are on top of my tv, about 10 away from the window. I have never seen a potted one in a room with no windows, so I can’t say if they would be ok. Good luck
Sounds beautiful. Just a word from my experience, it’s funny now but sure wasn’t then. My favorite lil niece picked me some wild flowers, so me being so proud of them placed them in a vase on top of the TV so everyone else could see the love she shared with me. When I went outside to do something the two lil angles got to wrestling and yup that vase got knocked over into the TV. At least they shut it off. I came in to an awful smell of a killed television, and two sweet little girls sitting with hands in laps smiling at me. Well they never did own up to it untill they were grown up, even when we got that new TV. So unless you need or want a new TV I highly recommend that you might want to move any plants OFF AND AWAY FROM SAID TVS. Good luck …
Jackie, I had a Lily in my office, no windows, fluorescent light on about 30 hours a week, and, I would forget to water until wilted. It was a great plant that survived and flourished, without much care, even bloomed. I also had a Philodendron in a hanging pot, also neglected and strived beautifully.
Hi Jackie
I have a prayer plant which is growing well. Had to move it from my coffee table as it has grown too tall & blocks the view of my TV I moved it to my dining room table, where, as with being on my coffee table, gets indirect sunlight ( perhaps a bit less light then being on my coffee table). There is a ceiling fan directly above where the plant is now sitting on my dining room table. The ceiling runs on low speed in the summer months. Will the air movement from the ceiling fan harm my prayer plant in anyway?
I have the Bromelaids. I have never bought them before. I left them out all summer, and repotted them a few days ago. New garden soil used. They looked pretty sad. I moved them to the basement, watered them, cleaned each leaf, Next day went to put in some laundry, and OMG, they sprouted overnight! Even my husband raved about them. New plants have already sprouted! I will be buying more, next year.
I have managed to plant the other plants successfully but the Maidenhair Fern appears a bit more sensitive and does not grow thick and bushy like in your photo. Is it because i have overwatered and how do I take care of the plant.
The information is very useful. I have a peace lily plant have kept in open in sunlight not at all growing since 4-5 months. Even leaves are becoming small n no flowers it was good earlier. What to do? The temperature here is around 30
f
Direct sunlight is too strong for peace lilies. Place them away from windows so they only get indirect light, and don’t overwater. If it is not already too far gone, your peace lily will start growing again and will soon look great. Good luck. :)
No problem as long as you remember to check water levels more frequently. I set all of my plants on the picture window ledge right in front of a vent every winter. I have a peace lily, 2 christmas cacti and several others that have done very well over the last 10 years.
If i were to leave a Parlor Palm in a corner where it’ll never get light, It wont be complete darkness but the only light it’d get is from rooms will it survive and also would it not wither or look malmaintained?
Jade plants are succulents and need some direct or indirect light. They cannot grow without light and as you have experienced they will wither and die. Best place for them, indoors, is near a sunny (east,west, south) facing window that gets at least 6 hours of direct/indirect light per day. They require some warmth also so they don’t do well in cold rooms.
As succulents they do NOT need a lot of water. I have several on my balcony that go the entire summer(temps in 80’s-90’s)) without water. They store water in their trunks and leaves, but when leaves start to crinkle it’s best to give them a good drench and be sure water runs out the bottom of the pots. Don’t let stand in water. I give them a little bit of liquid fertilizer once only in the summer. Also the best potting mix is cactus mix which allows the roots to aerate quickly. When healthy and happy they will bloom heavily in the fall with lovely tiny pink or white flowers that will also make bees happy. Where I live we get a bit of frost in the winter so I either cover them or bring them in. They will freeze and die if left outside in temps that drop into the low 30s or below.
Hope this info helps.
Hi, I bought Bromeliad plant 1 month ago and kept it inside in living room. But now the colour of plant from top is changing slowly from orange to green again. Why is it happening. Pls reply me as soon as possible. Thanks
Hello Vibhuti
Bromeliads die after giving a flower. They grow pups which will continue to grow. Once the pup is about 1/3 of the size of the mother plant you can remove them. I get 2 to 4 pups from each bromeliad. They do flower for a long time but then move on. Good luck
I have many Jade plants outside. They are very easy to grow. Very little water is needed. I have them in shade and in direct sun. They are all doing great. Some of mine are 4 ft tall. I think a little shade seems to be better . Love this site. Doris
my fave plant is the china doll, that seems to do really well inside dim light or skylight. i have one sitting under a lamp and its a fairly dark room, still thriving. they seem to adapt to whatever light they have. just keep watered. love the maidenhair fern thats my second fave plant.
To anyone with pets, PLEASE double check whether the plant you are interested in is toxic to cats and dogs. At first glance at this list I immediately noticed several that will not only make your pet sick but can be fatal. The peace lily in particular is extremely dangerous to cats, inducing non-reversible kidney damage that will cause your cat’s kidneys to shut down within days. Dracenea, philodendron, and golden pothos are all toxic as well, and for some reason very enticing to cats. I unfortunately have found in general that many of the most common, low-light houseplants are in fact toxic, and while many of them only tend to cause mild stomach upset or mouth pain (and symptoms such as drooling, vomiting, and pawing at the mouth), some of them can lead to neurologic signs, cardiac disturbances, red blood cell destruction/anemia, liver disease, and kidney damage.
I cannot stress enough how important it is to check to see if a plant or flower is toxic BEFORE you bring it into your home. An excellent reference is the ASPCA Poison Control website, which allows you to search for both toxic and nontoxic plants, alphabetically by common name and scientific name, and features photos of most plants to aid identification. Never assume a plant is not toxic because it is sold in big box stores or garden centers, and do not assume your pet won’t try to eat it–they will. Also keep in mind that sometimes the dried leaves of a plant are even more toxic, with higher concentrations of the toxic substance. Always try to pick up the fallen leaves of your houseplants regularly to prevent a curious cat or dog from trying to munch on them.
It is almost impossible to remember whether a plant is or is not toxic with the vast number of species and varieties out there today. I don’t even recommend trying to; rather, check each one out every time you want to buy a new plant. I am a veterinarian, and even I forget which is which and much prefer to check out the ASPCA site to avoid inadvertently bringing home something that could harm my pets. Of course, please don’t ever forget–NO peace lilies or Easter lilies around your cats! They will kill, and sadly, do kill, too many cats simply because their owner didn’t know.
Thank you so much!! I almost lost my cat due to eating a house plant almost fifty years ago and have tried to be very careful ever since. Despite my vigilance, however, my current cat got sick about a month ago because she jumped up on my kitchen counter when my back was turned and ate some of the herbs I was chopping.
I had gotten several plants and all indoors, purple passion two of the Ivy’s you posted and one palm. But, suddenly l have gnats everywhere!! I hate bugs! I was always having a gnat flying around my head. I moved all of them outside to my covered patio. I miss my plants but l really hate bugs.
Put about an inch or two of play sand ( you can buy it at lumber stores or home improvement stores) on top of your soil. It will suffocate the gnats, and it won’t hurt your plants at all. Just water as usual through the layer of sand.
Hi. I have a peace lily which doesn’t get any direct sunlight and it’s not doing very well. The leaves seem to be dying off one by one. I give it a good watering once a week because the last one that I kept the soil “moderately moist” died. Do you have any suggestions? I just started trying to grow plants inside and out last spring and my luck has been about 50/50:)
Thanks so much,
Michele
Hi, I’m trying to find plant that can live in very specific conditions. We have hollway, which is very dark. It’s
facing north and have eaves in front in doors and have only one glas door till exit. Temperture is in winter low, and in summer is ok, not to hot.
I belive we need outdoor plant witch love deep shade. Do you have any idea whitch one? I would appreciate.
The ZZ plant would do very well for your situation. It adores shade and grows well with a weekly watering. It grows upwards and has beautiful green leaves. My housing situation is in SE Michigan, so very similar to yours. Another bonus they are easily to propagate so knew plant can turn to many, and are often found at your local big box store.
Hi, Found this l list and my son and I went shopping yesterday. We came home with the maiden hair fern and a ficus fiddle head which the man in the greenhouse said will be a good grower in indirect northeastern light. How about fertilizing? Any thoughts?
When no one’s there, our little high desert Church has hardly any light, only a bit that comes through some gray mylar shades. Late Spring until Nov., tall East & West windows scoop up heat, shades or no shades. An oven. November through April it can freeze and can also be pretty dry, but sheltered from the wind. Flowers are gone overnight, year-round. Hoping for large plants that could stand permanently in a couple of prominent locations, and smaller plants to move around elsewhere. We promise to keep to whatever watering/feeding schedule is required.
I have had a peace Lily since the year 2000. This plant loves to be ignored. It has flowered a handful of times but it’s dark green, beautiful leaves flourish. I’ve transplanted it two or three times during the 18 years. I forget to water it all the time but she loves the abuse because when I finally give her a drink she comes back better than ever. My cleaning lady washes her leaves periodically. I will occasionally sit her out in the rain during the summer so she can get out and live a little.
Maranta Leuconeura is definitely a light lover. Okay, at least my one was. I placed it near a west facing window which received bright light all day long, really. But it was way too fussy, where it lost half of its leaves a month after I bought it. I even kept it decently watered, but to no avail. The leaves still yellowed and curled. Eventually, the plant was only left with two leaves. It looked very unattractive in my room. So I placed it in a sheltered area in my backyard, which receives bright light, and whaddaya know, new leaves are sprouting almost every week. What I learnt? This plant prefers the outdoors with bright, but indirect sunlight.
Under the bright lights the plants appear to be embedded in crumpled soggy blankets. The use of growing mediums other than soil is not unique to aeroponics; planting seeds in cotton has been a popular idea for many a school science project. In recent years a related technology called hydroponics, that uses water as a medium to grow plants, has caught on. But Oshima is quick to distinguish aeroponics from hydroponics emphasizing that their technology is superior. And the key to the technology, is what happens under the microfleece membrane. If peeled it would reveal bare roots enveloped by nutrient-rich mist. | 30 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight | Best Plants to Grow Indoors
There are Plants that Grow Without Sunlight and need indirect exposure. Some even thrive in artificial light and Grow Best Indoors!
The obvious thing that everyone knows is the fact that plants need some light to grow. They can’t grow or develop properly without the proper amount of light. Luckily there are Plants that Grow Without Sunlight, and can thrive in low-light indoor conditions. When you are looking for such plants, choose ones that are known for their ability to grow in indirect light.
They are ideal shade-loving plants, naturally growing in the indirect sun. These plants adapt well to the smaller amount of light and thrive normally. To make your search easier, we’ve listed the Best Plants to Grow Indoors.
6. Calathea
One of the most beautiful foliage plants you should grow in your home. It grows well in light shade, but the plant is demanding; it has a specific minimum temperature requirement of 55 F (13 C) that should be maintained.
It prefers regular watering (but watering should be reduced in low light conditions and temperature).
7. Prayer Plant
Botanical Name: Maranta leuconeura
These are tropical plants and are a bit difficult to grow in cooler climates.
It grows well in moderate light without direct access to the sun. If the plant is kept in too much light, the leaves begin to curl and wither.
10. Chinese Evergreen
Chinese Evergreen plants are one of the best plants to grow indoors that don’t require constant, direct sunlight. If you are someone who’s new to growing houseplants, this is the plant you should start with.
11. Cast Iron Plant
The cast iron plant is very forgiving by nature, a great plant if you are always busy and forget about maintenance. It remains very much content staying indoors without the sun.
Just wipe its leaves clean with a damp cloth once a week or so, and provide it with bright indirect light.
12. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://smartgardenguide.com/can-you-grow-plants-without-sunlight/ | Can You Grow Plants Without Sunlight? - Smart Garden Guide | Can You Grow Plants Without Sunlight?
Elementary-aged students all over the world learn about plants every year and what they need to grow. It may be one of the first scientific formulas we learn as we begin to wander out and explore our world. Seeds + soil + water + sunlight = growing plants. Our awe of the sun grows as we study our solar system and the way the sun has such a profound effect upon our world. In all those years of childhood, few of us ever stopped to ask the question: Can you grow plants without sunlight?
The answer is… Yes, you can indeed! Plants require light to make food for themselves, but it does not matter where the light originated. It only matters that it is the right kind of light. Your ceiling light or the lamp on your nightstand will probably not suffice, but there are special lights called “grow lights” that simulate sunlight so that plants can grow under their glow. There are many types of grow lights, and you can get them from a variety of places, so it is important to weigh your options with them. The opportunity of simulated sunlight, however, opens up the possibility of growing plants indoors, all year long.
What Are The Best Types Of Lights To Grow Plants Without Sunlight?
There are basically three main types of grow lights you can use for your plants.
High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Metal Halide
Fluorescent lights
LED lights
High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Metal Halide Lights
HPS lights are some of the most powerful, and most expensive grow lights you can get. They emit a lot of heat but can put out 1000 watts of simulated sunlight for your plants. They can be purchased with particular stands, tents, and other extra apparatus for those who have grown beyond a handful of houseplants and are setting their sights at creating their own Greenhouse, either in an exterior building or perhaps a large basement area. They are not recommended for spaces where non-gardeners, such as children or pets may be running through due to the significant heat they produce which could be a safety hazard.
Fluorescent Lights
Fluorescent lights are cheaper, and although less potent than many of the HPS lights, are in many ways more practical. Since the bulbs are long and thin, they can be readily utilized in shelf areas. They also run cooler than HPS lights, meaning they will be less of a fire hazard and require less ventilation in your gardening space. The major downside to fluorescent lights is that they have chemicals in them, so if they break, you may have more than glass to clean up. You may have to deal with chemical residues.
LED Lights
LED lights are the safest and most easily adapted to grow plants without sunlight. They give off very little heat, and if you desire to change the color of light emitted, they are far easier to change than fluorescent or HPS lights. The downsides are their cost, and that sometimes they do not fit in stackable shelf areas as well as fluorescent lights do.
Choosing the best type of lights for you depends upon several variables. Before you go light shopping on Amazon.com, you need to answer the following questions:
How much experience do you have gardening in general and indoor gardening specifically?
How many plants do you have and how many do you hope to have soon?
How much space do you have for these plants and how will they be arranged?
How close will these plants be to the light?
Who else will have access to the area that you will be keeping your plants?
If you have ample space and lots of money (and if you are a more experienced indoor gardener), then HPS lights might be your best option. If you have limited shelf-like space, fluorescent lights might work best for you as you grow plants without sunlight.
It is essential to note how close the lights will be to the plants. HPS lights emit a lot of heat. If they are too close to the plants, they may get burned. Fluorescent lights are cooler than HPS lights, but they give off a little heat. If you live in a less temperate climate, you may want to use this heat to your advantage and save a little on your heating bill.
LED lights give off very little heat by comparison which is not helpful in cold climates, but in most others provides less environmental effect upon your plant area. This gives them a broader appeal. In general, if you can afford them, LED lights tend to be a better buy for the majority of situations.
Are LED Grow Lights Any Good?
Yes. LED lights work quite well, especially for smaller groups of plants. For larger groups, you may need something more powerful, like an HPS light, but LED lights make excellent grow lights for novice indoor gardeners working to grow plants without sunlight.
One of the unique benefits of LED lights is that they are more easily swapped out for different colored bulbs. The color of light, or rather the wavelength, makes a significant difference on the plant. Red lights encourage plant budding and blooming, while blue lights help them store their energy in the vegetable components. This means that flowers and “fruit” type vegetables, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, and others that have seeds within them favor red lights, while “root” vegetables, like potatoes, carrots, and radishes favor blue lights. Additionally, more advanced gardeners can use the colored LED lights to create unique colors, textures, and tastes in their plants.
Can Any LED Light Be Used As A Grow Light?
Not usually. LED technology is very customizable, and every bulb is different. What plants require are bulbs that produce the exact red and blue wavelengths that they get from natural sunlight.
Fortunately, there are plant-specific LED grow lights you can purchase, which only produce the wavelengths used by plants. Why is that helpful? If your light uses a lot of wattage (and your electricity) emitting green and yellow colored wavelengths, that light is wasted, because the plant cannot absorb it.
These specialty LED grow lights give your plants exactly what they need and do not waste energy or your money doing their job. The upfront cost is not cheap, though. A small 19x5x3 LED grow light may cost you over $200. There are a few quality, less expensive LED plant lights on the market.
How Much Direct Light Do Houseplants Need?
Plants need between 14-18 hours of light per day to stay healthy, growing, and producing the fruit and flowers you want from them. In most places, this means they are seasonal. Summertime gives most plants enough light if they are situated close enough to a window with good sunlight access.
Even then it can be problematic because east facing windows receive good light in the morning and poor light in the afternoon/evenings. West facing windows are the opposite. South facing windows will get a more extended opportunity to receive light. This is why many greenhouses are built with transparent walls and roofs, to maximize the available light for the growing plants.
How do you set up your plants so that they receive the light they need? Let’s look at two examples based on different abilities to access sunlight.
Example One – Growing Plants In An East Facing Window
If you have access to an east-facing window and your plants are small enough to sit close enough to receive direct sunlight, you can probably count on somewhere between 4-6 hours of good direct sunlight. You might get a another 6-8 of indirect sunlight when the sun starts to sink into the western horizon in the afternoon.
It is important to remember that this light will probably be adequate for your plants to survive, but they may not be enough light to produce good fruit or flowers. When the winter months hit, some plants may not receive enough light and will either die or go into hibernation until late spring.
You should plan to use the grow light for up to 16 hours each day, and then subtract the amount of direct sunlight they get in the window.
You should set your grow light to turn on when the plants are no longer in direct sunlight and stay on until the plants have had at least 16 hours of good quality light. In the example of an east facing window, you may find that direct sunlight leaves your east facing window at noon. You could set your grow light to come on between noon and midnight, to ensure they get sufficient light to grow to their full capacity. By utilising the natural sunlight for part of the day, you several hours of electricity per day during the winter, and perhaps more in the summer.
Example Two – Growing Plants In An Unlit Room
If you are growing your plants in an unlit room, or perhaps have a larger indoor garden that cannot fit in front of a window, you will need to plan on using your grow light full time. This model is for those who genuinely want to grow plants without sunlight. For many of these indoor gardens, the light is not the primary challenge. The more significant issues they face are temperature and ventilation.
Plants will not grow if the temperature is too hot or too cold, and those temperature ranges vary depending upon what kind of plant you are growing. If you are keeping them outside of your regular living space, you need to be sure to keep your plants at a moderate temperature of 65° to 75°F (18° to 24°C). This will keep your plants believing it is still spring and early summer and continue their growth.
Your garden will need ventilation also. Still air and the moist environment of growing plants can be a breeding ground for plant diseases, which can result in poor growth or plant death. You may need to install ventilation equipment to ensure that your growing area provides an area which will meet the needs of your plants.
Getting your plants light can actually be quite easy. They will need 16 hours of light per day. If they are seedlings, they also need those 8 hours of darkness. Since you are not influenced by the sun in this setting, the easiest way is to purchase your grow light and set it on a timer. That way, you can be confident that they are getting the right amount of light and not worry about turning things on and off or trying to move your plants from one location to another on a daily basis. Whether your plants have access to direct sunlight or not, a timer for your electrical outlet is an invaluable thing for you to have as an indoor gardener.
It is not difficult to grow plants without sunlight, but it does take a little research, some organization, some rearrangement of indoor space, and a bit of financial investment. Here are a few parting tips to make sure you start well.
Decide what kind of plants you want first. Read up on their requirements for temperature, space, moisture, and airflow. Remember, not all plants are the same.
Set up your indoor gardening area as a specialized area of the house. Houseplants will not do as well in high-traffic areas, like busy living rooms or dining rooms. Small herb gardens may work well in kitchen windows, as long as they are not disturbed. If you have an unused basement space, consider using a grow light there so the plants can grow without the threat of being accidentally knocked over.
Save up and get a better (more expensive) grow light rather than going for something quick and cheap. Some grow lights on the market do not actually give off the wattage as advertised. Many of these are foreign made in places with less quality control. For example, theKing Plus 600w, which goes for about $90actually only gives off 120w of light for your plants. I think it is safe to assume that you will probably be paying somewhere around $1/watt of light with your grow light. Save and spend accordingly.
About Andrew Courtney
Hi, I’m Andrew, and Smart Garden Guide is my website all about indoor gardening and houseplants. I'm here to share my experience and help you have more success and enjoyment growing plants. Enjoy your stay at Smart Garden Guide.
Buy My Book – Houseplants Made Easy
Legal Information
smartgardenguide.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and other Amazon stores worldwide. | Can You Grow Plants Without Sunlight?
Elementary-aged students all over the world learn about plants every year and what they need to grow. It may be one of the first scientific formulas we learn as we begin to wander out and explore our world. Seeds + soil + water + sunlight = growing plants. Our awe of the sun grows as we study our solar system and the way the sun has such a profound effect upon our world. In all those years of childhood, few of us ever stopped to ask the question: Can you grow plants without sunlight?
The answer is… Yes, you can indeed! Plants require light to make food for themselves, but it does not matter where the light originated. It only matters that it is the right kind of light. Your ceiling light or the lamp on your nightstand will probably not suffice, but there are special lights called “grow lights” that simulate sunlight so that plants can grow under their glow. There are many types of grow lights, and you can get them from a variety of places, so it is important to weigh your options with them. The opportunity of simulated sunlight, however, opens up the possibility of growing plants indoors, all year long.
What Are The Best Types Of Lights To Grow Plants Without Sunlight?
There are basically three main types of grow lights you can use for your plants.
High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Metal Halide
Fluorescent lights
LED lights
High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Metal Halide Lights
HPS lights are some of the most powerful, and most expensive grow lights you can get. They emit a lot of heat but can put out 1000 watts of simulated sunlight for your plants. They can be purchased with particular stands, tents, and other extra apparatus for those who have grown beyond a handful of houseplants and are setting their sights at creating their own Greenhouse, either in an exterior building or perhaps a large basement area. They are not recommended for spaces where non-gardeners, such as children or pets may be running through due to the significant heat they produce which could be a safety hazard.
| yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://www.greenhousetoday.com/can-plants-grow-without-sunlight/ | Can Plants Grow Without Sunlight? - Greenhouse Today | Can Plants Grow Without Sunlight?
Whether you live in a cloudy region or want to grow an indoor garden, you probably realize that you need more sunlight. Most plants require several hours of sun exposure to create enough nutrients. However, many plants need less sunlight due to their natural origins.
Most plants can grow without sunlight, but all plants require light to undergo photosynthesis. Without natural sunlight, artificial grow lights can provide the specific light wavelengths that plants need to grow. Common low-light plants include: dracaena, snake plant, spider plant, & some ferns.
In this article, you’ll also learn the following info about plants that can grow without sunlight:
Several common plants that don’t need much sunlight (if any)
Whether or not plants can thrive under artificial light sources
Plants for overwintering in a garage
Can Plants Grow Without Light?
You’re probably wondering why some plants need sunlight, while others get along with artificial light just fine.
There are many reasons that plants’ requirements vary, but one thing remains the same:
They all need adequate nutrition to survive and thrive.
And yes, all plants need light.
So, why can’t plants grow without any light?
Sunlight is the energy input that powers photosynthesis.
It provides the energy that plants can use to create food (carbohydrates) from carbon dioxide and water.
Contrary to popular belief, plants don’t use all of the sunlight they absorb.
Greg Volente
Greg Volente holds a Naturalist Certificate from the Morton Arboretum, worked for The Nature Conservancy leading environmental education programs and doing natural areas restoration, and worked in the soil science research & testing lab at Michigan State University. Besides gardening, he's an avid wildflower enthusiast, and loves botanizing, hiking, and backpacking.
Greenhouse Today is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We also participate in other affiliate programs which compensate us for referring traffic. | Can Plants Grow Without Sunlight?
Whether you live in a cloudy region or want to grow an indoor garden, you probably realize that you need more sunlight. Most plants require several hours of sun exposure to create enough nutrients. However, many plants need less sunlight due to their natural origins.
Most plants can grow without sunlight, but all plants require light to undergo photosynthesis. Without natural sunlight, artificial grow lights can provide the specific light wavelengths that plants need to grow. Common low-light plants include: dracaena, snake plant, spider plant, & some ferns.
In this article, you’ll also learn the following info about plants that can grow without sunlight:
Several common plants that don’t need much sunlight (if any)
Whether or not plants can thrive under artificial light sources
Plants for overwintering in a garage
Can Plants Grow Without Light?
You’re probably wondering why some plants need sunlight, while others get along with artificial light just fine.
There are many reasons that plants’ requirements vary, but one thing remains the same:
They all need adequate nutrition to survive and thrive.
And yes, all plants need light.
So, why can’t plants grow without any light?
Sunlight is the energy input that powers photosynthesis.
It provides the energy that plants can use to create food (carbohydrates) from carbon dioxide and water.
Contrary to popular belief, plants don’t use all of the sunlight they absorb.
Greg Volente
Greg Volente holds a Naturalist Certificate from the Morton Arboretum, worked for The Nature Conservancy leading environmental education programs and doing natural areas restoration, and worked in the soil science research & testing lab at Michigan State University. Besides gardening, he's an avid wildflower enthusiast, and loves botanizing, hiking, and backpacking.
Greenhouse Today is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://blog.gardenloversclub.com/houseplants/plants-that-dont-need-sunlight/ | 23 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight - Garden Lovers Club | 23 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight
If you’re living in a home that doesn’t see a lot of direct sunlight or you are looking for ways to liven up your fluorescent lighting-filled office, then you should definitely consider plants that grows without sunlight. While it’s true that all plants need at least some light, you’d be amazed at how many plants can flourish under indirect light or fluorescent lighting.
A few years back, my nephew told me how drab his office was, and I suggested to him that he try using a spider plant to make his office space look a little more verdant and he was amazed by the results.
In this guide, I’m going to show you some of my favorite plants that can grow without much sunlight.
1. Dracaena
This is a plant that does not require a lot of light, but it does like humidity, which is why it grows best outdoors in zones 10 through 12. You may need to water this plant often and mist the leaves if the humidity in your home is too low.
2. Parlor Palm
Parlor Palms, which are one of the most popular types of palms grown indoors, are a great option for a space without a lot of sunlight. Though, if you want the little yellow blooms to appear, it will need at least partial sunlight. If grown outside, they do best in zones 10 and above.
3. Snake Plant
Snake plants, which grow best in zones nine through 11, make a great indoor plant because they require very little light to thrive. They do not like cold weather though, so don’t grow them outdoors past the first frost. This is a succulent, so it can also tolerate drought conditions.
4. Calathea
Also known as a peacock plant, its colorful foliage is beautiful and easy to grow. The plant requires very little light, but it does prefer moist soil. Since this is considered a tropical plant, it grows best outdoors in zones 10 and above, but if it can easily grow indoors in any area.
5. Bromeliads
This is a plant that can survive with artificial lighting, so it will do well in rooms without windows such as a bathroom. Typically grown in zones nine and above, the foliage of this plant forms a cup that helps retain water so that it can survive drought-like conditions.
6. Spider Plant
As a plant that grows best in zones eight through 11, the spider plant makes a great indoor option that will thrive in low light areas. In fact, direct sunlight will cause the leaves to burn. It looks great growing in a hanging pot, and it can cleanse the air in your home.
7. Peace Lily
Peace lily grows well without sunlight; in fact, direct sunlight can damage the leaves, which is why it is best grown indoors. If they are grown outdoors, they do best in zones 10 and above. Peace lilies like a lot of water, but they also like to grow in well-drained soil.
8. Maidenhair Fern
The maidenhair fern is a plant that grows best in zones seven through 10. It does best in indirect light or shade, but it will need to have moist soil to thrive. The leaves repel water, so if you grow it outdoors, they will not be damaged in a rainstorm.
9. Lucky Bamboo
If you like bonsai plants, then lucky bamboo will make a great addition to your home. It does not require direct sunlight to live, but if it is planted outdoors, it will grow best in zones nine and above. You can grow this plant in soil or directly in water.
10. Sword Fern
Sword ferns, which can be seen growing ins zones three through eight, are hardy plants that don’t require a lot of sunlight. They grow best in well-draining soil that’s slightly acidic. They require high humidity, so spraying the leaves occasionally is recommended to maintain the humidity in the immediate area.
11. Heart- Leaf Philodendron
Best grown in zones 9 through 11, this plant will brighten up any home, especially an area where there are not a lot of windows. This plant does not like direct sunlight, but since it’s native to the rainforest, it does like moist soil and a bit of humidity. See our guide on growing Philodendron.
12. Creeping Fig
A creeping fig is a great option for the dark corners of your home because it will cling to the walls and surfaces, giving the corners life. In zones eight and above, this vine can easily grow to lengths of 20 feet or more with very little light and water.
13. Chinese Evergreen
This is one of the most durable plants that you can find for your home or garden. Not only can it grow without sunlight, it can tolerate drought-like conditions as well as high humidity levels. This plant will grow well in almost every hardiness zone in the country.
14. Golden Pothos
This vine grows well outdoors in higher hardiness zones, but it can thrive indoors in any area of the country, especially since it can grow without direct sunlight. The long vines make it a great plant to hang from the ceiling because they can grow to 10 feet in length indoors.
15. Cast Iron Plant
The cast iron plant can grow in any type of lighting, so if you have space without direct sunlight, it will grow. It can even grow in poor soil. It does grow slower than most plants, but with enough time, it can reach heights of two feet or more.
16. Peperomia
Peperomia are best grown in zones 10 through 12, this is a plant that will do well inside in any area, especially without direct sunlight because this can damage the leaves. Make sure to keep the soil moist and the humidity in the room relatively high, and this plant will thrive.
17. Prayer Plant
A prayer plant is a great option for low light situations; in fact, the leaves tend to curl up and wilt when in direct sunlight. Often found in zones 11 and 12, this is a plant that needs well-drained, moist soil and a lot of humidity to really thrive.
18. Umbrella Palm
This is a low maintenance plant that you can grow in an area of your home that gets very little natural light. It grows in zone seven and above, and in moist, humid conditions, it can grow to be six feet in height. Typically, they only grow to be three feet tall indoors.
19. Japanese Sedge
Most adapted to zones five through nine, the Japanese sedge is an ornamental grass that will grow without much sunlight. Making a great accent plant for any garden, it will need to grow in rich, moist soil with a layer of mulch on the surface to protect the roots.
20. Japanese Sago Palm
This plant has a lot of feather foliage that will look great in your home or garden. It does great in an area with very little sun, but it requires well-drained soil to stay healthy. If you’re planting a sago palm outdoors, it will do best in zone eight and above.
21. ZZ plant
The ZZ plant is prized for its waxy green leaves that reflect light and brighten dark corners. It thrives in low light, tolerates neglect, and is drought tolerant, making it the ideal plant for offices or in dark corners of your home. This slow-growing plant reaches heights of two to three feet and thrives in the same pot for years. They are hardy in zones 10 – 12.
22. Monstera
Monstera is a popular plant for homes and offices as it produces lacy green leaves that give the appearance of Swiss cheese, lending it the common name of the Swiss cheese plant. It thrives in indirect sunlight and likes temperatures between 68 and 86 degrees. It prefers slightly moist soil and needs watering when the top 2 to 3 inches of the soil is dry. This impressive plant grows upward on a totem or moss-covered pole and makes a dramatic statement with its large, showy leaves. Monstera plants are hardy in zones 10 -12.
23. Boston Fern
Boston ferns are typically grown in hanging baskets or atop plant stands where the delicate frilly fronds cascade over the sides. It thrives in indirect light and likes moist soil. It is sensitive to hot or cold drafts and must be grown in a nook or corner away from foot traffic. Boston ferns are an excellent choice for bringing a bit of nature inside. While Boston ferns are typically houseplants, they are hardy in zones 9 – 11.
GardenLoversClub.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases. | 23 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight
If you’re living in a home that doesn’t see a lot of direct sunlight or you are looking for ways to liven up your fluorescent lighting-filled office, then you should definitely consider plants that grows without sunlight. While it’s true that all plants need at least some light, you’d be amazed at how many plants can flourish under indirect light or fluorescent lighting.
A few years back, my nephew told me how drab his office was, and I suggested to him that he try using a spider plant to make his office space look a little more verdant and he was amazed by the results.
In this guide, I’m going to show you some of my favorite plants that can grow without much sunlight.
1. Dracaena
This is a plant that does not require a lot of light, but it does like humidity, which is why it grows best outdoors in zones 10 through 12. You may need to water this plant often and mist the leaves if the humidity in your home is too low.
2. Parlor Palm
Parlor Palms, which are one of the most popular types of palms grown indoors, are a great option for a space without a lot of sunlight. Though, if you want the little yellow blooms to appear, it will need at least partial sunlight. If grown outside, they do best in zones 10 and above.
3. Snake Plant
Snake plants, which grow best in zones nine through 11, make a great indoor plant because they require very little light to thrive. They do not like cold weather though, so don’t grow them outdoors past the first frost. This is a succulent, so it can also tolerate drought conditions.
4. Calathea
Also known as a peacock plant, its colorful foliage is beautiful and easy to grow. The plant requires very little light, but it does prefer moist soil. Since this is considered a tropical plant, it grows best outdoors in zones 10 and above, but if it can easily grow indoors in any area.
5. Bromeliads
This is a plant that can survive with artificial lighting, | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://bgr.com/science/scientific-breakthrough-lets-plants-grow-in-darkness-with-no-sunlight/ | Scientific breakthrough lets plants grow in darkness with no sunlight | Scientific breakthrough lets plants grow in darkness with no sunlight
Scientists have managed to make plants grow without sunlight. The process uses an artificial method of photosynthesis to let the plants grow in complete darkness. Once improved, it could allow countries without much sunlight to grow more crops. It could even allow us to grow plants in space.
Artificial photosynthesis lets plants grow without sunlight
Photosynthesis is one of the most basic attributes that plants use to create food for themselves. Plants use this process to turn carbon dioxide, water, and energy from the Sun’s light to create food for themselves. That means crops and other plants have always needed sunlight in order to grow healthy. But, what about places where plants need to grow without sunlight? Well, scientists found a way.
The researchers published their findings in the journal Nature Food. To replace the normal means of photosynthesis, they used a two-step electrocatalytic process. This converted electricity, carbon dioxide, and water into acetate. Acetate is a primary component used in vinegar. It can also be used by plants in dark environments to grow.
The process was so effective, that the researchers believe it could be more efficient than using sunlight for some foods. They say that you’d need to combine the system with solar panels, to create a self-sustainable power system. However, once done, the system would allow for plants to grow without sunlight more effectively than ever before.
Why do we need to grow plants in darkness?
Being able to grow plants in the dark might seem like a weird thing to push for. After all, most places on Earth get some semblance of sunlight, right? Well, not exactly.
Many places on Earth actually experience long periods of darkness. Places like Tromsø, Norway experience very small amounts of sunlight. Amounts so small that it may be difficult to grow some plants around that area.
Because of this, being able to grow plants without much light is paramount. This is especially true, too, as we push for a greater presence in our universe beyond our own planet. Scientists have already found ways to grow plants in lunar dirt.
But we still have to provide the sunlight these plants need, too. Being able to grow plants without sunlight could literally change how we feed astronauts.
It would open new doors for plant growth both on Earth and beyond our atmosphere. And, since it could be more efficient, we could provide better opportunities for countries to grow the food and crops that they need to take care of all of their citizens.
This article talks about:
Josh Hawkins has been writing for over a decade, covering science, gaming, and tech culture. He also is a top-rated product reviewer with experience in extensively researched product comparisons, headphones, and gaming devices.
Whenever he isn’t busy writing about tech or gadgets, he can usually be found enjoying a new world in a video game, or tinkering with something on his computer. | Scientific breakthrough lets plants grow in darkness with no sunlight
Scientists have managed to make plants grow without sunlight. The process uses an artificial method of photosynthesis to let the plants grow in complete darkness. Once improved, it could allow countries without much sunlight to grow more crops. It could even allow us to grow plants in space.
Artificial photosynthesis lets plants grow without sunlight
Photosynthesis is one of the most basic attributes that plants use to create food for themselves. Plants use this process to turn carbon dioxide, water, and energy from the Sun’s light to create food for themselves. That means crops and other plants have always needed sunlight in order to grow healthy. But, what about places where plants need to grow without sunlight? Well, scientists found a way.
The researchers published their findings in the journal Nature Food. To replace the normal means of photosynthesis, they used a two-step electrocatalytic process. This converted electricity, carbon dioxide, and water into acetate. Acetate is a primary component used in vinegar. It can also be used by plants in dark environments to grow.
The process was so effective, that the researchers believe it could be more efficient than using sunlight for some foods. They say that you’d need to combine the system with solar panels, to create a self-sustainable power system. However, once done, the system would allow for plants to grow without sunlight more effectively than ever before.
Why do we need to grow plants in darkness?
Being able to grow plants in the dark might seem like a weird thing to push for. After all, most places on Earth get some semblance of sunlight, right? Well, not exactly.
Many places on Earth actually experience long periods of darkness. Places like Tromsø, Norway experience very small amounts of sunlight. Amounts so small that it may be difficult to grow some plants around that area.
Because of this, being able to grow plants without much light is paramount. This is especially true, too, as we push for a greater presence in our universe beyond our own planet. Scientists have already found ways to grow plants in lunar dirt.
But we still have to provide the sunlight these plants need, too. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://gardening.org/plants-that-grow-without-sunlight/ | 45 Plants That Grow Without Sunlight (Shade Loving Plants ... | ZZ plant, short for its botanical name Zamioculcas zamiifolia, has tall stems with deep green, shiny leaves. This beauty is a low-maintenance plant that loves deep, dark, shady areas and requires very little watering.
3. Peacock Plant (Maranta leuconeura)
You might know the Peacock Plant by another name--Prayer Plant.
Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water when the top few inches of soil are dry, mist leaves regulary
Sun:
Partial to complete shade
Calathea, also commonly referred to as a peacock plant, is a real showstopper and a popular choice among houseplant lovers.
The peacock plant is also commonly called the prayer plant because it tends to curl inward and point upwards toward the sky in the evenings.
Be warned that the peacock plant is a slightly higher maintenance plant than most plants on the list and may benefit from being regularly misted and watered with distilled water.
4. Wax Begonia (Begonia x semperflorens-cultorem)
Wax Begonias are one the few vibrant flowering plants that will tolerate low light conditions.
Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, then allow the soil to dry out completely between watering
Sun:
Can tolerate most sun levels, does well with partial shade
Wax begonias are beautiful plants that have the ability to flower nearly all year long in the right conditions.
They are petite plants with small, pink flowers that are sure to add some cheer to your living or outdoor space.
While wax begonias thrive in bright, indirect light areas, they will do fine in lower light areas, especially when it’s particularly warm outside.
5. Nerve Plant (Fittonia spp.)
Proper moisture control is the key to success with the Nerve Plant.
Hardiness Zone:
11 (USDA)
Water:
Water when the soil just starts to dry out, the soil should be kept moist, not wet, and shouldn't be allowed to dry out completely between watering
Sun:
Shade to indirect sunlight
If you’re looking to add a delicate and understated plant to your collection, the nerve plant is an excellent choice.
Its small green leaves have beautiful veins that look almost drawn on and come in several colors.
Your nerve plant will require regular attention, as the soil should be kept moist, and multiple instances of leave wilting may result in permanent damage.
6. Peperomia (Peperomia spp.)
Direct sunlight will actually harm Peperomia plants.
Hardiness Zone:
10-12 (USDA)
Water:
Allow the soil to dry out between watering
Sun:
Thrives in medium or bright indirect light
Peperomia is a large family of plants that includes several popular houseplants. While its ideal growing conditions offer access to medium or bright indirect light to keep the plant healthy and the foliage colorful, peperomia is relatively tolerant of low-light conditions and is susceptible to damage if exposed to direct sunlight.
7. Rubber Tree (Ficus elastica)
With just a little sunlight, the popular Rubber Tree can thrive inside.
Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water when the top few inches of soil begin to feel dry
Sun:
Indirect light, moderate sunlight
The rubber tree has soared to one of the top houseplants used today and thrives when grown indoors.
Although it will grow well outside in USDA hardiness zones 10 and 11, most people choose to keep it inside, and with adequate natural light, it’s a relatively quick grower.
Don’t be surprised if the lower levels of leaves begin to fall off if your rubber tree never sees sunlight, but it does well in partial shade, so even if it’s not getting direct sunlight, your rubber tree should continue to grow and stay healthy.
8. Chinese Evergreen (Aglaonema)
Chinese Evergreens are highly adaptable plants that will do well even in low light situations.
Hardiness Zone:
10-12 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, then allow the soil to dry out completely between watering
Sun:
Once adapted to low light, the plant will do fine and continue to grow at a slower rate
Chinese Evergreens are great plants because they can adapt to various growing conditions and do just fine in low light conditions.
While the growth may be considerably slower, Chinese evergreens are already slow-growing plants, so you likely won’t notice a huge difference in their growth pattern.
Pick a nice shady spot for your Chinese evergreen, and it will continue to deliver consistent, beautiful foliage for years to come!
9. Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum)
Low light forest floors are the natural habitat for Maidenhair Ferns.
Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Keep the soil moist but not wet, water when you notice it begins to dry out
Sun:
Partial to complete shade
Gorgeous when grown inside or outside, maidenhair ferns are delicate and beautiful plants that are rewarding to grow.
Like most ferns, the maidenhair fern tends to grow on the forest floor, underneath trees and larger plants, so it is well equipped to handle low-light situations.
If you’re looking to landscape darker areas of your yard, the maidenhair fern makes a great choice because it can thrive without direct sunlight and grow in various places, such as between rocks.
10. Rattlesnake Plant (Goeppertia insignis)
Rattlesnake plants have specific humidity requirements, but putting the time in is well worth the reward with this beautiful plant.
Hardiness Zone:
11-12 (USDA)
Water:
Keep the soil moist in warmer months but allow the top few inches of the soil to dry out between watering in the winter
Sun:
Partial to complete shade
The rattlesnake plant is another type of calathea that is slightly fussy and completely beautiful.
Because of its tropical origins, this plant requires much more humidity than many plant owners have patience for.
However, if properly cared for, rattlesnake plants make extremely desirable houseplants because of their tall, striking foliage with distinct green markings on the top of the leaves and a purple-red hue making up their undersides.
11. Golden Pothos (Epipremnum aureum)
Golden pathos is a plant anyone can grow--no green thumb required!
Hardiness Zone:
9-10 (USDA)
Water:
Allow the soil to dry out completely between watering, particularly when kept in low light conditions
Sun:
Thrives in bright, indirect sunlight but is tolerant of most light conditions
Another favorite among houseplant lovers, the golden pothos is beloved for its bright and cheery foliage and virtual indestructibility.
Lucky bamboo is a beautiful and very low-maintenance plant, said to bring luck to the plant owner.
Assuming the roots have enough space to grow, the lucky bamboo can grow simply in water, so long as there are not too many chemical additives (such as fluoride).
28. Arrowhead Plant (Syngonium podophyllum)
There are several color varieties of arrowhead plants.
Hardiness Zone:
10-12 (USDA)
Water:
Water plant once the top few inches of soil feel dry
Sun:
Depends on the variety, but most are tolerant of partial shade, while only some can handle bright sunlight
The arrowhead plant is named so because of the arrowhead shape of the leaves. It is a small, bushy plant that can add charm to both indoor and outdoor gardening.
The arrowhead plant comes in several varieties, offering distinct colors.
29. Swiss Cheese Plant (Monstera deliciosa)
Believe it or not, a good soaking in your shower is one of the best ways to keep your Swiss cheese plant happy.
Hardiness Zone:
10-12 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, draining excess water to avoid root rot
Sun:
Thrives in medium to bright indirect light but can handle low light conditions
The swiss cheese plant, also commonly called a split-leaf philodendron or simply a monstera, is one of the top coveted houseplants.
Relatively easy to care for and tolerant of lower lighting, you can keep your indoor swiss cheese plant particularly happy by placing it in the shower for thorough waterings that emulate the tropical weather in the rainforests to which it is native.
30. Staghorn Fern (Platycerium)
A popular way to grow this fern is actually hanging from a wall plaque!
Hardiness Zone:
9-12 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, then allow the soil to dry out almost completely between watering
Sun:
Partial to complete shade, will require significantly more water and humidity to tolerate brighter, indirect light
Staghorn ferns are popular both indoors and outdoors because of their uniquely beautiful epiphytic nature.
The staghorn fern is often seen mounted on wall plaques because it emulates their natural habit of growing on trees.
31. Creeping Fig (Ficus pumila)
Creeping fig will travel far when grown outdoors.
Hardiness Zone:
9-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, then allow the soil to dry completely between watering
41. Spider Plant (Chlorophytum comosum)
Spider plants are a classic houseplant, popular for their easy growing.
Hardiness Zone:
9-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly and allow the top few inches of soil to dry out in between watering
Sun:
Thrives in partial shade but is tolerant of complete shade
Spider plants are whimsical and easy to care for, often seen growing in hanging baskets. The plants grow smaller “baby” plants that hang from the parent plant and can be easily propagated and shared with friends!
42. Chinese Money Plant (Pilea peperomioides)
Pretty and petite, the Chinese money plant can live well in low light.
Hardiness Zone:
9-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, then allow the soil to dry out almost completely between watering
Sun:
Thrives in bright, indirect light but is tolerant of lower light conditions
The Chinese money plant is an adorable, petite plant known for its light stalks and coin-shaped leaves.
When it has access to sunlight, regularly rotate the plant so it doesn’t look unbalanced. The Chinese money plant can survive with very little sunlight, but it may develop fewer, smaller leaves.
43. Fuschia (Fuschia)
Few plants can bloom as bright in low light as fuschia plants can.
Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water when the soil just start to dry out, the soil should be kept moist, not wet
Sun:
Thrives in partial shade but can tolerate lower light conditions
Fuschias are often seen in hanging planters outside of people’s homes and in commercial landscaping.
Their gorgeous, bright-colored flowers are deeply alluring, and unlike many other plants, sunlight is not required for these beauties to bloom.
44. Aloe Vera (Aloe barbadensis miller)
A soothing aloe plant is a great thing to have in your kitchen. And it doesn't need a lot of light!
Hardiness Zone:
10-12 (USDA)
Water:
Allow the soil to dry out completely between watering, do not water during the dormant season
Sun:
Thrives in bright, indirect light but is tolerant of lower light conditions
Did you know that aloe vera can be applied to your skin directly from the plant? If you have an aloe plant growing, it can offer you many benefits and save you a trip to the grocery store after a day in the sun!
gardening.org is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases. | Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Water when the top few inches of soil begin to feel dry
Sun:
Indirect light, moderate sunlight
The rubber tree has soared to one of the top houseplants used today and thrives when grown indoors.
Although it will grow well outside in USDA hardiness zones 10 and 11, most people choose to keep it inside, and with adequate natural light, it’s a relatively quick grower.
Don’t be surprised if the lower levels of leaves begin to fall off if your rubber tree never sees sunlight, but it does well in partial shade, so even if it’s not getting direct sunlight, your rubber tree should continue to grow and stay healthy.
8. Chinese Evergreen (Aglaonema)
Chinese Evergreens are highly adaptable plants that will do well even in low light situations.
Hardiness Zone:
10-12 (USDA)
Water:
Water thoroughly, then allow the soil to dry out completely between watering
Sun:
Once adapted to low light, the plant will do fine and continue to grow at a slower rate
Chinese Evergreens are great plants because they can adapt to various growing conditions and do just fine in low light conditions.
While the growth may be considerably slower, Chinese evergreens are already slow-growing plants, so you likely won’t notice a huge difference in their growth pattern.
Pick a nice shady spot for your Chinese evergreen, and it will continue to deliver consistent, beautiful foliage for years to come!
9. Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum)
Low light forest floors are the natural habitat for Maidenhair Ferns.
Hardiness Zone:
10-11 (USDA)
Water:
Keep the soil moist but not wet, water when you notice it begins to dry out
Sun:
Partial to complete shade
Gorgeous when grown inside or outside, maidenhair ferns are delicate and beautiful plants that are rewarding to grow.
| yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://www.floweraura.com/blog/plants-that-grow-without-sunlight-outdoor-and-indoor | 10 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight - Outdoor & Indoor | 10 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight - Outdoor & Indoor
The universal truth is plants need sunlight to grow. They require sunlight for photosynthesis to develop and flourish. However, there are plants that grow without sunlight. If your home receives less light, consider yourself lucky.
Here is a list of outdoor and indoor plants that grow without sunlight.
1. Snake Plant:
One of the air-purifying indoor plants without sunlight . Keep the plant in the dark, and Snake Plant shall still bloom in its full glory. Its unique sword-like leaves make it perfect for home decors. Coming from the family of succulents, its tall and stiff leaves can store water in its foliage. If you have pets at home, keep them away from this plant, as ingestion can upset their stomachs.
2. Lucky Bamboo:
Lucky Bamboo is a Feng Shui plant and is well-known to attract auspicious energy depending on the number of stalks in the plant. The plant can grow without sunlight, hence an ideal choice for areas that are darker or closed spaces. Make sure you frequently change the water.
3. Aglaonema:
Aglaonema, also called by the name of Chinese Evergreen. It is among the many indoor plants that can survive without sunlight. It is a great plant to have indoors if you are new to plant parenting. This plant was also added to NASA’s list of air-filtering plants. Thus it is both healthy and easy to care for plant choice.
4. Dracaena:
A common houseplant. It comes in great varieties and is ideal to be placed on tabletops, shelves, and floors of homes and offices. The plant can survive in the medium to low light conditions. The Dracaena Massangeana has a tree-like look and works exceptionally well for the floor. So, when buying home and office plants online, consider this one.
5. Peace Lily:
One of the best indoor flowering plants no sunlight. Water it regularly, and it will bless you with serene white flowers. Keep the plant away from direct sunlight as it can damage the plant’s leaves. The Peace Lily Plant is an air-purifying plant. Keep it indoors and get blessed with good health.
6. Spider Plant:
One of the attractive outdoor plants that grow without sunlight. You can hang it in baskets or keep it on floors. Spider plant is an air-cleansing plant, ideal to be kept both indoors and outdoors.
7. Maidenhair Fern:
A delicate plant with dropping leaves, also known as Venus Maidenhair Fern. It naturally grows in shaded areas or low light spots. This plant loves moist and humid environments, which can be difficult to achieve indoors.
8. Pothos:
A great plant for the ones who have just started their plant journey. These plants grow beautiful with long vines and are excellent for accenting walls and fences. Pothos can be placed in the bathroom. This indoor plant can easily grow without sunlight. Trim the vines regularly to keep the plant blooming and luscious.
9. Bromeliad:
Add a pop of colour to your home with the Bromeliad plant. Built for the indoor spaces, Bromeliad produces flowers of different hues and shades. It thrives in shade or a place with low lightning. Exposure to excessive sunlight can damage the plant.
10. Parlour Palm:
Spruce up your living or dining room with a parlour palm. It can grow taller with minimal care. Accommodate it in low-to-medium light. With the right care, it produces bright yellow flowers in the spring.
Which one are you bringing to your home or office? You can order plants online from the above-mentioned list. | 10 Plants that Grow Without Sunlight - Outdoor & Indoor
The universal truth is plants need sunlight to grow. They require sunlight for photosynthesis to develop and flourish. However, there are plants that grow without sunlight. If your home receives less light, consider yourself lucky.
Here is a list of outdoor and indoor plants that grow without sunlight.
1. Snake Plant:
One of the air-purifying indoor plants without sunlight . Keep the plant in the dark, and Snake Plant shall still bloom in its full glory. Its unique sword-like leaves make it perfect for home decors. Coming from the family of succulents, its tall and stiff leaves can store water in its foliage. If you have pets at home, keep them away from this plant, as ingestion can upset their stomachs.
2. Lucky Bamboo:
Lucky Bamboo is a Feng Shui plant and is well-known to attract auspicious energy depending on the number of stalks in the plant. The plant can grow without sunlight, hence an ideal choice for areas that are darker or closed spaces. Make sure you frequently change the water.
3. Aglaonema:
Aglaonema, also called by the name of Chinese Evergreen. It is among the many indoor plants that can survive without sunlight. It is a great plant to have indoors if you are new to plant parenting. This plant was also added to NASA’s list of air-filtering plants. Thus it is both healthy and easy to care for plant choice.
4. Dracaena:
A common houseplant. It comes in great varieties and is ideal to be placed on tabletops, shelves, and floors of homes and offices. The plant can survive in the medium to low light conditions. The Dracaena Massangeana has a tree-like look and works exceptionally well for the floor. So, when buying home and office plants online, consider this one.
5. Peace Lily:
One of the best indoor flowering plants no sunlight. Water it regularly, and it will bless you with serene white flowers. Keep the plant away from direct sunlight as it can damage the plant’s leaves. | yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://whyfarmit.com/plants-without-sunlight/ | Can Plants Grow Without Sunlight? Options for Indoor Plants | Can Plants Grow Without Sunlight? Options for Indoor Plants
With all the interesting, beautiful plants readily available today, it can very tempting to fill your home with lots of houseplants for their air-purifying qualities and aesthetics.
However, light can be a troublesome issue for indoor plants as well as outdoor specimens, and if your plants don’t receive adequate sunlight, you’ll quickly run into issues.
Can a plant grow without sunlight? A plant requires sunlight to photosynthesize, a process that creates energy for it to survive. A plant can not grow without sunlight because it can not photosynthesize. If your plant is showing signs of stress, the amount of sunlight it receives may be the issue.
If your plants aren’t thriving, determine how much light they are receiving, and try to increase or decrease the amount of sunlight based on the variety you are growing. Don’t worry, we’ll talk you through it below.
Importance of Sunlight To Plants
The importance of sunlight to plants is unparalleled when it comes to the needs of a living organism. Sunlight allows a plant to photosynthesize, the process which creates energy for a plant.
Sunlight covers a broad array of light colors. While some light wavelengths are used for photosynthesis, other wavelengths signal to a plant when it should break dormancy or flower, depending on the season.
Role of Sunlight in Photosynthesis
The role of sunlight is extremely significant in photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction that begins in the chloroplasts of the leaves of a plant. The chloroplasts absorb solar energy, or sunlight, as it hits the leaf’s surface.
The energy is then a catalyst that allows a chemical reaction to occur between water, glucose, and carbon dioxide. This is then the energy, or food, plants use to grow and reproduce.
Direct Sunlight vs. Indirect Sunlight
While all plants require sunlight to survive, there are two types of natural sunlight: direct and indirect.
Direct sunlight is sunlight that is able to reach the leaf’s surface with no interference. Many varieties of plants, like vegetables and trees, require direct sunlight to grow.
Indirect sunlight is sunlight with less intensity, most likely reduced by an obstruction or other dispersal of sunlight rays. Plants that prefer indirect sunlight are usually houseplants and plants that live in nature in the understory of other plants.
Do Plants Need Sunlight or Just Light?
Plants require sunlight because it covers many spectrums of light. Regular light bulbs usually only produce light rays in the spectrums humans can see.
While these seem to produce light that can grow plants, without UV rays and other colors of the spectrum, the chemical process of photosynthesis will not occur.
Sunlight may be reproduced using special light bulbs (see below for ideal options) that cover the full light spectrum.
How Much Sunlight Do Plants Need?
The amount of sunlight a plant needs depends on the variety. For vegetables and other outdoor varieties, a minimum of 7- 8 hours of sunlight is necessary. While plants may grow with less, they usually do not exhibit the same characteristics as a plant grown in the required sunlight.
Certain plants that do not require more sunlight to produce energy will grow with as little as 4-6 hours of sunlight a day.
What Happens To Plants Without Sunlight?
Since plants rely on sunlight to produce energy for survival, without sunlight a plant’s health will begin to decline, and it may die.
When a plant’s sunlight exposure is eliminated, it will show signs of stress. These may include symptoms of yellowing, browning, wilting, and dieback of leaves. A plant can survive off reserve energy that it has stored in its roots but only for a short period of time.
How Long Can Plants Survive Without Sunlight?
Plants can only survive a limited amount of time without sunlight. As time passes, without sunlight a plant’s health will begin to decline exponentially.
A plant will usually begin to show signs of lack of sunlight after three or four days. The more time that the plant goes without sunlight, the more the plant’s health will decline. In most cases, a plant will not survive more than one or two weeks without sunlight.
Do Dormant Plants Need Sunlight?
While the main job of leaves is to collect sunlight for photosynthesis, you may question if plants need sunlight in dormancy when they do not have leaves. While a tree in dormancy may not be producing energy through photosynthesis, it does need sunlight.
Sunlight is still received by the plant in dormancy. Through its hormonal system, it will track the amount of sunlight hours it receives. In conjunction with temperature, sunlight will signal to a plant when it is time to break dormancy.
How To Create Sunlight Indoors for Plants
While sunlight is essential to a plant’s growth, we aren’t always able to receive sunlight indoors or during the fall and winter. In this case, lights for indoor growing can be utilized.
Full spectrum LEDs are most commonly used today when there is a need for supplemental light. Many small indoor grow-light kits are easy to use and meant for at-home use.
Sunlight vs. Artificial Light
While the sun is the most natural and all-encompassing light source for plants, artificial light produced by LEDs can closely imitate the sun.
Artificial lights meant for growing plants will cover the full light spectrum, but they may need to be adjusted to give the plant the correct wavelength during the correct season.
Best LED Grow Lights for Indoor Plants
LEDs are extremely small and efficient lights that can mimic the sun’s rays effectively. They come in different shapes & sizes and have different applicable uses. See below for a list of 5 great LED grow light options:
These lights have the ability to give multiple plants in the same area different intensities of sunlight. With five separate adjustable arms, each can be angled and adjusted to give each plant what it needs to grow best.
Great for larger growing needs, the intensity of this light will cover a larger footprint and should mimic the sun most similarly. With a dimmer knob, this light allows you to fine-tune the spectrum of light for different growing periods.
This is the most customizable option because it is able to be put almost anywhere. These lighting strips can be put under cabinets for growing herbs on your kitchen counter or bring light to a normally dark area.
LED grow light bulbs are a great way to bring the power of the sun to any existing lamp. If you have house plants that need some supplemental light, an LED bulb can be put directly into an existing lamp.
If placed within a few feet of the plants, this should help to give them ample sunlight.
Related Questions:
Can Plants Grow Without Soil?
Soil is the most common growing medium for plants, but many different growing substrates exist, and hydroponics is growing more popular by the day.
To eliminate the need for balancing soil ecology, substrates like rock-wool, coco coir, and other fibrous materials can grow a plant the same as any soil.
In this case, the growing medium is usually void of nutrients. A fertilizer will need to be regularly applied to ensure the plants receive everything they need to survive.
Do Seeds Need Light To Germinate?
While seeds may not be able to absorb sunlight, they can feel the warmth it provides. Without sunlight, a seed may germinate if the ambient temperature is warm enough, but it will not survive for long thereafter.
A seed contains all of the needed “tools” to allow a seedling to begin its life. Its cotyledons are its first leaves that will begin to absorb the sunlight, producing energy for the plant to grow.
Without sunlight, a seed may germinate, but when the cotyledons find no sunlight, the seedling will die.
Conclusion
Sunlight is vital to a plant’s growth because it drives photosynthesis. Ensuring your plant receives ample sunlight and is able to photosynthesize effectively is important to its thriving!
Understanding what variety you are growing along with its natural habitat and climate can help you ensure your plant gets what it needs most to grow.
When you aren’t able to grow outdoors or need to supplement the light you already receive, LEDs are a great way to give your plants enough sunlight to grow! | Indirect sunlight is sunlight with less intensity, most likely reduced by an obstruction or other dispersal of sunlight rays. Plants that prefer indirect sunlight are usually houseplants and plants that live in nature in the understory of other plants.
Do Plants Need Sunlight or Just Light?
Plants require sunlight because it covers many spectrums of light. Regular light bulbs usually only produce light rays in the spectrums humans can see.
While these seem to produce light that can grow plants, without UV rays and other colors of the spectrum, the chemical process of photosynthesis will not occur.
Sunlight may be reproduced using special light bulbs (see below for ideal options) that cover the full light spectrum.
How Much Sunlight Do Plants Need?
The amount of sunlight a plant needs depends on the variety. For vegetables and other outdoor varieties, a minimum of 7- 8 hours of sunlight is necessary. While plants may grow with less, they usually do not exhibit the same characteristics as a plant grown in the required sunlight.
Certain plants that do not require more sunlight to produce energy will grow with as little as 4-6 hours of sunlight a day.
What Happens To Plants Without Sunlight?
Since plants rely on sunlight to produce energy for survival, without sunlight a plant’s health will begin to decline, and it may die.
When a plant’s sunlight exposure is eliminated, it will show signs of stress. These may include symptoms of yellowing, browning, wilting, and dieback of leaves. A plant can survive off reserve energy that it has stored in its roots but only for a short period of time.
How Long Can Plants Survive Without Sunlight?
Plants can only survive a limited amount of time without sunlight. As time passes, without sunlight a plant’s health will begin to decline exponentially.
A plant will usually begin to show signs of lack of sunlight after three or four days. The more time that the plant goes without sunlight, the more the plant’s health will decline. In most cases, a plant will not survive more than one or two weeks without sunlight.
Do Dormant Plants Need Sunlight? | no |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | yes_statement | "plants" can "grow" without "sunlight".. it is possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://www.biotechniques.com/plant-climate-science/grow-in-the-dark-photosynthesis-that-doesnt-require-sunlight/ | Grow in the dark: photosynthesis that doesn't require sunlight | Grow in the dark: photosynthesis that doesn’t require sunlight
Researchers have developed an electrocatalytic process to allow plants to undergo photosynthesis without sunlight. This form of artificial photosynthesis may increase the efficiency with which food crops are raised.
It is well understood that plants need water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to grow. However, only 1% of sunlight is absorbed by plants, making biological photosynthesis wildly inefficient. Researchers from the University of California Riverside (UC Riverside; CA, USA) in conjunction with the University of Delaware (DE, USA) have developed an artificial photosynthetic process that does not require sunlight. By being able to grow plants efficiently in the dark, agricultural practices may shift to lessen their environmental impact and reduce their dependence on appropriate weather conditions, ultimately contributing to global food security.
Due to changes in climate and the growing population, ensuring a plentiful supply of food is becoming more difficult. Additionally, urbanization has reduced the available hospitable land for growing crops. To bypass the climate and urbanization issues, researchers set out to find a way of delivering nutrients to plants in a controlled environment without sunlight.
Using electrolyzers, they converted carbon dioxide, water and electricity into acetate, which could then be taken up by plants in the dark. The electricity needed for acetate production was supplied by a more efficient energy source than raw sunlight, solar panels.
Researchers demonstrated that food-producing organisms, such as algae, yeast and fungal mycelium, grew reliably in the dark acetate environment in the absence of biological photosynthesis. “Typically, these organisms are cultivated on sugars derived from plants or inputs derived from petroleum—which is a product of biological photosynthesis that took place millions of years ago. This technology is a more efficient method of turning solar energy into food, as compared to food production that relies on biological photosynthesis,” reported co-lead author Elizabeth Hann (UC Riverside; CA, USA).
A single-cell marine microbe has been discovered, called Prorocentrum cf. balticum, that could be a secret weapon to combat climate change.
They also investigated the potential to use artificial photosynthesis to grow crop plants, including tomato, rice, canola and tobacco. “We found that a wide range of crops could take the acetate we provided and build it into the major molecular building blocks an organism needs to grow and thrive. With some breeding and engineering that we are currently working on we might be able to grow crops with acetate as an extra energy source to boost crop yields,” suggests co-lead author Marcus Harland-Dunaway (UC Riverside; CA, USA).
Artificial photosynthesis provides an exciting opportunity to efficiently grow more food-producing plants for humans and animals as well as expand the areas in which these plants can be grown, such as urban centers. By mitigating the effects of climate change and artificially creating nutrient-rich environments, agriculture could potentially undergo a positive shift to sustain the global population. | Grow in the dark: photosynthesis that doesn’t require sunlight
Researchers have developed an electrocatalytic process to allow plants to undergo photosynthesis without sunlight. This form of artificial photosynthesis may increase the efficiency with which food crops are raised.
It is well understood that plants need water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to grow. However, only 1% of sunlight is absorbed by plants, making biological photosynthesis wildly inefficient. Researchers from the University of California Riverside (UC Riverside; CA, USA) in conjunction with the University of Delaware (DE, USA) have developed an artificial photosynthetic process that does not require sunlight. By being able to grow plants efficiently in the dark, agricultural practices may shift to lessen their environmental impact and reduce their dependence on appropriate weather conditions, ultimately contributing to global food security.
Due to changes in climate and the growing population, ensuring a plentiful supply of food is becoming more difficult. Additionally, urbanization has reduced the available hospitable land for growing crops. To bypass the climate and urbanization issues, researchers set out to find a way of delivering nutrients to plants in a controlled environment without sunlight.
Using electrolyzers, they converted carbon dioxide, water and electricity into acetate, which could then be taken up by plants in the dark. The electricity needed for acetate production was supplied by a more efficient energy source than raw sunlight, solar panels.
Researchers demonstrated that food-producing organisms, such as algae, yeast and fungal mycelium, grew reliably in the dark acetate environment in the absence of biological photosynthesis. “Typically, these organisms are cultivated on sugars derived from plants or inputs derived from petroleum—which is a product of biological photosynthesis that took place millions of years ago. This technology is a more efficient method of turning solar energy into food, as compared to food production that relies on biological photosynthesis,” reported co-lead author Elizabeth Hann (UC Riverside; CA, USA).
A single-cell marine microbe has been discovered, called Prorocentrum cf. balticum, that could be a secret weapon to combat climate change.
| yes |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | no_statement | "plants" cannot "grow" without "sunlight".. it is not possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://succulentbar.com/do-succulents-need-sun/ | Do Succulents Need Sun? | Succulent Bar | Do Succulents Need Sun?
With their ethereal beauty, striking forms, and eye-catching colors, succulents have become popular additions to cocktail tables, desks, and windowsills. However, part of the satisfaction of growing succulent plants comes from their modest requirements.
But while succulents are resilient plants that can endure conditions other plants cannot, they have one peculiar need: the perfect balance of shade and sunlight to thrive. So whether you’ve been gifted a pebble plant or bought a gorgeous snake plant from the shop, you can’t just bring succulent plants into your home without learning how to care for them.
Can Succulents Live Inside Without Sunlight?
Succulents love sun exposure, and most varieties need at least 4-6 hours of daily indirect sunlight to thrive. However, there are several situations where you may need to keep succulents in the dark. It could be sending succulents in the mail, decorating a house or office for special events, storing wedding favors, protecting succulents from lousy weather, etc.
But aside from these instances, can they still make greatindoor house plantsif you lack a bright, sunny location to display them? Or, can your succulents thrive without light if you live in a basement apartment and your space has no windows at all?
The straightforward answer is no – no succulent will survive in the long term with a complete lack of bright indirect light, just like any other indoor plant. Sure, succulent plants can survive for a short time without direct sunlight, but how long succulents live will depend on the species.
Most succulents will live without deterioration for 10-14 days if placed in a place with little or no light, while some shade-tolerant succulents may live longer. The following tips will help yourindoor succulents last longer, even without sunlight.
The Best Ways to Make Succulents Last Longer Without Light
To avoid overstressing the succulents, keep their time in the dark to less than ten days. As previously stated, succulents begin to deteriorate after ten days without enough light.
Succulents should be kept dry as well. It is never a good idea to water succulents in the dark. This includes misting, which is also ineffective even under normal conditions.
Wet or soggy potting soil is likely to make fungus diseases and rot easier to spread, which would be sped up by the lack of light.
Places that don’t get bright indirect sunlight can also be moist, which succulents don’t like. So, if succulents are kept in the dark as wedding favors, it can help to leave some space between them so they don’t get too cramped. This can lower the amount of moisture in the air around the plant.
If you need tokeep succulents in low or no light for more than 14 days, getting plant-growing lights will help keep them happy. Cool daylight LED lights with 1000-2000 lumens would be ideal for the job.
How Much Sunlight Do Succulents Need?
Succulent plants come in varying needs and conditions to thrive.
For example, some succulent varieties grow in low-lying areas shaded by taller plants in their native habitats. On the other hand, some grow in crevices shielded from direct sunlight and on hilltops where rocks or boulders provide shade.
But there are also varieties of succulents that love full sun and thrive well under direct sunlight. Examples of sun-loving succulents include:
Agave Plants
Aloe Carmine
Blue Chalksticks
Cactuses
Copper Pinwheel
Coppertone Stonecrop
Fred Ives
Golden Barrel Cactus
Crinkle Leaf Plant
Lipstick Echeveria
Paddle Plant
Pink Ice Plant
Prickly Pear Cactus
Silver Dollar Jade
Sticks on Fire
Tree Anemone
However, if you are not careful, even succulents that thrive outdoors can suffer from ‘sunburn.’ Especiallysoft succulents can wither and die quickly if exposed to too much sun. Their leaves will develop brown spots if left unattended for too long in extreme heat.
Sunburned Succulents
And so, if too much sun can cause damage to succulent plants, how much light do succulents need to grow well then? To be more precise, how many hours of sunlight do succulents need?
The following are a few reminders about what to do and what not to do to ensure your succulent gets enough sunlight and doesn’t end up dying:
If You’re Growing Succulents Indoors
Hawthoria low light succulent
Most succulents do best in bright direct light and need at least 6 hours of natural light per day. But if you only have a shady corner in your home, choose plants like mother-in-law tongue that do well in low light and place them near a south or east-facing window.
If you want to hang your succulent pot, a trailing type like “string of bananas” is a good choice.
If you already have your succulents near a good window, you can use the less expensive goose-neck plant lights to give them an extra boost.
A larger LED lighting panel is ideal for sustaining a few plants if it’s dark.
If You’re Growing Succulents Outdoors
It’s a little different if you’regrowing succulents outdoors. Instead of exposing your plants to as much light as possible, you’ll likely need to protect them a little. After all, most of them aren’t native to the desert, and too much sun can still harm them.
Midrange succulents may grow well under some shade, such as a tall palm tree. Butdesert succulents, such as spiny cacti, don’t mind as much. An Opuntia, for example, can thrive in full sun with no shade, but it can get thirsty quickly.
What Happens if Succulents Don’t Get Sun?
Even though succulents are pretty hardy and great indoor plants, they still need bright indirect sunlight to grow well—but not too much, or they’ll get burned.Succulents that don’t receive enough light undergo several noticeable changes in appearance, such as:
1. Elongated stems and sparse leaves
Etiolation is one of the most obvious signs that your succulent hasn’t had enough direct sunlight. Succulents appear disproportionately taller than their original compact form, with more space between the leaves on the stem and thin growth at the top. As a result, instead of seeing a beautiful bunching of leaves, you see a lot of slender stalks.
2. Flattening of rosettes
In their quest for more light, some succulents grow significantly tall, thin, and spindly, while others grow abnormally in other ways. The leaves will lose their shape and become flattered, making them look sad and sick.
3. Fading of color
If the leaves of a plant are glossy and bright, even if they are just plain green, the plant is healthy and gets enough light and water. But succulents can sometimes look washed out and old, with dull leaves, and this is usually a sign that they could use some more sun.
4. Arching of lower leaves
When the lower leaves start arching and point downwards, the plant almost collapses from the bottom. Again, this is due to a lack of adequate light, with the plant starting to etiolate.
Now that we know what happens to succulents when they don’t get enough sunlight, the answer to the question, ‘do succulents need sunlight?’ is a clear yes! By placing your plant in a location where it receives enough light, fading colors, etoliation, and arching of lower leaves should be restored over time.
Do Succulents Need Sun and Water?
Sunburned Succulent Leaves
While succulent plants require very little care in watering, they are still susceptible to root rot when overwatered or sunburned when overexposed to direct sun. Moreover, as was said in the last section, succulents that don’t get enough sunlight and water will have problems like elongation or etiolation, lose their vibrant pigmentation, get pale, or turn back to a dull green color.
How to Know if They Are Receiving Enough Sunlight
Do succulents need direct sun, or will bright indirect sunlight suffice to keep them blooming beautifully? Knowing the effects of too much and too little sunlight can help determine how much sun your succulent plants need.
Too Much Sunlight
When succulents are stressed out by too much sun, their rosettes will close up. This is their way of protecting their leaves from getting intense light and heat.
Leaves will turn yellow or brown, often starting on the outside edges and making the leaf feel rough instead of smooth.
Soon, leaves will show the first signs of sunburn damage by curling up or getting a dark spot on one side, and this damage cannot be reversed.
Lack of Sunlight
If the rosettes don’t get enough light, they will open up and spread out to reach the light source. They will continue to grow taller, away from the center, leaving significant gaps between the leaves on the stem.
A small, lighter-colored leaf is more common than usual. This means that the lack of sunlight causes your succulent’s original color to fade.
As light deprivation continues, the bottom leaves start arching and pointing down instead of up.
How To Know If They Are Receiving Enough Water
Taking a close look at the leaves of your succulents is the easiest way to tell if they are getting too much or too little water. Before the problem gets too bad, the leaves will slowly change and exhibit signs.
Overwatered
Signs of overwatered succulents
Plump leaves will probably be yellow, see-through, soft, and wet and may also look shriveled. Some succulents with thick leaves, like ice plants and lithops, break and split instead because they get too much water.
Overwatering succulents with flat leaves will cause the leaves to turn brown or black. When a plant is overwatered, the rot usually begins in the middle or bottom and works its way up.
Underwatered
Signs of thirsty succulents in need of more water
Succulents with plump leaves, such as Echeveria and Graptoveria, will show signs of stress from underwatering by developing shriveled and wrinkled leaves. As water storage runs out, their bottom leaves will dry up and fall as they try to conserve water and energy for survival.
On the other hand, flat leaves like Aeonium will lose their firmness and look limp and wilted. Their leaves will also start to get wrinkled and shrink. After that, as the plant continues to experience a lack of water, the bottom leaves will slowly get yellow spots.
How Winter Cold Affects Succulents
Each succulent has different temperature needs, but most will not tolerate prolonged freezing temperatures. Hardy succulents and those that are soft will react differently to the cold winter.
Soft Succulents
Aloe and other tender succulents like warm weather, so they either need to live inside, where the temperature should be over 50 degrees Farenheight, or outside if it never gets below freezing. Even a light frost can damage tender leaves. If you leave them outside in freezing temperatures, they will freeze, rot, and die.
Hardy Succulents
Hardy succulents can handle frost, freezing temperatures, and even temperatures below freezing. They are the best plants to keep outside all the time. They grow and thrive better outdoors than indoors. Some varieties, such as sedum, may change color slightly, and during its dormant cycle, it may transition from a lush green or colorful sedum to a dull color.
How to Care for Succulents in Winter
Knowing how to care for succulents in the winter will help these beautiful plants survive changes in temperature and humidity. The following are some tips for protecting your succulents from winter frost damage:
Remove dead leaves.
Winterize succulents by moving them.
Ensure succulent drainage holes are efficient.
Surround the roots of the succulents with gravel.
Raise succulents off the ground during the winter.
Protect succulent outdoors with horticultural fleece.
Final Thoughts – Yes, Succulents Need Sun
If you’ve read this far, you should clearly understand why succulents need sun. Taking care of succulents doesn’t have to be demanding or stressful because there are wide varieties to choose from. It may appear not very easy at first, but it becomes easier with practice. Caring for your succulents can be easy and rewarding as long as you give your succulents the right amount of sun and don’t overwater them.
If you found this article informative, please share it with your friends on social media.
About the Author
WHO IS Jessica Seifert
Jessica Seifert is the owner and succulent expert behind Succulent Bar. Based in Texas, she has a passion for plants and a talent for creating unique experiences for her community. With years of event planning and interior design studies, Jessica’s skills and knowledge are highly sought after in the succulent community. Her love for plants and dedication to her craft has earned her a reputation as a trusted authority on succulents.
Whether creating beautiful succulent arrangements for events or teaching others about the care and maintenance of these plants through her in-person and virtual planting experiences, Jessica’s expertise shines through in everything she does. She has a deep-rooted love for her craft and is dedicated to sharing her knowledge with others. With Succulent Bar, Jessica has created a business that is both successful and fulfilling, and she looks forward to continuing to serve her community with her passion and expertise. | To be more precise, how many hours of sunlight do succulents need?
The following are a few reminders about what to do and what not to do to ensure your succulent gets enough sunlight and doesn’t end up dying:
If You’re Growing Succulents Indoors
Hawthoria low light succulent
Most succulents do best in bright direct light and need at least 6 hours of natural light per day. But if you only have a shady corner in your home, choose plants like mother-in-law tongue that do well in low light and place them near a south or east-facing window.
If you want to hang your succulent pot, a trailing type like “string of bananas” is a good choice.
If you already have your succulents near a good window, you can use the less expensive goose-neck plant lights to give them an extra boost.
A larger LED lighting panel is ideal for sustaining a few plants if it’s dark.
If You’re Growing Succulents Outdoors
It’s a little different if you’regrowing succulents outdoors. Instead of exposing your plants to as much light as possible, you’ll likely need to protect them a little. After all, most of them aren’t native to the desert, and too much sun can still harm them.
Midrange succulents may grow well under some shade, such as a tall palm tree. Butdesert succulents, such as spiny cacti, don’t mind as much. An Opuntia, for example, can thrive in full sun with no shade, but it can get thirsty quickly.
What Happens if Succulents Don’t Get Sun?
Even though succulents are pretty hardy and great indoor plants, they still need bright indirect sunlight to grow well—but not too much, or they’ll get burned. Succulents that don’t receive enough light undergo several noticeable changes in appearance, such as:
1. | no |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | no_statement | "plants" cannot "grow" without "sunlight".. it is not possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://growfoodeasily.com/can-you-grow-food-without-sunlight/ | Can You Grow Food Without Sunlight? | 2023 | Can You Grow Food Without Sunlight?
If you live in an area that doesn’t get a lot of light, you might wonder if you can grow food without sunlight.
Some food plants grow well in the shade, some need darkness, and you can grow some with artificial light. We’ll explain which foods can grow with little or no sunlight.
What plants can grow without sunlight?
Several vegetables can grow in partially shaded areas. Remember, these are areas with some sunlight mixed with some shade. These vegetables include:
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Brussels Sprouts
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Garlic
Horseradish
Kale
Leeks
Lettuce
Mustard Greens
Parsnips
Peas
Potatoes
Radishes
Rhubarb
Spinach
Swiss Chard
Turnips
Can crops grow without sunlight?
Crops can grow without sunlight, but most plants need at least partial exposure to some artificial light to germinate. The best types of grow lights to use for plants include:
High-pressure sodium (HPS) or metal halide
Fluorescent lights
LED lights.
How can I grow food indoors without sunlight?
You can use the three bulbs mentioned above – high-pressure sodium or metal halide bulbs, fluorescent lights, or LED lights.
All plants can grow inside, but some do much better than others. Some of the plants that do the best include:
Broccoli
Herbs – Almost all herbs grow well indoors. You can grow some herbs, such as chervil, chives, cilantro, lemon balm, mint, oregano, parsley, sweet cicely, tarragon, and thyme, just by putting them on a window sill.
Beans – be sure to plant bush beans rather than pole beans if growing them indoors. Bush beans don’t need any stakes or vertical space.
What about fruits?
You can also grow fruit indoors. Container gardening is great for strawberry plants.
Can you grow food in the dark?
Yes, you can grow some food in the dark, including:
Mushrooms
Sprouts
Microgreens
Wheatgrass
What food grows at night?
Mushrooms
Sprouts
Microgreens
Wheatgrass
White Asparagus
Forced Rhubarb
What happens to plants without sunlight?
Plants lose their green color when they don’t get sunlight. Even non-green plants contain chlorophyll.
Chlorophyll is covered or hidden by other pigments in plants that don’t appear green, like coleus o purple leaf plum.
Indoor plants that grow without sunlight
Chinese evergreen (Aglaonema)
Cast-iron plant (Aspidistra elatior)
ZZ plant (Zamioculcas)
Monstera (Monstera delicosa)
Lucky bamboo (Dracaena sanderiana)
Outdoor plants that grow without sunlight
Parlor palm
Snake plant
Calathea
Bromeliads
Spider plant
Peace lily
Maidenhair fern
Sword Fern
Heart-Leaf Philodendron
Creeping Fig
Golden Pothos
Peperomia
Prayer plant
Can plants grow without sunlight and water?
Most plants cannot grow without sunlight or water. If you can’t put plants outside to get direct sunlight, you can create sunlight indoors for plants.
Water, however, is essential for plant survival and growth. If you do not water your plants, they will eventually die.
How to create sunlight indoors for plants
You can create sunlight indoors for plants in a few different ways:
Put plants near south-facing windows if possible. If you don’t have a southern window, you can also put them near a western-facing window. If it tolerates direct sunlight, place it directly near the window or as close to it as possible.
Put plants in areas where the sun bounces back. Locations, where reflected light reaches the plant, will increase its exposure to sunlight. Place the plant near an open window or a light-colored wall if you’re indoors.
How long can a plant survive without sunlight?
Depending on how much light it gets typically, a plant can live between four and twenty days without sunlight.
Plants that thrive in low light can survive for 12 to 20 days, while those that thrive in full sunlight only live four to ten days.
How indoor plants survive without sunlight
Some plants can survive in very low-light conditions. If you consider dark rainforest canopies, plants grow in that environment. Their broad, thin leaves have evolved to capture as much sunlight as possible in low-light environments.
Can you grow plants with artificial light?
You can use hanging tube fixtures to grow plants indoors if you’re serious about it. You can use any lamp or light fixture, provided you choose the bulbs carefully.
Make sure you do proper research to ensure you’re buying the right lights for your plants and your home.
Fluorescent lights
It is the easiest and most economical choice for houseplants. You can plug compact bulbs or tubes into standard lamps, and they’re safe to place near foliage.
Better than generic fluorescent bulbs and tubes are “warm” and “cool” bulbs or “full-spectrum” fluorescent tubes. White light contains all wavelengths, so use “cool white” products to be safe. You should position foliage at least one foot away from fluorescents.
Incandescent lights
These emit considerable heat; it’s best to avoid them near leaves. Because they emit more red wavelengths, they can balance out the spectrum and supplement fluorescent light if you want your flowers to bloom.
If you want to mix incandescent and fluorescent bulbs, try to use a third incandescent and two-thirds fluorescent bulbs by wattage.
LED lights
These are another energy-efficient, low-heat lighting source. Every LED bulb is unique because of the flexibility of LED technology, so make sure your bulbs produce the colors your plants require.
Rather than general LED lights, plant growers should consider horticultural LED grow lights.
Halogen lights
These provide full-spectrum light as well. However, the bulbs also produce heat and are less energy-efficient. There are better options besides halogen bulbs when it comes to choosing the best lights for your plants.
Grow lights for horticulture
Generally, they are sold in tubes for fluorescent fixtures. They provide the range of wavelengths blooming plants need. Some gardeners use them to start seeds or propagate hybrids, but others prefer fluorescent lights. No matter your preference, there’s a light available for you.
Growing Food Without Sunlight FAQ
Can plants grow without sunlight?
Light is essential to plants – they can’t survive without it. It’s a crucial part of photosynthesis. Plants can’t get all the nutrients they need to be healthy and strong without light, and without light, photosynthesis won’t work.
All plants do not require the same type or amount of light. Some plants need a lot of warm sunlight, while others do well with just a few hours of cool light.
Can the jade plant survive without sunlight?
No, the jade plant has to have at least 4-5 hours of full sunlight every day. The plant will be able to produce enough food in a day under these conditions. It will be fine if it doesn’t receive the same sunlight every day.
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information. | Plants lose their green color when they don’t get sunlight. Even non-green plants contain chlorophyll.
Chlorophyll is covered or hidden by other pigments in plants that don’t appear green, like coleus o purple leaf plum.
Indoor plants that grow without sunlight
Chinese evergreen (Aglaonema)
Cast-iron plant (Aspidistra elatior)
ZZ plant (Zamioculcas)
Monstera (Monstera delicosa)
Lucky bamboo (Dracaena sanderiana)
Outdoor plants that grow without sunlight
Parlor palm
Snake plant
Calathea
Bromeliads
Spider plant
Peace lily
Maidenhair fern
Sword Fern
Heart-Leaf Philodendron
Creeping Fig
Golden Pothos
Peperomia
Prayer plant
Can plants grow without sunlight and water?
Most plants cannot grow without sunlight or water. If you can’t put plants outside to get direct sunlight, you can create sunlight indoors for plants.
Water, however, is essential for plant survival and growth. If you do not water your plants, they will eventually die.
How to create sunlight indoors for plants
You can create sunlight indoors for plants in a few different ways:
Put plants near south-facing windows if possible. If you don’t have a southern window, you can also put them near a western-facing window. If it tolerates direct sunlight, place it directly near the window or as close to it as possible.
Put plants in areas where the sun bounces back. Locations, where reflected light reaches the plant, will increase its exposure to sunlight. Place the plant near an open window or a light-colored wall if you’re indoors.
| no |
Botany | Can plants grow without sunlight? | no_statement | "plants" cannot "grow" without "sunlight".. it is not possible for "plants" to "grow" without "sunlight". | https://www.varsitytutors.com/2nd_grade_science-help/plan-an-investigation-to-see-whether-plants-need-sun-and-water | Plan an investigation to see whether plants need sun and water ... | Example Questions
Example Question #1 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
What do plants need to grow?
Possible Answers:
Moonlight and wind
Sunlight and water
Water and wind
Sunlight and moonlight
Correct answer:
Sunlight and water
Explanation:
For plants to grow and survive, they need sunlight and water. Water is collected through the roots of the plant and absorbed from the soil. Sunlight is collected through the leaves of the plant to use in the process of photosynthesis to make food. Plants cannot live without sunlight and water.
Water, two plants, a window, a dark closet, a pencil, paper, and a ruler
Correct answer:
Water, two plants, a window, a dark closet, a pencil, paper, and a ruler
Explanation:
If Justin wants to plan an investigation, an important part is to have the right supplies or materials. Justin will need two plants, one to place in the sunlight and one in the dark, water for the plant in the sunshine, a ruler to measure growth, and paper and pencil to record observations. The other lists are incomplete or have materials that are not needed for this investigation.
Example Question #3 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Brandon is curious about what keeps plants alive and helps them to grow. Which answer choice is a testable, scientific question that relates to the topic?
Possible Answers:
What would happen if plants did not receive water or sunlight?
Which plant, the rose bush or sunflower, grows the tallest?
How many different plants are there in a garden?
Which plant is the prettiest, the daisy, or lilac?
Correct answer:
What would happen if plants did not receive water or sunlight?
Explanation:
Most investigations or experiments start with a question. In this case, Brandon is wondering about keeping plants alive and helping them grow. A scientific question must be testable, meaning someone can collect data and observations, and it should be related to what the person was wondering. The correct answer choice is testable and related. Water and sunlight are essential to a plant's survival, so they would be good variables to test.
Example Question #4 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Virginia is planning an investigation to test what would happen if she does not give rose plants sunlight or water. Her teacher tells her to state her hypothesis or prediction of what she thinks the results will be. Which hypothesis is most reasonable?
Possible Answers:
"I believe the rose plants will start to die but then come back to life. They will survive and grow tall."
"I believe that the rose plants are prettier than most other flowers, so they will be fine."
"I believe the rose plants will not survive without sunlight or water. They will wilt and die over time."
"I believe that the rose plants will bloom beautiful flowers and have tall green stems."
Correct answer:
"I believe the rose plants will not survive without sunlight or water. They will wilt and die over time."
Explanation:
A hypothesis is stated before an investigation or experiment is performed, and the evidence collected will either support or will not support the prediction. A hypothesis should be reasonable and related to the topic. Virginia is testing what would happen to plants without water or sunlight; these are two critical pieces to a plant's survival. Using background knowledge or personal experiment, a prediction can be made that the plants will not survive. "I believe the rose plants will not survive without sunlight or water. They will wilt and die over time." is the most reasonable hypothesis.
Example Question #5 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Nick is planning an investigation to see if plants grow better in the dark or somewhere sunny. Which data table set-up would be best for him to use during this investigation?
Possible Answers:
Correct answer:
Explanation:
In this investigation, Nick is only testing if plants grow better somewhere dark or sunny. The water the plants receive should be the same, and there should be some plants in the sun and some in the dark so they can be measured and observed. There have to be plants in both locations to compare growth.
Example Question #6 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Christopher is planning an investigation to see whether plants need sunlight and water to grow and survive. Which title would be best for his experiment?
Possible Answers:
"Do Plants Need Water to Grow?"
"Do Plants Need Sunlight to Grow?"
"Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow?"
"Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow More Than One Foot Tall?"
Correct answer:
"Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow?"
Explanation:
The best title for Christopher's experiment would be "Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow?". It is short and includes all of the vital information. It doesn't leave anything out or have any parts that are irrelevant to the experiment.
Example Question #7 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Jennifer wants to test whether plants can survive without sunlight and water. Which answer choice represents the BEST plan to investigate this?
Possible Answers:
Get two identical pots. Fill one with dirt from the yard and fill the other with soil from the store—plant three sunflower seeds in one and three lima bean seeds in the other. Place one in the window and one in a dark room. Water the plant in the dark room daily and record the plant growth and observations.
Get two identical pots. Fill one with dirt from the yard and fill the other with soil from the store. Plant three sunflower seeds in each container. Place them both in a dark room, water the plants daily, and record plant growth and observations.
Get six identical pots and fill each with the same amount of dirt—plant three sunflower seeds in each container. Place two in the window, two in a dark room, and two outside. Water all six plants daily and record plant growth and observations.
Get four identical pots and fill each with the same amount of dirt—plant three sunflower seeds in each container. Place two in a window and the other two in a dark closet. Water one of the plants in the window daily, water one of the plants in the dark closet daily—record plant growth and observations.
Correct answer:
Get four identical pots and fill each with the same amount of dirt—plant three sunflower seeds in each container. Place two in a window and the other two in a dark closet. Water one of the plants in the window daily, water one of the plants in the dark closet daily—record plant growth and observations.
Explanation:
Jennifer is testing whether plants can survive without sunlight and water, so those are the only two variables that will change. Everything else in the investigation should remain the same. The same pots, same dirt, same amount of water each day, same type of seeds, and the same amount of sunlight or darkness should be maintained throughout the investigation. "Get four identical pots and fill each with the same amount of dirt—plant three sunflower seeds in each container—place two in a window and the other two in a dark closet. Water one of the plants in the window daily, water one of the plants in the dark closet daily—record plant growth and observations." is the most controlled and complete investigational plan.
Example Question #8 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Andrew wants to investigate if plants need water to survive. Which data table set-up is most appropriate for this investigation?
Possible Answers:
Correct answer:
Explanation:
The only test variable in this investigation is whether the plant gets water or not. Andrew is testing if water is needed for plants to survive. All of the test plants should be in the same location, and some should get water while others do not so they can be compared to one another. If all the plants get water, then Andrew will not know what would happen without water. If he has some plants in different locations, he won't know if it is the water or the area that stopped a plant from surviving.
Example Question #9 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Morgan wants to investigate if plants need water AND sunlight to survive. Which data table set-up is most appropriate for this investigation?
Possible Answers:
Correct answer:
Explanation:
Morgan has two test variables in her experiment. She wants to know if plants need water AND sunlight to survive. Morgan has to test both of these variables to see what plants need. The data table that best matches this investigation shows two plants in the sun and two plants in the dark. One plant from each group will get watered, and the other two will not. Morgan can collect information and observations about how the plants grow under each condition.
Example Question #10 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
What does it mean to investigate?
Possible Answers:
A sleeveless, close-fitting waist-length garment worn over a shirt
To discover, study, or research something
A hinged barrier used to close an opening in a wall or fence
To place money into an account hoping to make more later
Correct answer:
To discover, study, or research something
Explanation:
To investigate something or to participate in an investigation means to discover, study, or research. When scientists have a question, they will come up with a plan to try and answer it. If someone wanted to investigate a plant's growth, they could test the type of soil, amount of water or sunlight, or the type of plant. They would collect data and make observations about the plants; this would be an investigation.
Report an issue with this question
If you've found an issue with this question, please let us know. With the help of the community we can continue to
improve our educational resources.
Do not fill in this field
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
* Issue Description:
DMCA Complaint
If you believe that content available by means of the Website (as defined in our Terms of Service) infringes one
or more of your copyrights, please notify us by providing a written notice (“Infringement Notice”) containing
the
information described below to the designated agent listed below. If Varsity Tutors takes action in response to
an
Infringement Notice, it will make a good faith attempt to contact the party that made such content available by
means of the most recent email address, if any, provided by such party to Varsity Tutors.
Your Infringement Notice may be forwarded to the party that made the content available or to third parties such
as
ChillingEffects.org.
Please be advised that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) if you materially
misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights. Thus, if you are not sure content located
on or linked-to by the Website infringes your copyright, you should consider first contacting an attorney.
Please follow these steps to file a notice:
You must include the following:
A physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on their behalf;
An identification of the copyright claimed to have been infringed;
A description of the nature and exact location of the content that you claim to infringe your copyright, in \
sufficient detail to permit Varsity Tutors to find and positively identify that content; for example we require
a
link to the specific question (not just the name of the question) that contains the content and a description of
which specific portion of the question – an image, a link, the text, etc – your complaint refers to;
Your name, address, telephone number and email address; and
A statement by you: (a) that you believe in good faith that the use of the content that you claim to infringe
your copyright is not authorized by law, or by the copyright owner or such owner’s agent; (b) that all of the
information contained in your Infringement Notice is accurate, and (c) under penalty of perjury, that you are
either the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on their behalf. | Using background knowledge or personal experiment, a prediction can be made that the plants will not survive. "I believe the rose plants will not survive without sunlight or water. They will wilt and die over time." is the most reasonable hypothesis.
Example Question #5 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Nick is planning an investigation to see if plants grow better in the dark or somewhere sunny. Which data table set-up would be best for him to use during this investigation?
Possible Answers:
Correct answer:
Explanation:
In this investigation, Nick is only testing if plants grow better somewhere dark or sunny. The water the plants receive should be the same, and there should be some plants in the sun and some in the dark so they can be measured and observed. There have to be plants in both locations to compare growth.
Example Question #6 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Christopher is planning an investigation to see whether plants need sunlight and water to grow and survive. Which title would be best for his experiment?
Possible Answers:
"Do Plants Need Water to Grow?"
"Do Plants Need Sunlight to Grow?"
"Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow?"
"Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow More Than One Foot Tall?"
Correct answer:
"Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow?"
Explanation:
The best title for Christopher's experiment would be "Do Plants Need Sunlight and Water to Grow?". It is short and includes all of the vital information. It doesn't leave anything out or have any parts that are irrelevant to the experiment.
Example Question #7 : Plan An Investigation To See Whether Plants Need Sun And Water
Jennifer wants to test whether plants can survive without sunlight and water. Which answer choice represents the BEST plan to investigate this?
Possible Answers:
Get two identical pots. Fill one with dirt from the yard and fill the other with soil from the store—plant three sunflower seeds in one and three lima bean seeds in the other. | no |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7671032/ | Sound perception and its effects in plants and algae - PMC | Share
RESOURCES
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with,
the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:
PMC Disclaimer
|
PMC Copyright Notice
ABSTRACT
Life evolved in an acoustic world. Sound is perceived in different ways by the species that inhabit the Planet. Among organisms, also some algal species seem to respond to sound stimuli with increased cell growth and productivity. The purpose of this Short Communication is to provide an overview of the current literature about various organisms and sound, with particular attention to algal organisms, which, when subjected to sound applications, can change their metabolism accordingly.
KEYWORDS: Sound vibration, sound perception, Hertz, algal metabolism
Sound: definition and propagation
Sound is a vibration that propagates in the form of a sound wave through a medium that can be a liquid as water, a gas as air or a solid material.1,2 Sound waves are generated by a sound source that creates vibrations in the surrounding medium. While the sound source continues to vibrate the medium, vibrations propagate far from the source at the speed of sound, forming the sound wave.
Sound is transmitted through water and air with longitudinal waves, through solids with longitudinal and transverse waves. In longitudinal waves particles oscillate along the direction of propagation, while in transversal ones the direction of particles oscillation is at right angle to the direction of propagation.
Sound waves are characterized by frequency (Hz), intensity (dB) and timbre, which at the same frequency distinguishes one sound from another. The speed of propagation of sound depends on the characteristics of the medium; in particular, it is directly proportional to elasticity and inversely proportional to density.1
For frequencies lower than 20 Hz we talk of infrasounds, for those higher than 20 kHz of ultrasound. The sound volume is measured in decibels (dB), perceived in a specific way by our hearing. See below in Table 1 some examples.
The behavior of sound propagation is generally influenced by three factors. The first is the relationship between the density and the pressure of the medium, which is influenced by temperature and determines the speed of sound within the medium. The second is the motion of the medium: if the medium is moving, this movement may increase or decrease the absolute speed of the sound wave depending on the direction of the movement. The third factor is the viscosity: the average viscosity determines the speed at which the sound is attenuated, but for water or air the attenuation due to viscosity is negligible. In addition, during propagation, waves may be reflected, refracted, or attenuated by the medium.2
When sound propagates in air, high frequencies are absorbed more than low because of the molecular relaxation phenomenon, and the amount of absorption depends on the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. Precipitation, rain, snow, or fog has an insignificant effect on sound levels although the presence of precipitation will obviously affect the humidity and may affect wind and temperature gradients.4
Furthermore, scattering occurs when sound waves propagates through atmosphere and meet a region of inhomogeneity; therefore, some of their energy is redirected into many other directions. In environmental noise, air turbulence, rough surfaces, and obstacles such as trees may cause scattering.5
When sound is propagated in water, a distinction must be made between deep water and shallow water. In deep water, the main natural sources of noise arise from waves generated by tidal and wind cycles, seismic disturbances such as earthquakes and volcanism, lightning, rain, ocean turbulence, and marine mammals. In shallow waters, the main natural sources of noise arise from waves hitting the shore, local wind, rain, and biological sounds such as shrimp and marine mammals. Furthermore, account should be taken of anthropogenic noise, such as ship noise, particularly commercial ships, which in recent centuries has increased ambient noise levels at frequencies below 1 kHz. Rain noise is fairly constant on all frequencies, while wind noise is one of the predominant natural factors influencing low-frequency ambient noise levels.1
Sound perception in humans, animals and plants
In human physiology and psychology, the sound is the reception of sound waves and their perception by the brain. Only waves with frequencies between about 20 Hz (infrasound) and 20 kHz (ultrasound), the range of audio frequencies, arouse an auditory perception in humans. In air at atmospheric pressure, they represent sound waves with wavelengths from 17 m (56 feet) to 1.7 cm (0.67 inches). Different animal species have different auditory ranges.6–9 For example, ultrasounds are perceived by some animal species such as dolphins and bats, while infrasounds are perceived by elephants, fish, and cetaceans.
Many species such as frogs, birds, marine and terrestrial mammals, have also developed special organs to produce and receive sounds, and they can detect the sound pressure and the vibration of the particles associated with sound with specific organs (i.e. ears) or with the totality of the body surface (somatic hearing).10,11
Plants communicate both by sending volatile chemical signals and through the network of fungi that intersects their roots.12 Volatile compounds mediate the interaction of plants with pollinators, other plants, and microorganisms.13 There is not much knowledge about sound communication in plants, but it is known that these can produce sound waves at relatively low frequencies such as 50–120 Hz. Plants emit also ultrasonic vibrations of 20–100 kHz, measured by connecting a sensor directly to the stem of the plant.14 Plants release sound emissions from different organs and at different growth stages or in response to different situations. Through the use of small highly sensitive sound receivers, it has been shown that plants emit sound from the xylem15 and faint ultrasound in case of stress.16 Plants can hear caterpillar’s chewing and set up the appropriate defenses17 but they can also hear the moving close of a pollinator using flowers as “ears” and responding with minutes by sweetening the nectar.18
From several years it has been demonstrated how plants can absorb and resonate specific sound frequencies19 and how sound waves can change the cell cycle of the plant. Sound waves vibrate plant leaves accelerating protoplasmic movement in cells.20 It is not yet entirely clear the mechanism by which sound intervenes in the growth of plants, although the biological effects of sound have been previously studied. A study found that some stress-induced genes could be activated at the level of transcription under sound stimulation.21 The stimulation of sound waves could also increase the plant plasma-membrane H+ ATPase activity, the contents of soluble sugars, soluble proteins, and amylase activity of callus.22,23 Sound vibrations can influence the rearrangement of microfilaments, increase levels of polyamines and soluble sugars, change the activity of various proteins and regulate the transcription of certain genes.24–26
Recent studies show that plant organisms perceive sound as a mechanical stimulus and translate it into cellular and metabolic changes. Sound stimuli can influence germination rates and increase plant growth and development, improving the yield of some crops.14,25,27,28 Furthermore, sound waves can improve plant immunity against pathogens and can also increase their tolerance to drought.29,30 The sound exposure increases the absorption efficiency of the light energy which translates into greater photosynthetic27 Plants can recognize the mating sounds of insect larvae and the humming of a pollinating bee and respond accordingly.31,32
Macroalgae and microalgae
Algae are a heterogeneous group of photosynthetic organisms living in an aquatic environment. classified into two large groups: macroalgae or seaweed, macroscopic, and microalgae, microscopic, and unicellular.33
Both have important ecological roles in carbon and nutrient cycling, as oxygen producers, as well as food base for almost all aquatic life, but they are also economically important as a source of food and a range of industrial products for humans.
Sound perception in macroalgae and microalgae
Algae interact through sending and receiving chemical signals with individuals of their own species and other species.34 Conspecific interactions are mediated by pheromones, while interspecific communication involves allelochemicals. Allelochemical interactions may play a role during competition through the production of compounds that suppress other species or may involve mutual relationships in which the release of metabolites promotes the growth of other species. Natural algae products can also act as a defense mechanism against herbivores or mediate interaction with associated microorganisms or pathogens.35 There is not much knowledge about other forms of communication between algae organisms, and the perception of sound in microalgae is an almost unexplored phenomenon.
In a study from 2018, it was observed that seaweed produces sound during photosynthesis. Biological noise results from the formation and consequent release of oxygen from algal filaments. During the release, the oxygen bubble assumes a spherical shape creating a monopolar sound source that is distributed by resonance over the seabed. This phenomenon, ubiquitous but previously neglected, is useful for the quantification of algae both in the ecosystem and at the level of raw materials for industrial production. The results show that algae are able to produce sound under normal circumstances and that sound is produced in the 2 to 20 kHz band.36
The transmission of the mechanical sound stimulus in algal cells involves changes at the cellular level. Some authors state that the possible cause of the alteration of the cellular resonance frequency could be the change of the viscosity characteristics in the fluid inside the cell.37
Cells respond to sound as to mechanical stresses, such as shear stress, changes in plasma-membrane tension, hydrostatic pressure, compression with changes in membrane traffic. The plasma membrane has an associated tension that modulates both exocytosis and endocytosis. As membrane tension increases, exocytosis is stimulated, and endocytosis is slowed down. The decrease in membrane tension stimulates internalization, thereby slowing exocytosis. Secretion is stimulated by external mechanical stresses, although in some cells mechanical forces block secretion. Transduction of mechanical stimuli in changes in exocytosis and endocytosis may involve the cytoskeleton, stretch-activated channels, integrins, phospholipases, tyrosine kinase, and cAMP38 (Figure 1).
Besides a) pherormones (conspecific interactions) and allelochemicals (interspecific communication), algae can also indirectly produce sound by oxygen bubbles naturally evolving during the process of photosynthesis (b). The presence of mechano-sensitive proteins in the plasma membrane can mediate a sound response influencing changes in hydrostatic pressure, in plasma-membrane tension, and therefore in membrane traffic.
Furthermore, cells respond to external stresses by changing a number of factors including cell division, dimensional growth, signal transduction, gene expression, and membrane ion channel activation.39,40 Mechano-sensitive ion channels (MS) are membrane proteins that have the ability to open and close as a result of mechanical forces resulting from gravity, osmotic pressure, and sound. When the ionic channels are in their open state, in response to mechanical forces, they allow the passage of ions, especially Ca2+ and K+, through the membrane, in order to originate an ionic current that can become an electrical or chemical signal (mechatronics). The membrane tension generated can be transmitted directly into the channel through the lipid double layer or merge indirectly to other cellular components.41
Applications of sound in macroalgae and microalgae
To date, there are few application reports regarding the use of sound to promote the growth and productivity of algal organisms.
A study from 2012 involved the microalga Chlorella pyrenoidosa: the effects of sound waves on algae propagation were evaluated, in search of the optimal frequency for the promotion of growth. C. pyrenoidosa was cultivated for 7 days: several sound frequencies were tested, collecting growth rate data and comparing them with control groups. The experiments showed that the growth of C. pyrenoidosa was significantly improved when the microalga was exposed to 0,4 kHz frequency sound waves, with an increase in growth between 12% and 30% compared to control groups.42
In another study, it was reported that the growth stimulus of the microalga Picochlorum oklahomensis was higher during the exposure to 2,2 kHz sound frequency.43 Tests were performed at 1,1, 2,2, and 3,3 kHz frequencies. The study highlights as the daily increase in growth rate is major in the exponential phase of microalgae growth. Moreover, cultures exposed to sound waves took 26 days compared to 30 days in control groups to reach the steady-state growth. The study demonstrates that audible natural sounds improve algal biomass production, considering that 2,2 kHz frequency is the predominant component of most of the sounds we can find in nature. This could be the fundament for the improvement of algal cultures through the use of sound waves in closed cultivation systems such as bioreactors. This research not only evaluates the biomass productivity, but also the lipid yields, proving that sound waves stimulate both microalgae growth and synthesis of valuable cell product of biotechnological interest.
In 2013 it was created a method called “Microbial Bebop.” This method consists in the creation of music using environmental data, starting from observation of natural patterns and taking inspiration from some bebop jazz principles.44 The method uses beat, pitch, duration, and harmony to highlight relationships between multiple data types in complex biological data sets. With this data collection, derived from the environmental monitoring station L4 in the Western English Channel, four compositions were generated. Each composition is derived from the same dataset and highlights the relationships between environmental factors and structure of the microbial community, considering different aspects of the ecological interactions of the microbial communities. The compositions created by specific algorithms are “Blues for Elle,” “Bloom,” “Far and Wide” and “Fifty Degrees North, Four Degrees West”. This kind of approach can be applied to a wide range of complex biological data sets. In recent years it was studied the effect of “Blues for Elle” and “Far and Wide” for inducing growth and productivity in microalga Haematococcus pluvialis .45 The experiment was conducted by exposing the microalga culture at audible sound for 8 and 22 days with an intensity of 60 dB. The results showed an increment in the growth rate of 58% respect to the control without music exposition. The coding in musical synthesis of the ecological data could be exploited for the induction of ecosystems to reproduction and to the synthesis of cellular components of important biotechnological relevance.
It has been confirmed that algae exposed to sound taken as a single frequency/intensity or as a set of different frequencies/intensities respond with an increase in growth rate42,43,45 but also with an increase in cellular productivity.43 As in other organisms, the time of exposure to sound should also be considered in algae. In addition, being algae aquatic organisms, it is necessary to consider the aqueous medium in which sound is propagated.
In the case of the Chlorella pyrenoidosa microalgae, an improvement in growth was observed at 0.4 kHz, 42 while frequencies of 10 and 15 kHz, even if increases the photosynthetic pigments biosynthesis, have a general biomass reducing effect in C. vulgaris.46 Still, irradiation with 5, 10, 15, and 20 kHz frequencies in the same microalgae increases the synthesis of triacylglycerols, suggesting the usefulness of a deeper investigation with the aim of biodiesel production.
In Picochlorum oklahomensis the improvement of the growth has been evidenced with an exposure to 41 kHz at 90 dB, to which an increment of the lipidic yield has been placed side by side.43 In the study with the microalga, Haematococcus pluvialis was measured that the compositions “Blues for Elle” and “Far and Wide” correspond, respectively, to 0.28 kHz and 0.24 kHz at 60 dB.45 A higher growth rate was observed in microalgae exposed to the higher frequency of “Blues for Elle.”
In the panorama of the application of sound, algae cover only a small part that surely deserves to be further investigated. The frequencies and the intensities useful for the promotion of the growth and the productivity of the algae vary between the different species, and those explored up to now are not sufficient to give a complete idea of the possible combinations.
Sound application in other organisms
There are several studies that report the effectiveness in promoting the growth of organisms exposed to sound stimuli of various nature.
In plants, depending on the frequency or intensity of the sound waves to which these organisms are exposed, it could happen that they will go against both a promotion in growth and a greater resistance to diseases and parasites.14,47
Plant Acoustic Frequency Technology (PAFT) was developed to increase crop productivity and quality through exposure to sound waves. The PAFT technology aims to provide exposure to sound waves in plants at specific frequencies in accordance with the plant’s meridian system to increase crop production and decrease use of fertilizers.14 There are a few studies suggesting that plants might have a meridian system as humans and other animals (that means internal frequency) and that they can vibrate in response to specific external sound frequencies enhancing quality and yield.48,49
Recently, the effect of audible sound has been studied on the germination and growth of the green bean, exposing it for 72 h to a frequency ranging from 1 to 2.5 kHz and with variable intensity (80/90/100 dB).27 The study found a decrease in germination time and a significant increase in the growth of buds exposed to frequencies of 2 kHz and intensity of 90 dB.
In another study, the green bean was grown in open-air chambers under controlled environmental conditions. The beans have been exposed to 5 different types of acoustic patterns (soprano, classic, nature, rock, koranic acting) with 60 dB sound pressure level and with a control chamber without sound exposure. In this case the results indicate that different types of acoustic patterns favored the growth of different parts of the beans, such as stem length, number of leaves, and length of roots. The soprano had a significant effect on the length of the stem, while the Koranic recitation had an effect on the production of leaves.50
Recently, the effect of sound exposure on tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum) has been studied.51 Tomato plants were exposed to three different consecutive frequency values: 0.6 kHz in the first week, 1.24 kHz in the second week and 1.6 kHz in the third week of growth, with a volume of 90 dB. The total phenol content, lycopene content and ascorbic acid of tomato plants exposed to sound waves at different frequencies increased by 70%, 20%, and 14%, respectively. According to the results of all the parameters measured in tomato fruits (lycopene, vitamin C, total sugars, total acids, and total phenol levels), 1.6 kHz was the best frequency value of sound waves.
Some other studies related to the application of sound on the growth and productivity of plants are shown in Table 2.
Hight and low-frequency sonic vibration can also affect growth in yeast cells. In a study carried out by Aggio and colleagues in 2012, differences in metabolic pathways of yeast cells growing in liquid medium exposed to music have been evaluated. The sound stimuli applied were at three different frequencies and intensities: low frequency (100 Hz at 92 dB], high frequency (10 kHz at 89 dB) and broadband (320 kbps at 80/90 dB) compared with silent controls with 90 dB background. The sonic stimuli increased the grown rate of the yeast cells by 12% but they also reduced biomass production by 14%. In this study, it was confirmed that the intra and extracellular metabolite profiles differed significantly depending on the sonic stimulus applied showing that different metabolic pathways are affected differently by different sound frequencies.
The effect of sound waves was investigated in bacteria growth as well. Three types of sound frequencies falling within the audible range were applied in the E. Coli strain. The bacteria strain was found to register better growth at a frequency below 1 kHz but was registered an extremely poor growth at a frequency above 1 kHz under the influence of distinctive sound frequencies.61
As it can be observed from the results presented so far, the panorama of sound applications in organisms is very heterogeneous. Plants exposed to medium/low bands of frequency and intensities result in increased growth rates, photosynthetic rates, and increased pest resistance.14,47,52,53,54–60 Changes are also evident at the cellular level in yeasts and bacteria, although in some cases an increase in the growth rate is accompanied by an impoverishment in the biomass content.62
In general, these and other studies mean that the interest in plant acoustic is shifting from “if” plant can sense sound to “how” they can do it. Plants have been exposed to many different (and amazing) kind of sounds, i.e. from Vedic Chants63 to Mozart64 to artificial single buzz14,18,65,66 to insect recordings [i.e. 17, 18]. The results are always consistent: plants produce secondary defense molecules when subjected to pathogen-related sounds, or grow better with higher yields or related parameters, or germinate earlier, etc. “Why is that” is the new big challenge of the plant acoustic basic research field, too often pushed into the background by the biotechnology application in agriculture.
Conclusions
In the future it will be interesting to deep into the field of acoustic with combined investigation of frequencies and intensities, to understand the molecular/physiological responses with the combination of sounds/algal strains tested so far and different ones.
What is clear is that sound, even frequencies not audible by humans, can affect other organisms, including plants and algae. The first studies will be followed by an in-depth knowledge of the ecological relevance of sound perception and response, and it could happen that, in addition to air pollution, light pollution, and many other forms of human interference in Nature, we should also be careful about noise pollution. | There is not much knowledge about sound communication in plants, but it is known that these can produce sound waves at relatively low frequencies such as 50–120 Hz. Plants emit also ultrasonic vibrations of 20–100 kHz, measured by connecting a sensor directly to the stem of the plant.14 Plants release sound emissions from different organs and at different growth stages or in response to different situations. Through the use of small highly sensitive sound receivers, it has been shown that plants emit sound from the xylem15 and faint ultrasound in case of stress.16 Plants can hear caterpillar’s chewing and set up the appropriate defenses17 but they can also hear the moving close of a pollinator using flowers as “ears” and responding with minutes by sweetening the nectar.18
From several years it has been demonstrated how plants can absorb and resonate specific sound frequencies19 and how sound waves can change the cell cycle of the plant. Sound waves vibrate plant leaves accelerating protoplasmic movement in cells.20 It is not yet entirely clear the mechanism by which sound intervenes in the growth of plants, although the biological effects of sound have been previously studied. A study found that some stress-induced genes could be activated at the level of transcription under sound stimulation.21 The stimulation of sound waves could also increase the plant plasma-membrane H+ ATPase activity, the contents of soluble sugars, soluble proteins, and amylase activity of callus.22,23 Sound vibrations can influence the rearrangement of microfilaments, increase levels of polyamines and soluble sugars, change the activity of various proteins and regulate the transcription of certain genes.24–26
Recent studies show that plant organisms perceive sound as a mechanical stimulus and translate it into cellular and metabolic changes. | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00890-9 | Stressed plants 'cry' — and some animals can probably hear them | Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Plants do not suffer in silence. Instead, when thirsty or stressed, plants make “airborne sounds”, according to a study published today in Cell1.
Plants that need water or have recently had their stems cut produce up to roughly 35 sounds per hour, the authors found. But well-hydrated and uncut plants are much quieter, making only about one sound per hour.
The reason you have probably never heard a thirsty plant make noise is that the sounds are ultrasonic — about 20–100 kilohertz. That means they are so high-pitched that very few humans could hear them. Some animals, however, probably can. Bats, mice and moths could potentially live in a world filled with the sounds of plants, and previous work by the same team has found that plants respond to sounds made by animals, too.
Crying crops
To eavesdrop on plants, Lilach Hadany at Tel-Aviv University in Israel and her colleagues placed tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants in small boxes kitted out with microphones. The microphones picked up any noises made by the plants, even if the researchers couldn’t hear them. The noises were particularly obvious for plants that were stressed by a lack of water or by recent cutting. If the sounds are pitched down and sped up, “it is a bit like popcorn — very short clicks”, Hadany says. “It is not singing.”
These plant sounds have been processed to make them audible to the human ear.
Plants do not have vocal cords or lungs. Hadany says the current theory for how plants make noises centres on their xylem, the tubes that transport water and nutrients from their roots to their stems and leaves. Water in the xylem is held together by surface tension, just like water sucked through a drinking straw. When an air bubble forms or breaks in the xylem, it might make a little popping noise, and bubble formation is more likely during drought stress. But the exact mechanism requires further study, Hadany says.
The team produced a machine-learning model to deduce whether a plant had been cut or was water stressed from the sounds it made, with about 70% accuracy. This result suggests a possible role for the audio monitoring of plants in farming and horticulture.
To test the practicality of this approach, the team tried recording plants in a greenhouse. With the aid of a computer program trained to filter out background noise from wind and air-conditioning units, the plants could still be heard. Pilot studies by the authors suggest that tomato and tobacco plants are not outliers. Wheat (Triticum aestivum), maize (corn; Zea mays) and wine grapes (Vitis vinifera) also make noises when they are thirsty.
Chattering grasses?
Previously, Hadany’s team has also studied whether plants can ‘hear’ sounds, and found that beach evening primroses (Oenothera drummondii) release sweeter nectar when exposed to the sound of a flying bee2.
So are plant noises an important feature of ecosystems, influencing the behaviour of plants and animals alike? The evidence isn’t yet clear, according to Graham Pyke, a retired biologist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in environmental science.
He’s sceptical that animals listen to the moans of stressed plants. “It is unlikely that these animals are really able to hear the sound at such distances,” he says. He thinks the sounds would be too faint. Further research should shed more light on the matter. But Pyke says he’s perfectly willing to accept that plants ‘squeal’ when stressed. | Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Plants do not suffer in silence. Instead, when thirsty or stressed, plants make “airborne sounds”, according to a study published today in Cell1.
Plants that need water or have recently had their stems cut produce up to roughly 35 sounds per hour, the authors found. But well-hydrated and uncut plants are much quieter, making only about one sound per hour.
The reason you have probably never heard a thirsty plant make noise is that the sounds are ultrasonic — about 20–100 kilohertz. That means they are so high-pitched that very few humans could hear them. Some animals, however, probably can. Bats, mice and moths could potentially live in a world filled with the sounds of plants, and previous work by the same team has found that plants respond to sounds made by animals, too.
Crying crops
To eavesdrop on plants, Lilach Hadany at Tel-Aviv University in Israel and her colleagues placed tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants in small boxes kitted out with microphones. The microphones picked up any noises made by the plants, even if the researchers couldn’t hear them. The noises were particularly obvious for plants that were stressed by a lack of water or by recent cutting. If the sounds are pitched down and sped up, “it is a bit like popcorn — very short clicks”, Hadany says. “It is not singing.”
These plant sounds have been processed to make them audible to the human ear.
Plants do not have vocal cords or lungs. Hadany says the current theory for how plants make noises centres on their xylem, the tubes that transport water and nutrients from their roots to their stems and leaves. | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/do-plants-hear | Do Plants Hear? | California Academy of Sciences | Science News
Do Plants Hear?
Plants are surprising organisms—without brains and central nervous systems, they are still able to sense the environment that surrounds them. Plants can perceive light, scent, touch, wind, even gravity, and are able to respond to sounds, too.
No, music will not help plants grow—even classical—but other audio cues can help plants survive and thrive in their habitats. But why? Scientists Heidi Appel and Rex Cocroft of the University of Missouri wondered whether plants would respond to the sound of insect herbivores feeding, so they ran a couple of experiments.
First they placed caterpillars on Arabidopsis, a small flowering plant related to cabbage and mustard. Using a laser and a tiny piece of reflective material on the leaf of the plant, they were able to measure the movement of the leaf in response to the chewing caterpillar.
Then, they played back recordings of caterpillar feeding vibrations to one set of Arabidopsis plants, but played back only silence to another set of plants. When caterpillars later fed on both sets of plants, the researchers found that the plants previously exposed to feeding vibrations produced more mustard oils, a chemical that is unappealing to many caterpillars.
For the second experiment, the team played a variety of recordings to different Arabidopsis plants, including wind and “mating song of a leafhopper, chosen because it has a similar frequency spectrum to that of chewing, but a contrasting temporal pattern,” according to their study, published last week in Oecologia. The plants did not react to these vibrations at all.
“What is remarkable is that the plants exposed to different vibrations, including those made by a gentle wind or different insect sounds that share some acoustic features with caterpillar feeding vibrations did not increase their chemical defenses,” Cocroft says. “This indicates that the plants are able to distinguish feeding vibrations from other common sources of environmental vibration.”
“Caterpillars react to this chemical defense by crawling away, so using vibrations to enhance plant defenses could be useful to agriculture,” Appel says. “This research also opens the window of plant behavior a little wider, showing that plants have many of the same responses to outside influences that animals do, even though the responses look different.”
So while it may not exactly be hearing, plants do sense sound vibrations. Next up for Appel and Cocroft? More work to determine how plants sense these vibrations, what features of the complex vibrational signal are important, and how the mechanical vibrations interact with other forms of plant information to generate protective responses to pests. Stay tuned… | Science News
Do Plants Hear?
Plants are surprising organisms—without brains and central nervous systems, they are still able to sense the environment that surrounds them. Plants can perceive light, scent, touch, wind, even gravity, and are able to respond to sounds, too.
No, music will not help plants grow—even classical—but other audio cues can help plants survive and thrive in their habitats. But why? Scientists Heidi Appel and Rex Cocroft of the University of Missouri wondered whether plants would respond to the sound of insect herbivores feeding, so they ran a couple of experiments.
First they placed caterpillars on Arabidopsis, a small flowering plant related to cabbage and mustard. Using a laser and a tiny piece of reflective material on the leaf of the plant, they were able to measure the movement of the leaf in response to the chewing caterpillar.
Then, they played back recordings of caterpillar feeding vibrations to one set of Arabidopsis plants, but played back only silence to another set of plants. When caterpillars later fed on both sets of plants, the researchers found that the plants previously exposed to feeding vibrations produced more mustard oils, a chemical that is unappealing to many caterpillars.
For the second experiment, the team played a variety of recordings to different Arabidopsis plants, including wind and “mating song of a leafhopper, chosen because it has a similar frequency spectrum to that of chewing, but a contrasting temporal pattern,” according to their study, published last week in Oecologia. The plants did not react to these vibrations at all.
“What is remarkable is that the plants exposed to different vibrations, including those made by a gentle wind or different insect sounds that share some acoustic features with caterpillar feeding vibrations did not increase their chemical defenses,” Cocroft says. “This indicates that the plants are able to distinguish feeding vibrations from other common sources of environmental vibration.”
“Caterpillars react to this chemical defense by crawling away, so using vibrations to enhance plant defenses could be useful to agriculture,” Appel says. | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/flowers-can-hear-bees-and-make-their-nectar-sweeter | Flowers can hear buzzing bees—and it makes their nectar sweeter | Flowers can hear buzzing bees—and it makes their nectar sweeter
Even on the quietest days, the world is full of sounds: birds chirping, wind rustling through trees, and insects humming about their business. The ears of both predator and prey are attuned to one another’s presence.
Sound is so elemental to life and survival that it prompted Tel Aviv University researcher Lilach Hadany to ask: What if it wasn’t just animals that could sense sound—what if plants could, too? The first experiments to test this hypothesis, published recently on the pre-print server bioRxiv, suggest that in at least one case, plants can hear, and it confers a real evolutionary advantage.
4:09
Related: Time-Lapse Video Shows a Garden Coming to Life
Journey through a blooming garden of dancing flowers in this incredible four-minute short film. Visual effects artist and filmmaker Jamie Scott spent three years shooting the stunning springtime imagery in this continuous motion time-lapse. The Short Film Showcase spotlights exceptional short videos created by filmmakers from around the web and selected by National Geographic editors. The filmmakers created the content presented, and the opinions expressed are their own, not those of National Geographic Partners.
The sweetest sound
As an evolutionary theoretician, Hadany says her question was prompted by the realization that sounds are a ubiquitous natural resource—one that plants would be wasting if they didn’t take advantage of it as animals do. If plants had a way of hearing and responding to sound, she figured, it could help them survive and pass on their genetic legacy.
Since pollination is key to plant reproduction, her team started by investigating flowers. Evening primrose, which grows wild on the beaches and in parks around Tel Aviv, emerged as a good candidate, since it has a long bloom time and produces measurable quantities of nectar.
A brown and yellow hoverfly rests on a dewdrop-covered evening primrose in the U.K.
Photograph by MichaelGrantWildlife/ Alamy
Please be respectful of copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
To test the primroses in the lab, Hadany’s team exposed plants to five sound treatments: silence, recordings of a honeybee from four inches away, and computer-generated sounds in low, intermediate, and high frequencies. Plants given the silent treatment—placed under vibration-blocking glass jars—had no significant increase in nectar sugar concentration. The same went for plants exposed to high-frequency (158 to 160 kilohertz) and intermediate-frequency (34 to 35 kilohertz) sounds.
But for plants exposed to playbacks of bee sounds (0.2 to 0.5 kilohertz) and similarly low-frequency sounds (0.05 to 1 kilohertz), the final analysis revealed an unmistakable response. Within three minutes of exposure to these recordings, sugar concentration in the plants increased from between 12 and 17 percent to 20 percent.
A sweeter treat for pollinators, their theory goes, may draw in more insects, potentially increasing the chances of successful cross-pollination. Indeed, in field observations, researchers found that pollinators were more than nine times more common around plants another pollinator had visited within the previous six minutes.
“We were quite surprised when we found out that it actually worked,” Hadany says. “But after repeating it in other situations, in different seasons, and with plants grown both indoors and outdoors, we feel very confident in the result.”
Flowers for ears
As the team thought about how sound works, via the transmission and interpretation of vibrations, the role of the flowers became even more intriguing. Though blossoms vary widely in shape and size, a good many are concave or bowl-shaped. This makes them perfect for receiving and amplifying sound waves, much like a satellite dish.
To test the vibrational effects of each sound frequency test group, Hadany and her co-author Marine Veits, then a graduate student in Hadany’s lab, put the evening primrose flowers under a machine called a laser vibrometer, which measures minute movements. The team then compared the flowers’ vibrations with those from each of the sound treatments.
“This specific flower is bowl- shaped, so acoustically speaking, it makes sense that this kind of structure would vibrate and increase the vibration within itself,” Veits says.
And indeed it did, at least for the pollinators’ frequencies. Hadany says it was exciting to see the vibrations of the flower match up with the wavelengths of the bee recording.
“You immediately see that it works,” she says.
To confirm that the flower was the responsible structure, the team also ran tests on flowers that had one or more petals removed. Those flowers failed to resonate with either of the low-frequency sounds.
What else plants can hear
Hadany acknowledges that there are many, many questions remaining about this newfound ability of plants to respond to sound. Are some “ears” better for certain frequencies than others? And why does the evening primrose make its nectar so much sweeter when bees are known to be able to detect changes in sugar concentration as small as 1 to 3 percent?
It’s important for them to be able to sense their environment—especially if they cannot go anywhere.
ByLilach HadanyTel Aviv University
Also, could this ability confer other advantages beyond nectar production and pollination? Hadany posits that perhaps plants alert one another to the sound of herbivores mowing down their neighbors. Or maybe they can generate sounds that attract the animals involved in dispersing that plant’s seeds.
“We have to take into account that flowers have evolved with pollinators for a very long time,” Hadany says. “They are living entities, and they, too, need to survive in the world. It’s important for them to be able to sense their environment—especially if they cannot go anywhere.”
This single study has cracked open an entirely new field of scientific research, which Hadany calls phytoacoustics.
Veits wants to know more about the underlying mechanisms behind the phenomenon the research team observed. For instance, what molecular or mechanical processes are driving the vibration and nectar response? She also hopes the work will affirm the idea that it doesn’t always take a traditional sense organ to perceive the world.
“Some people may think, How can [plants] hear or smell?” Veits says. “I’d like people to understand that hearing is not only for ears.”
Richard Karban, an expert in interactions between plants and their pests at the University of California Davis, has questions of his own, in particular, about the evolutionary advantages of plants’ responses to sound.
“It may be possible that plants are able to chemically sense their neighbors, and to evaluate whether or not other plants around them are fertilized,” he says. “There’s no evidence that things like that are going on, but [this study] has done the first step.”
Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correct the percent increase in nectar's sugar concentration. | Flowers can hear buzzing bees—and it makes their nectar sweeter
Even on the quietest days, the world is full of sounds: birds chirping, wind rustling through trees, and insects humming about their business. The ears of both predator and prey are attuned to one another’s presence.
Sound is so elemental to life and survival that it prompted Tel Aviv University researcher Lilach Hadany to ask: What if it wasn’t just animals that could sense sound—what if plants could, too? The first experiments to test this hypothesis, published recently on the pre-print server bioRxiv, suggest that in at least one case, plants can hear, and it confers a real evolutionary advantage.
4:09
Related: Time-Lapse Video Shows a Garden Coming to Life
Journey through a blooming garden of dancing flowers in this incredible four-minute short film. Visual effects artist and filmmaker Jamie Scott spent three years shooting the stunning springtime imagery in this continuous motion time-lapse. The Short Film Showcase spotlights exceptional short videos created by filmmakers from around the web and selected by National Geographic editors. The filmmakers created the content presented, and the opinions expressed are their own, not those of National Geographic Partners.
The sweetest sound
As an evolutionary theoretician, Hadany says her question was prompted by the realization that sounds are a ubiquitous natural resource—one that plants would be wasting if they didn’t take advantage of it as animals do. If plants had a way of hearing and responding to sound, she figured, it could help them survive and pass on their genetic legacy.
Since pollination is key to plant reproduction, her team started by investigating flowers. Evening primrose, which grows wild on the beaches and in parks around Tel Aviv, emerged as a good candidate, since it has a long bloom time and produces measurable quantities of nectar.
A brown and yellow hoverfly rests on a dewdrop-covered evening primrose in the U.K.
Photograph by MichaelGrantWildlife/ Alamy
Please be respectful of copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
| yes |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://thewire.in/the-sciences/phytoacoustics-nectar-bees-pollination-evening-primrose | Plants Know When a Bee Is Passing by and Produce Sweeter Nectar | You are strolling in a garden and hear a buzzing sound. Even before you spot it, you know instinctively that there is a bee around.
It seems the plants do, too.
A team of scientists from the Tel Aviv University in Israel have found that plants can tell when a bee is hovering over a flower.
These results shine a spotlight on plants’ ability to hear sounds – an idea that has remained mired in obscurity. There are volumes of studies about how animals perceive sounds in their environment, but not enough has been explored from the flora’s perspective.
Lilach Hadany, a professor at the department of molecular biology and ecology of plants, Tel Aviv University, started looking into plant-hearing six years ago. At the time, the general perception was that plants could not hear or respond to sounds. But Hadany, who has been tinkering with fundamental questions in evolutionary biology, thought otherwise.
In discussions with her collaborators, the team couldn’t come up with a good reason why plants wouldn’t hear and respond to sounds. “And since there seemed to be no good reason, we thought that perhaps they do” hear certain sounds, she told The Wire.
To test their theory, the scientists needed a situation where plants had a higher stake in responding to sounds. They picked pollination. Many insects visit flowers in search of nectar. As they flit from one flower to the next, they carry pollen grains around with them, eventually dropping them off at a different plant. This is how insects help fertilise many species of plants and let their flowers make seeds. Because these insects – the pollinators – also produce a sound in their wings, it seemed like a good way to explore plant hearing.
Insects are drawn to nectar. Bees can even detect small changes in the sweetness of nectar. So the scientists decided to test if plants changed the way they produced nectar if there was a bee nearby.
They visited a garden and recorded a bee hovering over a flower. In the lab, they played the recording over speakers next to a handful of evening primrose plants (genus Oenothera), chosen because they produce copious amounts of nectar. A second group of evening primroses was kept in silence. They also picked a bee with tweezers and hovered it over a third group.
The experiment showed that the plants produced sweeter nectar when exposed to the pollinator’s sound, either live or recorded, within three minutes.
Researchers also exposed the plants to a variety of artificial sounds of different frequencies. Only those that lined up with the bees’ buzz elicited a similar response.
It seems, to use Hadany’s words, there is a two-way channel between the plants and their pollinators. The bees buzz and the plants gush. The plants gush and there is a chance more bees are drawn to the plant.
Studies have shown that bees can detect even mild changes in taste. It is possible then that plants keep an ear out for bees and, when they drop by, offer a sweeter product to attract them and improve chances of pollination.
While the idea seems esoteric, another team had challenged the conventional notions of plant hearing five years ago.
In 2014, Heidi Appel and Rex Cocroft from the University of Missouri explored phytoacoustics – the science of plant-hearing – in the context of defence. They found that the mouse ear cress plant, a native of Eurasia and Africa, braces itself after listening to a cabbage butterfly caterpillar munching on its leaves.
“The study of plant responses to sound is really the study of plant responses to vibrations. Vibrations are perceived as ‘sound’ by organisms depending on how their sensory systems are tuned,” Appel told The Wire. “These vibrations can be transmitted through the air or through objects.”
Appel and her team had found that a caterpillar nibbling on plant leaves set off vibrations that travelled through the leaf, alerting the plant to an intruder. They had also found that it didn’t matter who or what caused the vibrations – the plants would immediately respond to them with defence tactics.
“The new work by Hadany’s team has shown for the first time that airborne vibrations generated by the wing beat of pollinators cause flower petals to vibrate,” Appel told The Wire, “resulting in richer nectar production within a few minutes.”
It is the first time anyone has shown that plants can hear like animals.
But how does the plant hear these sounds in the first place? What is the plant’s proverbial ear? Hadany and her team worked backwards to find out.
Animals use mechanical vibrations to ‘hear’. We can hear only those sounds that vibrate our ear membrane. So the team figured that the part of the plant vibrating most vigorously to bee sounds would have to be involved.
For this, they teamed up with their colleagues in the bioengineering department at Tel Aviv University to use a technique called laser vibrometry. They illuminated an object with lasers. When the object moved, the way the lasers were reflected would change, betraying the movement. Observations with this technique are very sensitive and can pick up on changes the human eye can’t. This way, the team was able to record how much different parts of a plant moved when a bee buzzed nearby.
The culprit was the petals. Indeed, when scientists covered the flowers with soundproof glass, the plants did not respond.
Also, flowers with damaged petals did not vibrate as much as undamaged ones, so such flowers are also less likely to be pollinated.
These are pretty strong indicators for the relationship that Hadany and co. have proposed.
“It is not the first demonstration of plants detecting sound,” Appel clarified. “That said, it is terrific research that extends our understanding of the vibrational ecology of plants [and] of phytoacoustics.”
The implications are far-reaching. Plants actively attracting their pollinators with rewards could have played a role in the evolution of both the plants and the bees.
The results have also opened a glut of other questions: Do certain flower shapes respond better to certain pollinators? Did pollinators evolve different sounds to adapt to a different flower? “It would be interesting to find out,” Hadany said. | You are strolling in a garden and hear a buzzing sound. Even before you spot it, you know instinctively that there is a bee around.
It seems the plants do, too.
A team of scientists from the Tel Aviv University in Israel have found that plants can tell when a bee is hovering over a flower.
These results shine a spotlight on plants’ ability to hear sounds – an idea that has remained mired in obscurity. There are volumes of studies about how animals perceive sounds in their environment, but not enough has been explored from the flora’s perspective.
Lilach Hadany, a professor at the department of molecular biology and ecology of plants, Tel Aviv University, started looking into plant-hearing six years ago. At the time, the general perception was that plants could not hear or respond to sounds. But Hadany, who has been tinkering with fundamental questions in evolutionary biology, thought otherwise.
In discussions with her collaborators, the team couldn’t come up with a good reason why plants wouldn’t hear and respond to sounds. “And since there seemed to be no good reason, we thought that perhaps they do” hear certain sounds, she told The Wire.
To test their theory, the scientists needed a situation where plants had a higher stake in responding to sounds. They picked pollination. Many insects visit flowers in search of nectar. As they flit from one flower to the next, they carry pollen grains around with them, eventually dropping them off at a different plant. This is how insects help fertilise many species of plants and let their flowers make seeds. Because these insects – the pollinators – also produce a sound in their wings, it seemed like a good way to explore plant hearing.
Insects are drawn to nectar. Bees can even detect small changes in the sweetness of nectar. So the scientists decided to test if plants changed the way they produced nectar if there was a bee nearby.
They visited a garden and recorded a bee hovering over a flower. In the lab, they played the recording over speakers next to a handful of evening primrose plants (genus Oenothera), chosen because they produce copious amounts of nectar. | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/flowers-sweeten-when-they-hear-bees-buzzing-180971300/ | Flowers Sweeten Up When They Sense Bees Buzzing | Smart News ... | It’s a common assumption that auditory information is reserved for living things with ears and that creatures without cochlea—namely plants—don’t tune into a bee buzzing or the wind whistling. But a new study suggests the plants are listening, and some flowers even sweeten up their nectar when they sense a pollinator approaching.
Sound is ubiquitous; plenty of species have harnessed the power of sound to their evolutionary advantage in some way or another—a wolf howls and rabbits run; a deer hears a thunder strike in the distance and seeks shelter, and birds sing to attract their mates. Plants have withstood the test of time, so logically so, they must react to such a crucial sensory tool as well, right? This question is the essentially the basis of Tel Aviv University evolutionary theoretician Lilach Hadany’s interest in pursuing the new study, reports Michelle Z. Donahue at National Geographic.
Since sound is propagated as a wave, it doesn’t always take the complex set of ear bones and hair cells found in mammal ears to detect the presence of sound, just the ability to perceive vibrations.
To test the idea, Hadany and her team looked at the relationship between bees and flowers. The team exposed the beach evening primrose, Oenothera drummondii, to five types of sound: silence, the buzz of a bee from four inches away, and low, intermediate and high pitched sounds produced by a computer, Donahue writes. They then measured the amount of nectar that the flowers produced after being exposed to the sound.
Blossoms exposed to silence as well as high-frequency and intermediate-frequency waves produced the baseline amount of sugar expected in their nectar. However, the blooms exposed to the bee’s buzz and low-frequency sounds bumped their sugar content up 12 to 20 percent within three minutes of being exposed to the hum. In other words, when they “heard” a bee approaching, they sweetened their nectar.
Perhaps this isn’t too surprising because—although flowers come in all shapes and sizes—so many are actually rather ear-shaped, with petals forming conical or cupped shapes.
To make sure the sound is what was triggering the flowers to produce sugar, and not some other factor, they placed the blossoms in a laser vibrometer, which records very small movements, and replayed the sounds. They found that the bowl-shaped primroses resonated with the bee sounds and the low-frequency sounds, but did not vibrate with the other frequencies. If flower petals were removed, their sense of “hearing” was disabled as well.
“We were quite surprised when we found out that it actually worked,” Hadany tells Donahue. “But after repeating it in other situations, in different seasons, and with plants grown both indoors and outdoors, we feel very confident in the result.”
The study appears on the preprint service bioRxiv and has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But Ed Yong at The Atlantic asked several prominent researchers about the quality of the paper and they were impressed by the study. The science of plant communication is rife with pseudoscience and outlandish claims that have never been proven, meaning any claims need to undergo extra scrutiny. Entomologist Richard Karban from the University of California at Davis, who researches interactions between plants and insect pests, tells Yong that the new study is legitimate, and builds on other recent research showing plants can respond to vibrations.
“The results are amazing,” he says. “They’re the most convincing data on this subject to date. They’re important in forcing the scientific community to confront its skepticism.”
Hadany calls the science of plant interaction with sound “phytoacoustics” and says there’s still a lot left to learn about how plants perceive sound and the mechanism of those relationships.
“We have to take into account that flowers have evolved with pollinators for a very long time,” Hadany tells Donahue. “They are living entities, and they, too, need to survive in the world. It’s important for them to be able to sense their environment—especially if they cannot go anywhere.”
Jason Daley is a Madison, Wisconsin-based writer specializing in natural history, science, travel, and the environment. His work has appeared in Discover, Popular Science, Outside, Men’s Journal, and other magazines. | It’s a common assumption that auditory information is reserved for living things with ears and that creatures without cochlea—namely plants—don’t tune into a bee buzzing or the wind whistling. But a new study suggests the plants are listening, and some flowers even sweeten up their nectar when they sense a pollinator approaching.
Sound is ubiquitous; plenty of species have harnessed the power of sound to their evolutionary advantage in some way or another—a wolf howls and rabbits run; a deer hears a thunder strike in the distance and seeks shelter, and birds sing to attract their mates. Plants have withstood the test of time, so logically so, they must react to such a crucial sensory tool as well, right? This question is the essentially the basis of Tel Aviv University evolutionary theoretician Lilach Hadany’s interest in pursuing the new study, reports Michelle Z. Donahue at National Geographic.
Since sound is propagated as a wave, it doesn’t always take the complex set of ear bones and hair cells found in mammal ears to detect the presence of sound, just the ability to perceive vibrations.
To test the idea, Hadany and her team looked at the relationship between bees and flowers. The team exposed the beach evening primrose, Oenothera drummondii, to five types of sound: silence, the buzz of a bee from four inches away, and low, intermediate and high pitched sounds produced by a computer, Donahue writes. They then measured the amount of nectar that the flowers produced after being exposed to the sound.
Blossoms exposed to silence as well as high-frequency and intermediate-frequency waves produced the baseline amount of sugar expected in their nectar. However, the blooms exposed to the bee’s buzz and low-frequency sounds bumped their sugar content up 12 to 20 percent within three minutes of being exposed to the hum. In other words, when they “heard” a bee approaching, they sweetened their nectar.
| yes |
Horticulture | Can plants hear sounds? | yes_statement | "plants" have the ability to "hear" "sounds".. it is possible for "plants" to perceive "sounds". | https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/science/noisy-predators-put-plants-on-alert-study-finds.html | Noisy Predators Put Plants on Alert, Study Finds - The New York Times | Noisy Predators Put Plants on Alert, Study Finds
Research suggests that some plants are sensitive to caterpillar sounds.Credit...Meegan M. Reid/KITSAP SUN, via Associated Press
By Douglas Quenqua
July 1, 2014
It has long been known that some plants can respond to sound. But why would a plant evolve the ability to hear? Now researchers are reporting that one reason may be to defend itself against predators.
To see whether predator noises would affect plants, two University of Missouri researchers exposed one set of plants to a recording of caterpillars eating leaves, and kept another set of plants in silence. Later, when caterpillars fed on the plants, the set that had been exposed to the eating noises produced more of a caterpillar-repelling chemical.
Evidently, the chomping noises primed the plant to produce the deterrent. “So when the attack finally happens, it’s kaboom,” said Heidi Appel, a chemical ecologist and an author of the study. The chemical comes “faster and often in greater amounts.”
Plants exposed to other vibrations, like the sound of wind or different insects, did not produce more of the chemical, suggesting they could tell the difference between predator noises and atmospheric ones. The researchers published their work in the journal Oecologia.
Previous research on plants and sounds have found that two genes in rice switch on in response to music and clear tones, and that corn roots will lean toward vibrations of a specific frequency. (Research from the 1970s suggesting that plants prefer classical to rock music has largely been dismissed.)
But plants “don’t normally experience music or pure tones in their environment,” said Reginald B. Cocroft, a behavioral ecologist and another author of the new study. “We wanted to ask, ‘Why would plants evolve this ability to hear sounds or vibrations?'”
Dr. Cocroft was surprised just how sensitive the plants were to the caterpillar sounds. “There were feeding vibrations that got a strong response from plants that vibrated the leaf up and down by less than one ten-thousandth of an inch,” he said.
Precisely how the plants detected the vibrations is not clear, but the researchers suspect it involves mechanoreceptors, proteins in animal and plant cells that respond to pressure or distortion. “Finding that out is our next step,” Dr. Appel said.
A version of this article appears in print on , Section D, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Evolution: One Way a Plant Protects Itself: By ‘Listening’. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe | Noisy Predators Put Plants on Alert, Study Finds
Research suggests that some plants are sensitive to caterpillar sounds. Credit...Meegan M. Reid/KITSAP SUN, via Associated Press
By Douglas Quenqua
July 1, 2014
It has long been known that some plants can respond to sound. But why would a plant evolve the ability to hear? Now researchers are reporting that one reason may be to defend itself against predators.
To see whether predator noises would affect plants, two University of Missouri researchers exposed one set of plants to a recording of caterpillars eating leaves, and kept another set of plants in silence. Later, when caterpillars fed on the plants, the set that had been exposed to the eating noises produced more of a caterpillar-repelling chemical.
Evidently, the chomping noises primed the plant to produce the deterrent. “So when the attack finally happens, it’s kaboom,” said Heidi Appel, a chemical ecologist and an author of the study. The chemical comes “faster and often in greater amounts.”
Plants exposed to other vibrations, like the sound of wind or different insects, did not produce more of the chemical, suggesting they could tell the difference between predator noises and atmospheric ones. The researchers published their work in the journal Oecologia.
Previous research on plants and sounds have found that two genes in rice switch on in response to music and clear tones, and that corn roots will lean toward vibrations of a specific frequency. (Research from the 1970s suggesting that plants prefer classical to rock music has largely been dismissed.)
But plants “don’t normally experience music or pure tones in their environment,” said Reginald B. Cocroft, a behavioral ecologist and another author of the new study. “We wanted to ask, ‘Why would plants evolve this ability to hear sounds or vibrations?'”
Dr. Cocroft was surprised just how sensitive the plants were to the caterpillar sounds. “There were feeding vibrations that got a strong response from plants that vibrated the leaf up and down by less than one ten- | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "light".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://myplantin.com/blog/best-indoor-plants-that-dont-need-sunlight | Best Indoor Plants That Don't Need Sunlight | Best Indoor Plants That Don’t Need Sunlight
There’s something special about plants in our houses. They give us comfort and make our space more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention their ability to purify the air. Mostly we place plants somewhere where they can get enough bright indirect or direct sunlight. But what to do if you want to make the dark corners of your house more alive? Lucky for you, we have prepared a list of 15 houseplants that don’t need sun!
Best Tall Indoor Plants for Low Light
Snake plant
Snake plant is popular for various reasons; it’s beautiful and an excellent air purifier. The Snake plant doesn’t need too much attention; neglect isn’t a problem either, so it's generally a godsend for people who don’t have much time. It’s known for being extremely adaptable so that you can place it even in the darkest corner, and it will thrive. Water the plant every two weeks (in warmer seasons) and reduce it monthly during winter.
Choose well-drained, loose potting mixes, and pay attention to sandy soils. Potting mixes for succulent plants will be a great choice as well. The most optimal temperature range is between 70-90˚F (21-32˚C), and it can be harmful if temps drop below 50˚F (10˚C). It’s infrequent for this plant to bloom, but when it does, it has a lot of gentle, small white flowers that grow in clusters.
Dumb Cane (Dieffenbachia)
This tropical plant with broad and bright green leaves can tolerate low light. Such conditions will make its growth slower but won’t affect the plant’s health and appearance. Be careful with this green pet as it is poisonous and might harm children or animals if ingested. The best strategy for watering is to make it regular, but not too much.
Dumb Cane prefers well-draining soil with a significant amount of peat. Since this plant is tropical and fond of warmth, a temperature range between 62-80˚F (16-27˚C) is the most suitable. Its flowering occurs rarely, and its bloom is rather inconspicuous and somehow reminds Peace Lily’s flowers.
Monstera
It feels like everyone is obsessed with this plant because of its beauty. And the fact that Monstera is so easy to take care of is an excellent addition to its appearance. It generally prefers indirect bright light, but it won’t mind a low amount of it. Water the plant only when most of the soil is dry.
Ligh soil mixes with peat moss, pine bark, and perlite are the best options for this green beauty. The most suitable temperature range is 60-80˚F (16-27˚C), and in no case, it should be lower than 55˚F (13˚C). Monstera blooms only in its natural habitat or in a place that mimics its natural surroundings, so it’s rare luck to have it blooming at home.
Indoor trees that don’t need light
Janet Craig
This plant is so unpretentious that it will thrive in almost any condition. Low light isn’t a problem for it all, making this plant suitable for nearly any location. Janet Craig can tolerate many things, but soggy soil isn’t one of them, so be careful with watering. Loose and well-draining potting mixes are the best for this plant, and you can also add perlite or gravel. Temperatures of 65-80˚F (18-27˚C) work well for Dracaena. Finally, this species blooms with large white flowers that aren’t only pretty but also fragrant.
Dragon Tree
This plant can be placed literally anywhere because it’s tolerant of low-light conditions. But sometimes, lack of light affects its coloration and pace of growth. In a low-light location, Dragon trees also need less water. The best strategy for watering is to check the topsoil. If it’s dry, then it needs water. Well-draining loamy soil will optimize the development of the plant.
Keep the temperatures between 70-80˚F (21-27˚C). Also, this plant is fond of humidity, so if the air is dry, mist it every few days. Interestingly, this plant needs seven to fifteen years to produce flowers.
Rubber Tree
This tropical plant is unusually tolerant to low light because of its adaptability. But remember, low light doesn’t mean any light at all. It’s better to locate it in a room with windows. When it comes to watering, once a week is enough. And before the next watering, let the top layer of the soil dry out. Well-draining and well-aerating potting mix is the key to making the Rubber plant thrive. Avoid cold drafts and temperatures below 55˚F (13˚C) with this plant; the most suitable temperature range is 75-80˚F (24-27˚C) (during the day) and 60-65˚F (16-18˚C) (at night). This plant is theoretically capable of producing flowers, but it happens very rarely.
Other plants that don’t need sunlight indoor
Spider plant
Spider plants can be considered houseplants that don’t need sun. Well, for optimal growth, this plant needs bright indirect sunlight, but low light isn’t a big deal for it since it’s so adaptable. Water it once a week in spring and summer and less in winter. This plant can adapt to almost every potting medium, but well-draining, loamy, and moist soil is the best.
As for temperatures, the Spider plant can abide even 35˚F (2˚C), but low temperatures will affect its growth, so the best range is between 70-90˚F (21-32˚C). Spider plant blooms with tiny white flowers located at the end of the stems, so there is a chance to observe its pretty bloom.
Bromeliads
In their native habitat, tropical bromeliads prefer shady areas. And this means that they are suitable for low light conditions, especially Vrieseas, Nidularium, and Guzmania genera. But at the same time, they require a higher level of humidity, so water them once a week and keep the soil slightly moist but not soggy.
Choose a well-draining potting mix for these species. These plants are very adaptable to different temperatures. However, the range between 70-90˚F (21-32˚C) (during the day) and 50-65˚F (10-18˚C) (during the night) is the best. Bromeliads’ bloom is a beautiful bonus to their spectacular foliage, but these plants flower only once during their lifespan.
Aglaonema (Chinese Evergreen)
Aglaonema is a houseplant that doesn’t need sun. It is the right decision if you want to make darker rooms of your apartment more colorful. Water it only when the top of the soil is dry, and give preference to well-draining potting mixes.
The temperature should be kept between 70-85˚F (21-29˚C) during the day and about 60-75˚F (16-24˚C) at night. Aglainema’s flowers remind the ones that Peace Lily has, but they are not flashy at all.
ZZ plant
These plants do very well in bright indirect sunlight, but at the same time, they are the best plants for rooms without windows. If you are a serial plant killer, try ZZ because it can survive without water for months! Water it only when the substrate dries out completely. In low-light environments, modest watering once a week is just enough.
Proper drainage is vital for the ZZ plant, so choose well-draining potting mixes. Substrates for succulents will suit best. In areas with average humidity, the best temperature range for this plant is from 60-70˚F (16-21˚C). Even though these plants are considered flowering ones, they rarely produce flowers. And if they do, their bloom is tiny and almost unnoticeable.
Pothos
In terms of lighting, Pothos isn’t picky at all! You can place it even in the bathroom, and it will thrive. These plants are prone to overwatering, o use a rule of thumb and check the soil before pouring water. Pothos is also undemanding regarding the soil it grows, but we would recommend sticking to a universal potting mix. This plant is hardy and adaptable to different temperatures, but the best range is 70-90˚F (21-32˚C). Indoors, the species doesn’t tend to flower, but it is compensated by its stunning foliage.
Maidenhair Fern
Some ferns can be considered plants that don’t need sunlight indoors, for example, button fern, rabbit’s foot, Autumn fern, etc. And Maidenhair is one of such shade-loving green pets. It grows under the shade of trees in its natural habitat, so indoors, you need to mimic such conditions. To be in good shape, this plant needs regular watering. Never let the soil dry out completely. This delicate fern needs a well-draining potting mix that should be kept evenly moist.
Maidenhair fern, a house plant that doesn’t need sun, loves humidity and warmth, so the best temperatures are above 70˚F (21˚C). As for flowers, ferns can bloom only in Eastern-European folklore, but in real life, they reproduce via spores.
Ivy
This plant’s assertive nature and beauty made it famous because it can cover the ground and climb 80 ft high! So no space is wasted with ivy. Since ivies can grow everywhere, they are considered good house plants for low light, especially Algerian and English varieties. This plant isn’t problematic, but don’t forget to water it once a week. Choose well-draining and loose soil for this houseplant, and keep the temperatures from 65 to 85˚F (18-29˚C). In fall, mature ivy produces small flowers of green and white colors.
Fragrant indoor plants for low light
Mint
Since this herb prefers shade, it is an excellent choice for growing indoors under low-light conditions. In general, these small indoor plants that don’t need sunlight to have a beautiful fragrance and are so easy to grow. Watering is the key to success as mint likes moist substrate. Water it when the topsoil is dry and keep the soil evenly moist.
Thinking about the potting mix, the best option is to mix equal amounts of peat, sand, and perlite, but mint can be grown even in a bottle of water! To make the plant grow fast, keep the temps of 65-70˚F (18-21˚C) during the day and 55-60˚F (13-16˚C) at night. Mint has tiny fair purplish flowers, and it blooms when the plant is ready for reproducing.
Peace Lily
If you want to buy indoor flower plants that don’t need sunlight, then Peace lily will be there for you! This plant will make any dark corner more cheerful due to its low-light tolerance. And also, its white flowers have a light and pleasant aroma. This houseplant enjoys regular watering – once a week is enough, but it can reduce to every two weeks in winter.
Loose and rich potting soil with loam, perlite, peat moss, and coir is a recommendation for this species. The best temperature range is between 68-85˚F (20-29˚C) during the day, and it can be slightly cooler at night. Healthy Peace Lily will delight you with an elegant bloom twice a year.
FAQ
Are there indoor plants that don’t require sunlight?
As you noticed when reading this article, there are a lot of plants that grow indoors without sunlight. However, none of the plants can live without light at all as they are dependent on photosynthesis.
Which plants can grow without sunlight?
Many mentioned plants do well without sunlight, especially Spider plants, Pothos, Peace lily, Snake plants, and various ferns.
What plants are good for rooms with no light?
The most suitable one is the Spider plant. Ivy, Snake plant, Maidenhair fern, and Peace lily will also feel well in such conditions.
Do Snake plants need light?
This plant is very adaptable to harsh conditions, and lack of light isn’t a problem for it. But when it receives more indirect bright light, it starts growing faster.
How do indoor plants survive without sunlight?
Dark and shady rainforests are natural environments for a bunch of plants. They are used to such conditions because of evolutionary adaptations, making them suitable for growing in low-light rooms.
Our plant identifier with database of more than 17,000 species is also the best place to Ask the Botanist, get plant watering recommendations, adjust your plant care schedule, try disease identification, and much more! | To make the plant grow fast, keep the temps of 65-70˚F (18-21˚C) during the day and 55-60˚F (13-16˚C) at night. Mint has tiny fair purplish flowers, and it blooms when the plant is ready for reproducing.
Peace Lily
If you want to buy indoor flower plants that don’t need sunlight, then Peace lily will be there for you! This plant will make any dark corner more cheerful due to its low-light tolerance. And also, its white flowers have a light and pleasant aroma. This houseplant enjoys regular watering – once a week is enough, but it can reduce to every two weeks in winter.
Loose and rich potting soil with loam, perlite, peat moss, and coir is a recommendation for this species. The best temperature range is between 68-85˚F (20-29˚C) during the day, and it can be slightly cooler at night. Healthy Peace Lily will delight you with an elegant bloom twice a year.
FAQ
Are there indoor plants that don’t require sunlight?
As you noticed when reading this article, there are a lot of plants that grow indoors without sunlight. However, none of the plants can live without light at all as they are dependent on photosynthesis.
Which plants can grow without sunlight?
Many mentioned plants do well without sunlight, especially Spider plants, Pothos, Peace lily, Snake plants, and various ferns.
What plants are good for rooms with no light?
The most suitable one is the Spider plant. Ivy, Snake plant, Maidenhair fern, and Peace lily will also feel well in such conditions.
Do Snake plants need light?
This plant is very adaptable to harsh conditions, and lack of light isn’t a problem for it. But when it receives more indirect bright light, it starts growing faster.
How do indoor plants survive without sunlight?
| no |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "light".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://www.tomsguide.com/features/7-plants-that-can-survive-without-sunlight | 7 plants that can survive without sunlight | Tom's Guide | 7 plants that can survive without sunlight
Plants can do so much for our homes. A few well-placed pots will give your décor a natural appeal, making the space feel more alive and scenic. Plants will naturally purify the air through photosynthesis as well, although they’re not as proficient as the best air purifiers.
The trouble is, in low light conditions, it can be tricky for plants to survive. That means it’s often difficult to keep plants in rooms which lack windows — such as bathrooms and offices. There are exceptions to this though. Some plants can not only survive, but thrive in the shade. That means you can still benefit from all of the above regardless. If you’re keen to learn more, here are 7 plants that can survive without sunlight.
Be aware: Some of the following plants are toxic to pets — be sure to check if this is the case before you bring one home.
1. Cast iron plant
The first plant to make our list is the cast iron plant. As the name suggests, this is one tough cookie. It has a very low-maintenance nature, requiring little light and minimum fuss to survive. In fact, these plants are known to thrive in most conditions, and are more often damaged by too much care and handling, for instance by overwatering. Considering this, don’t be afraid to give your cast iron plant some space.
Cast iron plants prefer to stay out of direct sunlight, otherwise their leaves will scorch — they appreciate shaded spots instead, with low levels of light. They are slow-growing, so don’t worry if it shows little progress over time. Water it regularly, leaving the soil moist, but not soggy. With its thick and vibrant leaves, it can really add some décor to a dim space. Plus, it's a safe option to have around cats and dogs as it's non-toxic.
2. Spider plant
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
The spider plant is another great option for a dark, low light space. These plants are pretty tolerant, no matter the light conditions — whether situated in bright indirect light or hidden in a dark corner, the spider plant will prosper. In terms of care, they should be pruned back when necessary using some of the best pruning shears, and watered regularly — about once a week.
This is a fairly hardy plant, but it’s still good to learn how to care for a spider plant. Whether hung from a basket or lined up on a shelf, spider plants look great on display, and with two tones of color in the leaves, they appear all the more striking. Plus, it's non-toxic to cats and dogs if you have animals in the home.
3. ZZ plant
For those who really struggle to keep their plants alive, we recommend investing in a ZZ plant. Plants wont come much tougher than this — the ZZ plant requires minimal levels of light to survive; in fact, it can maintain itself solely on low levels of artificial light. This makes it ideal for dark spaces around the home. The ZZ plant will cope in most conditions — only, bright, direct sunlight could do some damage to the waxy leaves.
Don’t worry if you often forget to water your plants. The ZZ plant is tough enough to last for long periods of time in between waterings, plus it's fine with an inconsistent routine.
To sum up, if you want a near indestructible plant, which will likely survive whatever the conditions, this is the one to get. Be wary that this plant is known to be toxic to pets and humans though. It's poisonous if ingested.
4. Lucky bamboo
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
For something particularly decorative, lucky bamboo is another option. This looks like a smaller version of traditional bamboo, but it’s actually a type of water lily known as Dracaena Sanderiana. Don’t let that fool you though, it’s still plenty hardy. It will continue to grow in low light conditions, and can be planted in soil or directly in water.
It’s believed to bring luck to its owner, and has a very sweet appearance. But, this is a fast-growing plant, so you may need to prune the leaves back when required. It prefers a warm climate as well (60°F+) and if sitting directly in water, this will need to be changed every couple of weeks.
This plant is also known to be toxic to pets, so avoid it if you have furry family members.
5. Peace lily
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
Peace lilies are popular houseplants, and for good reason. They require very little maintenance and yet feature a distinctive and elegant appearance, which can really add to your décor. These plants are tougher than they look — they will continue to grow despite low levels of light and can even survive in fluorescent light, although this will reduce the likelihood of flowers. If flowers are what you want, you will want to place it somewhere with bright, indirect light.
In terms of care, a peace lily will require regular water, keeping the soil moist, but not soaked. The soil should be able to drain excess water as well to prevent root rot, so make sure the container has drainage holes.
It’s good practice to wipe down the leaves every so often as well; this not only makes the plant look good, it helps it to absorb the light.
This is another plant which is toxic to pets, so avoid it if you have cats and dogs running around.
6. Dracaena
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
The Dracaena family covers a wide range of plants, lucky bamboo included, and it is an excellent option if you’re looking for larger varieties of plant to suit your shade-prone home. It can really range in size, from small desktop additions, to large tree-like options. Whatever size, these plants are easy to care for, requiring only low to medium light conditions to thrive. Although, bright, indirect light is preferable.
Dracaena love humid conditions and so would do well in a bathroom or kitchen, however they require less water than your average plant. It’s best to let the top few inches of soil dry out completely between watering sessions. Misting the leaves can also help this plant to flourish.
This is unfortunately another plant which is toxic to pets, so take care.
7. English ivy
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
Finally, for something that is both decorative and hardy, English ivy is the solution. This plant will climb anywhere given the opportunity. It’s fast-growing and easy to propagate with a small cutting, although it can be invasive and difficult to remove, so it’s best to keep it in a container where you can regularly prune it.
English ivy loves bright, indirect sunlight, but it will also survive and continue to grow in low light conditions. It should be watered when the soil feels dry, usually about once a week. This plant looks great cascading from shelves; it will quickly bring your shaded areas to life, although it is another toxic plant when it comes to pets.
Get the Tom’s Guide newsletter!
Instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsorsBy submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.
Katie looks after everything homes-related, from kitchen appliances to gardening tools. She also covers smart home products too, so is the best point of contact for any household advice! She has tested and reviewed appliances for over 6 years, so she knows what to look for when finding the best. Her favorite thing to test has to be air purifiers, as the information provided and the difference between performances is extensive.
This is so misleading. Most plants can survive without sunlight but none of these can survive without bright, indirect light. They will in time shrivel and die. Where plants can go without water for a while, they cannot survive without insufficient light. | 7 plants that can survive without sunlight
Plants can do so much for our homes. A few well-placed pots will give your décor a natural appeal, making the space feel more alive and scenic. Plants will naturally purify the air through photosynthesis as well, although they’re not as proficient as the best air purifiers.
The trouble is, in low light conditions, it can be tricky for plants to survive. That means it’s often difficult to keep plants in rooms which lack windows — such as bathrooms and offices. There are exceptions to this though. Some plants can not only survive, but thrive in the shade. That means you can still benefit from all of the above regardless. If you’re keen to learn more, here are 7 plants that can survive without sunlight.
Be aware: Some of the following plants are toxic to pets — be sure to check if this is the case before you bring one home.
1. Cast iron plant
The first plant to make our list is the cast iron plant. As the name suggests, this is one tough cookie. It has a very low-maintenance nature, requiring little light and minimum fuss to survive. In fact, these plants are known to thrive in most conditions, and are more often damaged by too much care and handling, for instance by overwatering. Considering this, don’t be afraid to give your cast iron plant some space.
Cast iron plants prefer to stay out of direct sunlight, otherwise their leaves will scorch — they appreciate shaded spots instead, with low levels of light. They are slow-growing, so don’t worry if it shows little progress over time. Water it regularly, leaving the soil moist, but not soggy. With its thick and vibrant leaves, it can really add some décor to a dim space. Plus, it's a safe option to have around cats and dogs as it's non-toxic.
2. Spider plant
(Image credit: Shutterstock)
The spider plant is another great option for a dark, low light space. These plants are pretty tolerant, no matter the light conditions — whether situated in bright indirect light or hidden in a dark corner, the spider plant will prosper. | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "light".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/47128/how-long-can-plants-survive-without-light | houseplants - How long can plants survive without light ... | For context I'm moving house and shipping most of my stuff. Shipping is expected to take 1-2 weeks. I want to know if shipping my house plants is worth considering.
I have a bunch of cacti and succulents, an Anthurium lily, a Dracena, and a Pelargonium graveolens.
With suitable preparation I don't think water will be too much of an issue, and there aren't any legal issues. I'll be moving in September so it shouldn't be too cold and hopefully won't be too hot either.
I bought a cactus once online, and it was send to me packed in dark. Shipping time was about a week, and the cactus had no problems with it. So for cacti I know they will survive at least a week or even longer in darkness.
3 Answers
3
You might consider whether it is possible to ship the plants on their own faster than the bulk of your stuff. We don't know where you are, but there are certainly courier services that specialize in shipping plants around Europe.
How long plants will survive in zero light depends how actively they are growing. Plants don't just use light for photosynthesis - there are other types of photoreceptor cells which control the plant's metabolism. A dormant cactus or succulent which hasn't been watered at all for a month or two probably won't be affected at all by a week or two in the dark. A fast growing plant which is just about to start flowering is a very different situation.
For an extended period, a small amount of light may be worse than none at all, since the plant may start to make etiolated growth in the direction of whatever light is available.
I can only comment on cactus: if you don't water or feed them for a couple of weeks before they are packed and shipped there shouldn't be any problems. Pack them in white moving paper/ newsprint (without the printing).
Avoid temperature extremes if possible.
If you aren't crossing any international borders there shouldn't be any problems. If you are crossing an international border, check the CITES regulations.
It would be a good idea to ensure your plants are pathogen-free including insects, mold, bacteria, etc. Or as pathogen-free as is reasonably possible.
I have bought and sold cactus that have been boxed for a week or more many times.
I'm assuming they would die in a few days with no sunlight or any artificial light if the container is completely isolated from light since they are green plants.
But you can try to conduct a simple experiment by putting a sacrificial plant into the closet or in the attic for the duration of the move that was expected beforehand. | For context I'm moving house and shipping most of my stuff. Shipping is expected to take 1-2 weeks. I want to know if shipping my house plants is worth considering.
I have a bunch of cacti and succulents, an Anthurium lily, a Dracena, and a Pelargonium graveolens.
With suitable preparation I don't think water will be too much of an issue, and there aren't any legal issues. I'll be moving in September so it shouldn't be too cold and hopefully won't be too hot either.
I bought a cactus once online, and it was send to me packed in dark. Shipping time was about a week, and the cactus had no problems with it. So for cacti I know they will survive at least a week or even longer in darkness.
3 Answers
3
You might consider whether it is possible to ship the plants on their own faster than the bulk of your stuff. We don't know where you are, but there are certainly courier services that specialize in shipping plants around Europe.
How long plants will survive in zero light depends how actively they are growing. Plants don't just use light for photosynthesis - there are other types of photoreceptor cells which control the plant's metabolism. A dormant cactus or succulent which hasn't been watered at all for a month or two probably won't be affected at all by a week or two in the dark. A fast growing plant which is just about to start flowering is a very different situation.
For an extended period, a small amount of light may be worse than none at all, since the plant may start to make etiolated growth in the direction of whatever light is available.
I can only comment on cactus: if you don't water or feed them for a couple of weeks before they are packed and shipped there shouldn't be any problems. Pack them in white moving paper/ newsprint (without the printing).
Avoid temperature extremes if possible.
If you aren't crossing any international borders there shouldn't be any problems. If you are crossing an international border, check the CITES regulations.
It would be a good idea to ensure your plants are pathogen- | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "light".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://succulentbar.com/do-succulents-need-sun/ | Do Succulents Need Sun? | Succulent Bar | Do Succulents Need Sun?
With their ethereal beauty, striking forms, and eye-catching colors, succulents have become popular additions to cocktail tables, desks, and windowsills. However, part of the satisfaction of growing succulent plants comes from their modest requirements.
But while succulents are resilient plants that can endure conditions other plants cannot, they have one peculiar need: the perfect balance of shade and sunlight to thrive. So whether you’ve been gifted a pebble plant or bought a gorgeous snake plant from the shop, you can’t just bring succulent plants into your home without learning how to care for them.
Can Succulents Live Inside Without Sunlight?
Succulents love sun exposure, and most varieties need at least 4-6 hours of daily indirect sunlight to thrive. However, there are several situations where you may need to keep succulents in the dark. It could be sending succulents in the mail, decorating a house or office for special events, storing wedding favors, protecting succulents from lousy weather, etc.
But aside from these instances, can they still make greatindoor house plantsif you lack a bright, sunny location to display them? Or, can your succulents thrive without light if you live in a basement apartment and your space has no windows at all?
The straightforward answer is no – no succulent will survive in the long term with a complete lack of bright indirect light, just like any other indoor plant. Sure, succulent plants can survive for a short time without direct sunlight, but how long succulents live will depend on the species.
Most succulents will live without deterioration for 10-14 days if placed in a place with little or no light, while some shade-tolerant succulents may live longer. The following tips will help yourindoor succulents last longer, even without sunlight.
The Best Ways to Make Succulents Last Longer Without Light
To avoid overstressing the succulents, keep their time in the dark to less than ten days. As previously stated, succulents begin to deteriorate after ten days without enough light.
Succulents should be kept dry as well. It is never a good idea to water succulents in the dark. This includes misting, which is also ineffective even under normal conditions.
Wet or soggy potting soil is likely to make fungus diseases and rot easier to spread, which would be sped up by the lack of light.
Places that don’t get bright indirect sunlight can also be moist, which succulents don’t like. So, if succulents are kept in the dark as wedding favors, it can help to leave some space between them so they don’t get too cramped. This can lower the amount of moisture in the air around the plant.
If you need tokeep succulents in low or no light for more than 14 days, getting plant-growing lights will help keep them happy. Cool daylight LED lights with 1000-2000 lumens would be ideal for the job.
How Much Sunlight Do Succulents Need?
Succulent plants come in varying needs and conditions to thrive.
For example, some succulent varieties grow in low-lying areas shaded by taller plants in their native habitats. On the other hand, some grow in crevices shielded from direct sunlight and on hilltops where rocks or boulders provide shade.
But there are also varieties of succulents that love full sun and thrive well under direct sunlight. Examples of sun-loving succulents include:
Agave Plants
Aloe Carmine
Blue Chalksticks
Cactuses
Copper Pinwheel
Coppertone Stonecrop
Fred Ives
Golden Barrel Cactus
Crinkle Leaf Plant
Lipstick Echeveria
Paddle Plant
Pink Ice Plant
Prickly Pear Cactus
Silver Dollar Jade
Sticks on Fire
Tree Anemone
However, if you are not careful, even succulents that thrive outdoors can suffer from ‘sunburn.’ Especiallysoft succulents can wither and die quickly if exposed to too much sun. Their leaves will develop brown spots if left unattended for too long in extreme heat.
Sunburned Succulents
And so, if too much sun can cause damage to succulent plants, how much light do succulents need to grow well then? To be more precise, how many hours of sunlight do succulents need?
The following are a few reminders about what to do and what not to do to ensure your succulent gets enough sunlight and doesn’t end up dying:
If You’re Growing Succulents Indoors
Hawthoria low light succulent
Most succulents do best in bright direct light and need at least 6 hours of natural light per day. But if you only have a shady corner in your home, choose plants like mother-in-law tongue that do well in low light and place them near a south or east-facing window.
If you want to hang your succulent pot, a trailing type like “string of bananas” is a good choice.
If you already have your succulents near a good window, you can use the less expensive goose-neck plant lights to give them an extra boost.
A larger LED lighting panel is ideal for sustaining a few plants if it’s dark.
If You’re Growing Succulents Outdoors
It’s a little different if you’regrowing succulents outdoors. Instead of exposing your plants to as much light as possible, you’ll likely need to protect them a little. After all, most of them aren’t native to the desert, and too much sun can still harm them.
Midrange succulents may grow well under some shade, such as a tall palm tree. Butdesert succulents, such as spiny cacti, don’t mind as much. An Opuntia, for example, can thrive in full sun with no shade, but it can get thirsty quickly.
What Happens if Succulents Don’t Get Sun?
Even though succulents are pretty hardy and great indoor plants, they still need bright indirect sunlight to grow well—but not too much, or they’ll get burned.Succulents that don’t receive enough light undergo several noticeable changes in appearance, such as:
1. Elongated stems and sparse leaves
Etiolation is one of the most obvious signs that your succulent hasn’t had enough direct sunlight. Succulents appear disproportionately taller than their original compact form, with more space between the leaves on the stem and thin growth at the top. As a result, instead of seeing a beautiful bunching of leaves, you see a lot of slender stalks.
2. Flattening of rosettes
In their quest for more light, some succulents grow significantly tall, thin, and spindly, while others grow abnormally in other ways. The leaves will lose their shape and become flattered, making them look sad and sick.
3. Fading of color
If the leaves of a plant are glossy and bright, even if they are just plain green, the plant is healthy and gets enough light and water. But succulents can sometimes look washed out and old, with dull leaves, and this is usually a sign that they could use some more sun.
4. Arching of lower leaves
When the lower leaves start arching and point downwards, the plant almost collapses from the bottom. Again, this is due to a lack of adequate light, with the plant starting to etiolate.
Now that we know what happens to succulents when they don’t get enough sunlight, the answer to the question, ‘do succulents need sunlight?’ is a clear yes! By placing your plant in a location where it receives enough light, fading colors, etoliation, and arching of lower leaves should be restored over time.
Do Succulents Need Sun and Water?
Sunburned Succulent Leaves
While succulent plants require very little care in watering, they are still susceptible to root rot when overwatered or sunburned when overexposed to direct sun. Moreover, as was said in the last section, succulents that don’t get enough sunlight and water will have problems like elongation or etiolation, lose their vibrant pigmentation, get pale, or turn back to a dull green color.
How to Know if They Are Receiving Enough Sunlight
Do succulents need direct sun, or will bright indirect sunlight suffice to keep them blooming beautifully? Knowing the effects of too much and too little sunlight can help determine how much sun your succulent plants need.
Too Much Sunlight
When succulents are stressed out by too much sun, their rosettes will close up. This is their way of protecting their leaves from getting intense light and heat.
Leaves will turn yellow or brown, often starting on the outside edges and making the leaf feel rough instead of smooth.
Soon, leaves will show the first signs of sunburn damage by curling up or getting a dark spot on one side, and this damage cannot be reversed.
Lack of Sunlight
If the rosettes don’t get enough light, they will open up and spread out to reach the light source. They will continue to grow taller, away from the center, leaving significant gaps between the leaves on the stem.
A small, lighter-colored leaf is more common than usual. This means that the lack of sunlight causes your succulent’s original color to fade.
As light deprivation continues, the bottom leaves start arching and pointing down instead of up.
How To Know If They Are Receiving Enough Water
Taking a close look at the leaves of your succulents is the easiest way to tell if they are getting too much or too little water. Before the problem gets too bad, the leaves will slowly change and exhibit signs.
Overwatered
Signs of overwatered succulents
Plump leaves will probably be yellow, see-through, soft, and wet and may also look shriveled. Some succulents with thick leaves, like ice plants and lithops, break and split instead because they get too much water.
Overwatering succulents with flat leaves will cause the leaves to turn brown or black. When a plant is overwatered, the rot usually begins in the middle or bottom and works its way up.
Underwatered
Signs of thirsty succulents in need of more water
Succulents with plump leaves, such as Echeveria and Graptoveria, will show signs of stress from underwatering by developing shriveled and wrinkled leaves. As water storage runs out, their bottom leaves will dry up and fall as they try to conserve water and energy for survival.
On the other hand, flat leaves like Aeonium will lose their firmness and look limp and wilted. Their leaves will also start to get wrinkled and shrink. After that, as the plant continues to experience a lack of water, the bottom leaves will slowly get yellow spots.
How Winter Cold Affects Succulents
Each succulent has different temperature needs, but most will not tolerate prolonged freezing temperatures. Hardy succulents and those that are soft will react differently to the cold winter.
Soft Succulents
Aloe and other tender succulents like warm weather, so they either need to live inside, where the temperature should be over 50 degrees Farenheight, or outside if it never gets below freezing. Even a light frost can damage tender leaves. If you leave them outside in freezing temperatures, they will freeze, rot, and die.
Hardy Succulents
Hardy succulents can handle frost, freezing temperatures, and even temperatures below freezing. They are the best plants to keep outside all the time. They grow and thrive better outdoors than indoors. Some varieties, such as sedum, may change color slightly, and during its dormant cycle, it may transition from a lush green or colorful sedum to a dull color.
How to Care for Succulents in Winter
Knowing how to care for succulents in the winter will help these beautiful plants survive changes in temperature and humidity. The following are some tips for protecting your succulents from winter frost damage:
Remove dead leaves.
Winterize succulents by moving them.
Ensure succulent drainage holes are efficient.
Surround the roots of the succulents with gravel.
Raise succulents off the ground during the winter.
Protect succulent outdoors with horticultural fleece.
Final Thoughts – Yes, Succulents Need Sun
If you’ve read this far, you should clearly understand why succulents need sun. Taking care of succulents doesn’t have to be demanding or stressful because there are wide varieties to choose from. It may appear not very easy at first, but it becomes easier with practice. Caring for your succulents can be easy and rewarding as long as you give your succulents the right amount of sun and don’t overwater them.
If you found this article informative, please share it with your friends on social media.
About the Author
WHO IS Jessica Seifert
Jessica Seifert is the owner and succulent expert behind Succulent Bar. Based in Texas, she has a passion for plants and a talent for creating unique experiences for her community. With years of event planning and interior design studies, Jessica’s skills and knowledge are highly sought after in the succulent community. Her love for plants and dedication to her craft has earned her a reputation as a trusted authority on succulents.
Whether creating beautiful succulent arrangements for events or teaching others about the care and maintenance of these plants through her in-person and virtual planting experiences, Jessica’s expertise shines through in everything she does. She has a deep-rooted love for her craft and is dedicated to sharing her knowledge with others. With Succulent Bar, Jessica has created a business that is both successful and fulfilling, and she looks forward to continuing to serve her community with her passion and expertise. | Or, can your succulents thrive without light if you live in a basement apartment and your space has no windows at all?
The straightforward answer is no – no succulent will survive in the long term with a complete lack of bright indirect light, just like any other indoor plant. Sure, succulent plants can survive for a short time without direct sunlight, but how long succulents live will depend on the species.
Most succulents will live without deterioration for 10-14 days if placed in a place with little or no light, while some shade-tolerant succulents may live longer. The following tips will help yourindoor succulents last longer, even without sunlight.
The Best Ways to Make Succulents Last Longer Without Light
To avoid overstressing the succulents, keep their time in the dark to less than ten days. As previously stated, succulents begin to deteriorate after ten days without enough light.
Succulents should be kept dry as well. It is never a good idea to water succulents in the dark. This includes misting, which is also ineffective even under normal conditions.
Wet or soggy potting soil is likely to make fungus diseases and rot easier to spread, which would be sped up by the lack of light.
Places that don’t get bright indirect sunlight can also be moist, which succulents don’t like. So, if succulents are kept in the dark as wedding favors, it can help to leave some space between them so they don’t get too cramped. This can lower the amount of moisture in the air around the plant.
If you need tokeep succulents in low or no light for more than 14 days, getting plant-growing lights will help keep them happy. Cool daylight LED lights with 1000-2000 lumens would be ideal for the job.
How Much Sunlight Do Succulents Need?
Succulent plants come in varying needs and conditions to thrive.
| no |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "light".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://forum.aquariumcoop.com/topic/15788-how-long-can-my-plants-survive-without-light/ | How long can my plants survive without light? - Plants, Algae, and ... | How long can my plants survive without light?
Recommended Posts
I am currently evacuated due to Hurricane Ida, I lost power to the lights on my fish tanks, Sunday Aug 29 @ 12:00pm (noon)- as of now a total of about 5 days.
how long can my plants survive? There is no light at all- not even ambient lighting- there is no window in that room. And if my plants are dying or are dead how much of an issue do you think that will cause in terms of ammonia etc ???
I have air going in the tank btw- no filters running just air stones. Unfortunately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yeah, this is definitely an extra rough situation on top of being displaced from your home. Sending some good vibes your way hoping everything is in great or decent enough shape when you get back and that you're not gone for too long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Survive - a fair amount of time; damage - certainly after a week you will see some serious decline in the leaves. To be honest I would be more concern about circulation and filtration esp if you have fishes. On the bright side of things at least it is summer. I lost power for 18 hours during an early spring storm and my gold rams died due to temp drop. Tank fully idea just sort of bounced off of us without any real issues state wide.
Conversely there is nothing you can do about it so don't fret; it is what it is... ; btw if your tank(s) is near a window make sure they get a lot of sunlight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Well- just updating everyone who helped me out. My tanks went 8 days without power. I had air going but no light at all in the room. Eeek. Thermometer I have for the room keeps a memory, the highest temp in the room was 101 and lowest was 88. I’d guess my tanks were quite a bit warmer than I usually keep them.
For the fish- sadly, my fire red agazzi apistogramma that I’ve had for 6 years didn’t make it. He was very stressed by the time I made it back home- stopped eating & had a swollen eye (prob an infection- he had damaged his eye a few years ago). All other fish were fine- ironically my endlers had fry in 3 tanks & pseudomoguil rainbow scattered eggs in 2 tanks.
Most plants have appeared to fare “okay.” Not great though. There was leaf damage and melting to almost every plant (except my African fern & frogbit) I lost about half the leaves on my swords, various bulb plants, and Java fern. My crypts are ok- just in dire need of root tabs! Almost no algae though so that was a plus! I guess the fish finished off the algae since they hadn’t been fed too! I’d imagine that with a little TLC And a lot of root tabs/fertz these plants will brought back to their former glory!
thanks to everyone who helped out! I wish I would’ve taken pictures! But I forgot and trimmed everything!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
I am sorry about your firered agazzi apistogramma. I am glad to hear there was not permanent trauma to your plants and other tank inhabitants. I have all of my backup air supplies attached to coop nano sponges that live in the tanks idle so when power goes out there is that touch of added filtration. Possibly something you may want to consider if you are in a storm path area. Best wishes on recovering from Ida.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
I am sorry about your firered agazzi apistogramma. I am glad to hear there was not permanent trauma to your plants and other tank inhabitants. I have all of my backup air supplies attached to coop nano sponges that live in the tanks idle so when power goes out there is that touch of added filtration. Possibly something you may want to consider if you are in a storm path area. Best wishes on recovering from Ida.
Thank you.
Yea I had back up air but it’s not the same as my full filtration running. Plus, the temps probably super stressed the situation. My tank is usually at about 76-79. So it was prob in the high 80s most of the time.
I own probably 9 of the USB air pumps, only 1 works, mine ALWAYS go out after a couple months. I got tired of getting them replaced and buying new ones. I purchased battery operated bubblers from sporting goods stores instead. Way cheaper from the sporting good stores than a fish store.And they work really well, no issue, as long as you have enough battery life. | How long can my plants survive without light?
Recommended Posts
I am currently evacuated due to Hurricane Ida, I lost power to the lights on my fish tanks, Sunday Aug 29 @ 12:00pm (noon)- as of now a total of about 5 days.
how long can my plants survive? There is no light at all- not even ambient lighting- there is no window in that room. And if my plants are dying or are dead how much of an issue do you think that will cause in terms of ammonia etc ???
I have air going in the tank btw- no filters running just air stones. Unfortunately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yeah, this is definitely an extra rough situation on top of being displaced from your home. Sending some good vibes your way hoping everything is in great or decent enough shape when you get back and that you're not gone for too long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Survive - a fair amount of time; damage - certainly after a week you will see some serious decline in the leaves. To be honest I would be more concern about circulation and filtration esp if you have fishes. On the bright side of things at least it is summer. I lost power for 18 hours during an early spring storm and my gold rams died due to temp drop. Tank fully idea just sort of bounced off of us without any real issues state wide.
Conversely there is nothing you can do about it so don't fret; it is what it is... ; btw if your tank(s) is near a window make sure they get a lot of sunlight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Well- just updating everyone who helped me out. My tanks went 8 days without power. I had air going but no light at all in the room. Eeek. Thermometer I have for the room keeps a memory, the highest temp in the room was 101 and lowest was 88. I’d guess my tanks were quite a bit warmer than I usually keep them.
| yes |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | no_statement | "plants" cannot "survive" without "light".. it is not possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/what-is-photosynthesis.html | NOVA - Official Website | Illuminating Photosynthesis | Illuminating Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis in plants and a few bacteria is responsible for feeding nearly all life on Earth. It allows energy from the sun to be converted into a storable form, usually glucose, which plants use to grow and thrive. Photosynthesis also generates the oxygen that animals need to survive. But here we animals repay the favor. We exhale the carbon dioxide that plants need for photosynthesis. Here, take a closer look at the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle and the process of photosynthesis.
This story reveals the secret of life,
or at least it reveals a small bit.
It shows how a plant uses light from the sun
and from this how we all benefit.
It shows you how plants create glucose.
It shows you the cycle of gases.
It asks you some relevant questions
that aren't asked in life science classes.
The Cycle
This kid and her plant use each other,
and this screen will show you just why.
When the kid and her plant interact,
all the molecules fly.
Well, a bonsai tree couldn't produce enough oxygen to keep someone alive, but an average-sized tree certainly could. In fact, an average-sized tree could produce enough oxygen to keep from two to four people alive.
Well, if you imagined that the "tree" in the question referred to a bonsai tree, then you made the right selectionâit certainly couldn't produce enough oxygen to keep a person alive. An average-sized tree, however, could produce enough oxygen to keep from two to four people alive.
This is really a trick question. "No" should be correctâa plant can't stay alive without a regular dose of lightâbut it isn't entirely correct. Yes, plants do need food to survive, and yes, they generally get this food through photosynthesis. However, experiments have shown that it is theoretically possible to keep a non-photosynthesizing plant alive, at least for a while.
John S. Boyer and his coworkers at the University of Delaware have kept the developing kernels of corn plants alive and growing in a low-light environment by feeding them sugar water. The sugar water, which was fed to the plants intravenously, sustained the growing kernels for five days. Without the sugar and light, the kernels would have died within a day.
This is really a trick question. "No" should be correctâa plant can't stay alive without a regular dose of lightâbut it isn't entirely correct. Yes, plants do need food to survive, and yes, they generally get this food through photosynthesis. However, experiments have shown that it is theoretically possible to keep a non-photosynthesizing plant alive, at least for a while.
John S. Boyer and his coworkers at the University of Delaware have kept the developing kernels of corn plants alive and growing in a low-light environment by feeding them sugar water. The sugar water, which was fed to the plants intravenously, sustained the growing kernels for five days. Without the sugar and light, the kernels would have died within a day.
The answer is actually "no, a plant could not grow without oxygen." Perhaps you're thinking that a plant needs to take in carbon dioxide in order to survive and that it expels oxygen as the waste product of photosynthesis. This is certainly true. But a plant doesn't only store the food it producesâit uses some to feed itself. And when a plant feeds on its own food, that food is broken down in the same way that it's broken down in an animal's body (including yours): with oxygen. The oxygen is needed to break down the carbohydrate molecules and release the energy stored in those molecules.
While a plant is photosynthesizing, it's producing more than enough oxygen to break down its own food. But if you were to take away the oxygen surrounding the plant as well as the light it needs for photosynthesis, the plant would in effect starve.
That's right. The plant would not grow. It is true that a plant needs to take in carbon dioxide in order to survive and that it expels oxygen as the waste product of photosynthesis. But a plant doesn't only store the food it producesâit uses some to feed itself. And when a plant feeds on its own food, that food is broken down in the same way that it's broken down in an animal's body (including yours): with oxygen. The oxygen is needed to break down the carbohydrate molecules and release the energy stored in those molecules.
While a plant is photosynthesizing, it's producing more than enough oxygen to break down its own food. But if you were to take away the oxygen surrounding the plant as well as the light it needs for photosynthesis, the plant would in effect starve.
This feature originally appeared on the site for the NOVA program Methuselah Tree.
National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Cancer Treatment Centers of America and Farmers Insurance. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers. | 't produce enough oxygen to keep someone alive, but an average-sized tree certainly could. In fact, an average-sized tree could produce enough oxygen to keep from two to four people alive.
Well, if you imagined that the "tree" in the question referred to a bonsai tree, then you made the right selectionâit certainly couldn't produce enough oxygen to keep a person alive. An average-sized tree, however, could produce enough oxygen to keep from two to four people alive.
This is really a trick question. "No" should be correctâa plant can't stay alive without a regular dose of lightâbut it isn't entirely correct. Yes, plants do need food to survive, and yes, they generally get this food through photosynthesis. However, experiments have shown that it is theoretically possible to keep a non-photosynthesizing plant alive, at least for a while.
John S. Boyer and his coworkers at the University of Delaware have kept the developing kernels of corn plants alive and growing in a low-light environment by feeding them sugar water. The sugar water, which was fed to the plants intravenously, sustained the growing kernels for five days. Without the sugar and light, the kernels would have died within a day.
This is really a trick question. "No" should be correctâa plant can't stay alive without a regular dose of lightâbut it isn't entirely correct. Yes, plants do need food to survive, and yes, they generally get this food through photosynthesis. However, experiments have shown that it is theoretically possible to keep a non-photosynthesizing plant alive, at least for a while.
John S. Boyer and his coworkers at the University of Delaware have kept the developing kernels of corn plants alive and growing in a low-light environment by feeding them sugar water. The sugar water, which was fed to the plants intravenously, sustained the growing kernels for five days. Without the sugar and light, the kernels would have died within a day.
The answer is actually "no, a plant could not grow without oxygen." | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | no_statement | "plants" cannot "survive" without "light".. it is not possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://www.succulentgrowingtips.com/how-long-can-succulents-survive-in-little-or-no-light | How Long Can Succulents Survive In Little Or No Light | </script>Despite succulents being hardy plants that can survive many situations other plants cannot, they have a weakness- the need for sunlight. Some succulent species and varieties will grow and thrive without being in direct sun but, unfortunately, they are in the minority. They will also need bright, indirect light to grow well.
For most succulents, being in a spot with at least a few hours of sun is essential to maintain shape and colour. But what if you just wanted to, say, send succulents in a box or keep a pretty arrangement indoors while you have guests. Will succulents live without sun light for a while and for how long?
Succulents can survive without any light whatsoever for short periods. How long will depend on the particular species, but in general, if they are in a place with minimal or no light, most succulents will live without deteriorating too much for 10-14 days. Some shade-tolerant succulents may go for longer.
Our small nursery sells the majority of our plants online and posts them all over Australia. Prior to starting with the business, I have tested a lot of plants by putting them in a box and leaving them in complete darkness for up to 2 weeks.
How long will succulents survive in no light?
All plants tested would live for two weeks without any major sign of stress, though I could see a loss of colour after day 10. Ideally, we try and get plants to our customers within seven days as most succulents will look no different to when they were packed.
Succulents would survive even past 14 days, but the growth would likely start distorting. The leaves would grow larger and far apart, the plant would start stretching from the centre in search of light and on the whole it would become more fragile.
After about a month of no light whatsoever, many succulents would start dying. Same goes for sun-loving succulents such as Echeveria or Graptopetalum species indoors without enough sun (5+ hours).
Tips For Getting Succulents Last Longer In No Light
There are many scenarios where you may need to keep succulents in darkness. It could be sending succulents in the post, decorating a house or an office for special events, storing wedding favours, keeping succulents safe from a spell of bad weather etc.
To not stress the succulents too much, limiting the time they are in no light to under 10 days is important. As mentioned above, after 10, succulents will slowly start deteriorating.
The plants should also be kept dry. Watering succulents when they are in darkness is never a good idea. This includes misting, which is also not helpful, even under normal circumstances. Wet or soggy potting mix is very likely to aid fungal diseases and rot to establish which would be accelerated by the lack of light.
If succulents are stored in a dark place as wedding favours, or a bonbonniere it can help to space them out a little, so they are not close together. This can reduce humidity in the plant's immediate environment. Places without light can also be a bit damp, which succulents really dislike.
If, for some reason, there is a need to keep succulents in little or no light for longer than 14 days getting plant growing lights will help keep them happy. The best lights for the job would be cool daylight LED that are 1000-2000 lumens. Good growing lights will help maintain succulents during winter in cold climates (most succulents are not frost-tolerant), during bad weather or if you just want to keep succulents indoors.
Which Succulents Can Survive Without Direct Sunlight
There are a few shade-tolerant succulents that will not need exposure to direct sun, though again, most will need a bright position close to a window.
Succulents from Aloe, Ceropegia, Gasateraloe, Gasteria or Haworthia genera are very likely to survive in good light indoors. There are others as well, such as Senecio Rowleyanus, many cacti species or even Lithops, but they will need a super bright spot and good airflow to survive and look pretty.
Which Succulents Can Survive In Very Little Light
There is only one succulent genus that we know should survive in very low light areas and it is Sansevieria (if you know of any others you can share with us in the comments below).
Many will be familiar with the Mother in Law Tongue (Sansevieria Trifasciata) which will live in dark rooms. It is important to note that darker the room, slower the growth. When there is very little light available, the plant is very likely to not grow much, if at all. So if you’re hoping to put a small plant in a poorly lit room hoping it will grow nice and big, it is unlikely to happen.
How To Reintroduce a Succulent Back Outside After It Has Been Without Light
Whether it has been 10 days or a few weeks, succulents will need a little bit of time to re-adjust to being in the sun again. After spending too long in little or no light, they will become more sensitive and prone to sunburn.
To get succulents used to sunshine again, they will need baby steps even more so if they have started losing colour and stretching as a result of their confinement. The plants should first be placed in a couple of hours of morning sun followed by a bright shade for the rest of the day for about 3 days. The exposure to the sun can then be gradually increased every few days until they can handle the 5 + hours they need.
Reintroducing succulents to the sun is a lot harder in summer as the sun can be too strong. In extreme cases when temperatures are around 40C (104F) the sun can even kill the plant off. Healthy succulents do not like strong sun when this hot either and should be kept in a bright shade outdoors until the heatwave passes.
In the cooler months, putting succulents back in the sun is much easier and quicker as the UV is not too strong.
In conclusion, succulents thrive on sun and plenty of bright light. Unless it’s only for very short period, little or no light will spell almost a certain death for a succulent.
Hi and welcome to Succulent Growing Tips. I'm Kat and I run a small nursery specializing in succulents called Fern Farm Plants. My nursery grows all its own plants and so i know a thing or two about succulents :) In this blog i will share all I've learned over the last 10 years of running my small business, growing these amazing plants. | </script>Despite succulents being hardy plants that can survive many situations other plants cannot, they have a weakness- the need for sunlight. Some succulent species and varieties will grow and thrive without being in direct sun but, unfortunately, they are in the minority. They will also need bright, indirect light to grow well.
For most succulents, being in a spot with at least a few hours of sun is essential to maintain shape and colour. But what if you just wanted to, say, send succulents in a box or keep a pretty arrangement indoors while you have guests. Will succulents live without sun light for a while and for how long?
Succulents can survive without any light whatsoever for short periods. How long will depend on the particular species, but in general, if they are in a place with minimal or no light, most succulents will live without deteriorating too much for 10-14 days. Some shade-tolerant succulents may go for longer.
Our small nursery sells the majority of our plants online and posts them all over Australia. Prior to starting with the business, I have tested a lot of plants by putting them in a box and leaving them in complete darkness for up to 2 weeks.
How long will succulents survive in no light?
All plants tested would live for two weeks without any major sign of stress, though I could see a loss of colour after day 10. Ideally, we try and get plants to our customers within seven days as most succulents will look no different to when they were packed.
Succulents would survive even past 14 days, but the growth would likely start distorting. The leaves would grow larger and far apart, the plant would start stretching from the centre in search of light and on the whole it would become more fragile.
After about a month of no light whatsoever, many succulents would start dying. Same goes for sun-loving succulents such as Echeveria or Graptopetalum species indoors without enough sun (5+ hours).
Tips For Getting Succulents Last Longer In No Light
There are many scenarios where you may need to keep succulents in darkness. | yes |
Horticulture | Can plants survive without light? | no_statement | "plants" cannot "survive" without "light".. it is not possible for "plants" to "survive" without "light". | https://www.allaboutgardening.com/plants-kept-in-the-dark/ | What Happens to Plants That Are Kept in The Dark? | What Happens to Plants That Are Kept in The Dark?
Are you thinking of adding a new houseplant to your office space, but typically don't keep the area well lit? Perhaps you want to know what type of artificial light you need to get your plant if the room it's in is too dark? Maybe you just want to know what happens when you leave a plant in a dark room for too long? Find out what happens to plants when they don't get enough light!
Plants need light for photosynthesis, and without it, they may grow slowly or die. The process by which plants grow and turn sunlight into energy is called photosynthesis. Because plants need light to survive, you may be asking yourself, what happens if I keep my plant in the dark, or a dimly lit room?
For example, what would happen if you were to take your houseplants and put them in a dark closet? Would they die? Maybe not, but it might stunt their growth. You may also end up with withered leaves, or other problems if some type of light isn’t introduced.
Obviously, the best thing for your plant is to provide the perfect amount of sunlight, depending on the plant type. But if you can’t, there are artificial lighting alternatives you can use. Continue reading on to find out how darkness impacts plants.
Your Plant May Die
First and foremost, yes, if your plant is kept in the dark, it eventually starts to wiltand will eventually die if you don’t introduce some type of light. Plants kept in the dark will wither no matter how adaptive they are to their new surroundings.
When the plant can no longer manufacture food, it consumes what is left on the leaves and stems. And once it exhausts the options, the plant’s leaves will turn yellow with some brown dots. Finally, the leaves turn black and fall off of the plant’s branches and/or stem.
Withering Leaves
You’ll usually notice a plant’s leaves start to wilt when they lack sunlight.
A plant may wither due to a lack of chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is a condition that is characterized by a green pigment that the plant uses to manufacture food.
So when light is not available, the process of making food is incomplete, and the chlorophyll disappears. When the leaves turn from yellow to black, it is a clear indication that your plant is no longer manufacturing food.
Furthermore, it is a sign that your plant will not survive for long. At this stage, the plant becomes weak, and the stems become hard since it is drying and all water in the plant is drained.
In the summer, houseplants need direct sunlight for at least six hours a day to maintain their normal growth cycle.
Leaves Turn Yellow
Yellowing of leaves is common for plants that don’t get enough natural or artificial light.
One of the last things you want to see is your houseplant’s leaves turn yellow. That might be due to several reasons, including but not limited to inadequate moisture, nutrition, temperature, and light.
But given that this article is about plants kept in the dark, you obviously want to learn how lack of light can yellow your plants.
That happens because plants need light for photosynthesis – without it, they start to wilt and eventually die because they will not have any food or nutrients. If left for so long, the leaves will eventually dry and fall off the plant.
The good news is that you may increase light exposure to trigger photosynthesis and help the leaves turn green again.
Stunted or Slow Growth
Plants without adequate light, may be slower to grow.
Plants need nutrients to grow. But as you now know, light influences photosynthesis, which gives food to plants. That means that plants need light to grow and survive.
As such, a plant grown in complete darkness will not produce enough energy or food. And without it, eventually, the cells die because they do not get enough nutrients. Ultimately, plants grown in the dark will grow up to be stunted and underdeveloped.
The plants stay small and do not grow tall as other greener plants in the sun do. But, again, this is because they cannot make their food with sunlight as a starting point.
In addition, these plants do not have chlorophyll, which is necessary for them to get nutrients from water and air.
Instead, they depend on the natural light from the sun to make chlorophyll and get nutrients. Their leaves also do not have any green color because of this.
Plants that do not get enough sunlight will not produce food for themselves or grow tall as greener plants due to their dependency on sunlight. This happens regardless of whether they are planted outside or inside a room.
Therefore, plants need sunlight to obtain nutrients and produce food to grow tall as greener plants do. Without the sun as their starting point, they do not get any energy even if you give them soil and water until you plant them in the ground or water them often.
When growing indoors, plants may not grow well in poorly-lit rooms as their photosynthesis process will fail. Sunlight helps drive this process, so try to provide as much natural light as possible if growing indoors.
When growing outdoors, ensure that young seedlings are put in a sunny spot and have their “feet” kept moist at all times until they establish themselves.
Can a Plant Survive Without Light?
Almost all plants require light, but some plants, including succulents, require less light than others.
Some plants thrive in low-light conditions, such as succulents, while others require high indirect light. But other plants will still grow even if there is no light. Typically, a plant can survive without light if its roots attach to another plant with exposure to enough light.
That plants can grow in total darkness completely changes the game. That means that you could care for a plant just by keeping it in your windowless office or a poorly lit room.
Plants that need light to grow are called autotrophs. On the other hand, plants that thrive best in darkness are known as heterotrophs.
The latter have no chloroplasts to support photosynthesis.
But where do heterotrophs source nutrients from when they cannot make food in the sun? Oftentimes, heterotrophs depend on the soil’s decaying matter to make food.
Examples of plants that can thrive well in total darkness include dracaena, philodendron, also known as heartleaf, Chinese evergreen, and snake plant. Adiantum and parlor palms can also grow well in darkness and still maintain the gloss that comes with sunlight exposure.
Ensuring Enough Light Reaches Your Plants
Keeping your plants near some partial sunlight is a good idea.
Light from outside is called natural light, and it comes from the sun. It is crucial to understand that there are different kinds of light that plants can use during each season.
That means that the color spectrum in sunlight changes depending on the time of year. For example, natural light rich in yellow and orange wavelengths will stimulate leaf growth while red and blue promote flowering.
You want to keep your houseplants near the windows or doors to ensure maximum light reaches them. Therefore, if they are in a room with several windows that get lots of sun exposure, it is likely that they will be fine.
Also, you can move your plants outside a few times a week. If you experience difficulty increasing the plant’s exposure to natural light, consider using supplemental light, as discussed below.
Providing Supplemental Light For Houseplants
Artificial light is a good idea if you can’t get your plants into the sun.
Using the right kind of light is critical whether your plants grow, flower, or produce fruit and vegetables.
You can use either artificial or natural light to give your plants the light they need. Ideally, you want to mimic the optimal amount of time for photosynthesis and plant growth in your area.
Artificial lights are great because they do not depend on the weather or daylight. In addition, they can help maintain optimal light levels all year round, which is especially important for houseplants that need to grow at specific times of the year.
Types of Lights
There are three main types of lights that you can use depending on your specific needs: high-intensity discharge (HID), fluorescent tubes, and LED. Different types have different advantages and disadvantages.
If you are choosing an HID light, they are a bit more expensive. But they also last longer than other lights because they do not require much maintenance or replacement parts.
Fluorescent tubes are very affordable. However, the bulbs should often be replaced because they burn out quickly.
LEDs are comparatively affordable too, but they do not produce nearly as much illumination. Blue and white LED plants to grow lights are also handy for growing herbs indoors because they promote the growth of specific plant compounds.
To choose a light that is right for you, consider things like wattage, lumens (the unit of measure used to quantify brightness), potential lifespan, and cost. Ultimately, it would help if you also consider parts availability if you need to replace any parts.
If the light you choose does not provide enough lumens, your plant will start to fade away and eventually die.
Light Mounting
The other thing you will need is a way to mount your light once it’s set up to be positioned in a way that provides optimal lighting for photosynthesis.
High-intensity discharge lights are large and heavy, so it is best to mount them as high up on the wall as possible.
However, if you have fluorescent tubes or LED grow lights, they are much lighter and smaller. So, you can get away with mounting them closer to the ground.
Final Thoughts
Plants need specific amounts of light at certain times of year to perform this function properly. If a plant does not get enough light, it will suffer stress and may die if the lack of light continues for too long.
Even if the plant does not wither and die, it might turn yellow or grow slowly. Be sure to move your plant to a place with enough sunlight or introduce artificial light to support photosynthesis and growth.
Did you recently plant a blueberry plant in your garden or yard, only to find its leaves are turning red? What could be causing the leaves to turn colors when they normally should be healthy and green? In this article, amateur gardener Jason White helps troubleshoot why your blueberry plant has this problem, and how to fix it.
Weed it and reap
Are you thinking of adding a coleus plant to your indoor or outdoor garden, but aren't sure how long this plant will live if you do? These plants can have different lifespans depending on where they are planted, and on their biology. In this article, amateur gardener Jason White looks at the average lifespan of the coleus plant.
Are you growing basil in your garden, but aren't sure how much sun or shade it should be getting? Basil can be tricky when trying to make sure it gets enough sun. In this article, gardening expert Taylor Sievers guides you through exactly the right amount of sun your basil should be getting on a daily basis.
Did you recently start growing basil to use while cooking, or for certain herbal scents in your home? If so, it's important to understand the proper watering schedule so you don't over-water or under-water this picky plant. In this article, gardening expert Taylor Sievers examines a proper watering schedule for Basil.
If you are considering adding some spider plants to your indoor gardening area, Spider Plants can be a great addition. Spider plants be excellent for many different design and layout interior styles, but you may be wondering - how long do they live? In this article, we look at the life cycle of Spider plants so you know what to expect.
Looking to up your composting game by adding citrus, but aren't sure if it's the safe or effective thing to do? In this article, we examine if you should be using citrus in your composting pile. We examine if it's safe to use Oranges, Lemons, Limes and other types of citrus in your garden. as well as the benefits they may offer.
Are your Chrysanthemums turning brown, but you aren't quite sure what to do? Chrysanthemums, also known as "Mums" are a very hardy flower. The good news is that if you've seen some browning, you can likely reverse course. In this article, amateur gardener Jason White examines what to do when you see browning, and how to recover. | Plants that do not get enough sunlight will not produce food for themselves or grow tall as greener plants due to their dependency on sunlight. This happens regardless of whether they are planted outside or inside a room.
Therefore, plants need sunlight to obtain nutrients and produce food to grow tall as greener plants do. Without the sun as their starting point, they do not get any energy even if you give them soil and water until you plant them in the ground or water them often.
When growing indoors, plants may not grow well in poorly-lit rooms as their photosynthesis process will fail. Sunlight helps drive this process, so try to provide as much natural light as possible if growing indoors.
When growing outdoors, ensure that young seedlings are put in a sunny spot and have their “feet” kept moist at all times until they establish themselves.
Can a Plant Survive Without Light?
Almost all plants require light, but some plants, including succulents, require less light than others.
Some plants thrive in low-light conditions, such as succulents, while others require high indirect light. But other plants will still grow even if there is no light. Typically, a plant can survive without light if its roots attach to another plant with exposure to enough light.
That plants can grow in total darkness completely changes the game. That means that you could care for a plant just by keeping it in your windowless office or a poorly lit room.
Plants that need light to grow are called autotrophs. On the other hand, plants that thrive best in darkness are known as heterotrophs.
The latter have no chloroplasts to support photosynthesis.
But where do heterotrophs source nutrients from when they cannot make food in the sun? Oftentimes, heterotrophs depend on the soil’s decaying matter to make food.
Examples of plants that can thrive well in total darkness include dracaena, philodendron, also known as heartleaf, Chinese evergreen, and snake plant. Adiantum and parlor palms can also grow well in darkness and still maintain the gloss that comes with sunlight exposure.
| yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://aces.nmsu.edu/ces/yard/2002/121402.html | Plants without soil | Issue: December 14, 2002
Plants without soil
Yes, plants can grow without soil, but they cannot grow without the necessities that soil
provides. Plants need support, nutrients, protection from adverse temperatures, an even
supply of moisture, and they need oxygen around the roots. It is possible to provide these
necessary components for plant growth without soil.
Many of us have grown ivy, sweet potatoes, and other plants in a vase containing only water.
The vase supplies the support, the water provides mineral nutrients, and an indoor location
provides the temperature protection. In the case of plants in water, the oxygen is the greatest
problem. Plants that can be grown in water must extract oxygen from the oxygen dissolved in the
water. Many other plants will not survive without the extra oxygen provided by the pore spaces
in the soil.
We often force spring flowering bulbs to blossom indoors by placing the base of the bulb in gravel
and adding only enough water to reach the base of the bulb. Oxygen is not the limiting factor.
There are few minerals provided by the gravel and the water for these plants. Bulb plants,
however, have their own supply of minerals and necessary food stored in the bulb so they grow and
flower in the gravel. Under these growing conditions, the bulb is often depleted and should be
discarded rather than saved since the food supply in the bulb is depleted.
It is also possible to grow plants hydroponically. Hydroponically grown plants are grown in a
solution of water containing the necessary plant nutrients. A variety of methods are used to
provide support and oxygen for the roots. Since hydroponic plant production is often in a
greenhouse or other protected area, temperature control is provided for both the roots and the
top of the plant.
Perhaps the most exotic example I have seem of plants growing without soil was at Disney World
where plants were grown "aeroponically". These plants were suspended with their roots dangling
in the air inside a greenhouse. The line supporting the plants moved, carrying the plants around
a horizontal loop. Along a portion of the loop, the roots were sprayed with a hydroponic solution
of water and nutrients. Along the rest of the loop, the roots were exposed to the air.
Some tropical plants grow in a manner similar to aeroponic culture. These plants (orchids, ferns,
bromeliads, some philodendrons and other plants) grow attached to the branches of trees high above
the soil. The tree provides support. Frequent rain showers provide the water. Nutrients are
provided by composted materials that run down the trunk and branches of the tree during the rain
showers. For most of the day, the roots hang in the air, which provides the necessary oxygen.
Yes, plants may be grown without soil as long as we provide for the necessities that are missing
when soil is lacking. | Issue: December 14, 2002
Plants without soil
Yes, plants can grow without soil, but they cannot grow without the necessities that soil
provides. Plants need support, nutrients, protection from adverse temperatures, an even
supply of moisture, and they need oxygen around the roots. It is possible to provide these
necessary components for plant growth without soil.
Many of us have grown ivy, sweet potatoes, and other plants in a vase containing only water.
The vase supplies the support, the water provides mineral nutrients, and an indoor location
provides the temperature protection. In the case of plants in water, the oxygen is the greatest
problem. Plants that can be grown in water must extract oxygen from the oxygen dissolved in the
water. Many other plants will not survive without the extra oxygen provided by the pore spaces
in the soil.
We often force spring flowering bulbs to blossom indoors by placing the base of the bulb in gravel
and adding only enough water to reach the base of the bulb. Oxygen is not the limiting factor.
There are few minerals provided by the gravel and the water for these plants. Bulb plants,
however, have their own supply of minerals and necessary food stored in the bulb so they grow and
flower in the gravel. Under these growing conditions, the bulb is often depleted and should be
discarded rather than saved since the food supply in the bulb is depleted.
It is also possible to grow plants hydroponically. Hydroponically grown plants are grown in a
solution of water containing the necessary plant nutrients. A variety of methods are used to
provide support and oxygen for the roots. Since hydroponic plant production is often in a
greenhouse or other protected area, temperature control is provided for both the roots and the
top of the plant.
Perhaps the most exotic example I have seem of plants growing without soil was at Disney World
where plants were grown "aeroponically". These plants were suspended with their roots dangling
in the air inside a greenhouse. The line supporting the plants moved, carrying the plants around
a horizontal loop. | yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://www.bobvila.com/articles/plants-that-dont-need-soil/ | 10 Plants You Can Grow Without Soil | Exercise your green thumb without getting dirt under your fingernails with these fun plants that grow in water, on other plants, and even in the air.
We may earn revenue from the products available on this page and participate in affiliate programs.
Photo: istockphoto.com
If you want to ditch dirty fingernails, you can choose from a wide variety of botanicals that will treat you with gorgeous blooms and greenery using only water—and sometimes just air!—to thrive. From Christmas cacti to orchid varieties and air plants, here are some fun houseplants that don’t need dirt to survive.
1. Orchids (Orchidaceae)
Photo: istockphoto.com
Most tropical orchids are epiphytes, meaning they grow on other plants instead of in soil. But orchids and other epiphytes aren’t parasitic; their roots are covered in a squishy membrane that sucks up water from the atmosphere. Many orchids sold as houseplants come in a planting medium, such as moss or stones, but they will grow just as easily on a piece of bark once their roots take hold.
2. Air Plants (Tillandsias)
Members of the genus Tillandsia, air plants are exactly what they sound like: plants that grow in air instead of soil. More than 650 varieties exist, displaying an immense variety of foliage types and colorful blooms. The leaves of air plants grow in a rosette formation, which helps the plants gather water and nutrients from the environment. When displayed as houseplants, they’re typically placed in decorative dishes or mounted.
3. Spanish Moss (Tillandsia usneoides)
With its drooping, gray-green tendrils, Spanish moss evokes humid summer days and the romance of southern climes. The plant often grows from trees, absorbing water and nutrients from the atmosphere, but with proper care it can also grow indoors. To maintain Spanish moss as a houseplant, mist it with water at least twice a week and fertilize it with high-phosphorus liquid fertilizer every two weeks. Any Spanish moss gathered from the wild will be infested with small insects, so if you want to grow it indoors, purchase plants from a trusted supplier.
4. Marimo Moss Balls (Aegagropila linnaei)
Marimo moss balls, also known as Cladophora balls, are spherical algae. They can be grown in an aquarium with fish, or they can live alone in a jar of water. To maintain marimo moss balls, simply keep them in low indirect sunlight, and change their water every couple of weeks.
5. Paperwhites (Narcissus tazetta)
Paperwhites are a variety of daffodil that can be forced from bulbs indoors during the winter. These fragrant plants will gladly grow in nothing more than water and some pebbles. Thanks to their white and yellow blooms, cheerful paperwhites will buoy you through those cold, gray months.
6. Aechmea (Aechmea)
A member of the Bromeliad family of tropical plants, aechmea is often sold in decorative containers in nurseries. The plants can grow in a small amount of soil, yet in the wild they’re nonparasitic grapplers, with their roots anchored to a host plant. Aechmea thrives in both light and shade, and it’s not susceptible to many pests. Given their easy care and colorful appearance, it’s no wonder they’re often given as gifts.
7. Christmas Cactus (Schlumbergera bridgesii)
Popular gifts during the holidays, Christmas cacti can grow year-round in a vase of just water. To get them to root, use a sharp, clean knife to cut a Y-shaped piece from the stem tip, ideally with two to three jointed segments. Let the cutting dry for a few hours then place the bottom portion in water and place it somewhere with indirect light. Change the water for Christmas cacti every week or so, and within a few weeks you should see new roots forming.
8. Amaryllis (Hippeastrum)
Amaryllis plants feature showy trumpet-like flowers that can be red, white, orange, or pink. They grow from a bulb and usually bloom in late winter or early spring. When growing this beauty in water, take care not to submerge the bulb because it will rot. Instead, fill a vessel with gravel or decorative stones until it’s about three-quarters full. Trim any dry brown roots from the amaryllis bulb and place it upside down into the gravel, leaving the top third exposed. Then add about an inch of water and place the vessel in a sunny window, changing the water about once per week.
9. Baby’s Tears (Soleirolia soleirolii)
Baby’s tears plants, also known as mother of thousands, form a mat of tiny round leaves that makes for a great addition to a terrarium or fairy garden, as well as a standalone plant. You can place a cutting stem in a small jar of water, changing the water weekly, or place it on top of some rocks in a terrarium, adding a little bit of water periodically.
10. Hyacinth (Hyacinthus)
Hyacinths feature stunning spikes of fragrant flowers that come in a variety of hues, including purple, pink, white, and blue. The little star-shaped flowers are a great way to add pops of color to your indoor aesthetic. These stunners grow from bulbs, and do best in water when they’re grown from a dedicated bulb vase. Simply set the bulb in the vase’s neck so that the roots just graze the water, then place the vase in a bright sunny window and enjoy the blooms. If your bulb hasn’t sprouted yet, follow the same process but place the vase in a dark, cool room for about 6 weeks until it sprouts. Then transition it to a bright window. | Exercise your green thumb without getting dirt under your fingernails with these fun plants that grow in water, on other plants, and even in the air.
We may earn revenue from the products available on this page and participate in affiliate programs.
Photo: istockphoto.com
If you want to ditch dirty fingernails, you can choose from a wide variety of botanicals that will treat you with gorgeous blooms and greenery using only water—and sometimes just air!—to thrive. From Christmas cacti to orchid varieties and air plants, here are some fun houseplants that don’t need dirt to survive.
1. Orchids (Orchidaceae)
Photo: istockphoto.com
Most tropical orchids are epiphytes, meaning they grow on other plants instead of in soil. But orchids and other epiphytes aren’t parasitic; their roots are covered in a squishy membrane that sucks up water from the atmosphere. Many orchids sold as houseplants come in a planting medium, such as moss or stones, but they will grow just as easily on a piece of bark once their roots take hold.
2. Air Plants (Tillandsias)
Members of the genus Tillandsia, air plants are exactly what they sound like: plants that grow in air instead of soil. More than 650 varieties exist, displaying an immense variety of foliage types and colorful blooms. The leaves of air plants grow in a rosette formation, which helps the plants gather water and nutrients from the environment. When displayed as houseplants, they’re typically placed in decorative dishes or mounted.
3. Spanish Moss (Tillandsia usneoides)
With its drooping, gray-green tendrils, Spanish moss evokes humid summer days and the romance of southern climes. The plant often grows from trees, absorbing water and nutrients from the atmosphere, but with proper care it can also grow indoors. To maintain Spanish moss as a houseplant, mist it with water at least twice a week and fertilize it with high-phosphorus liquid fertilizer every two weeks. | yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/can-plants-grow-without-soil | Can Plants Grow Without Soil? | Wonderopolis | What about a huge greenhouse full of plastic pipes sprouting a wild variety of flowers and vegetables? No? Well…think again! As crazy as it seems, it's possible to grow plants above the ground without any soil at all.
Using a growing method called "hydroponics," you can grow plants in a watery solution of mineral nutrients instead of soil. The word “hydroponic" comes from the Greek words hydro (“water") and ponos (“labor").
The keys to plant growth are a variety of mineral nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. If you can add these necessarymineral nutrients into a plant's water supply, you no longer need soil for the plant to grow. Just about any plant can be grown with hydroponics.
Hydroponic containers can take many forms. Large hydroponic farms use vast networks of plastic pipes with holes for plants. The pipes supply mineral nutrients in a watery solution to the plants' root systems.
It's also possible to grow plants hydroponically by placing their roots in a mineralnutrient solution contained in a non-soil material, such as gravel, coconut husks, or shredded paper. These non-soil materials can provide greater support for the plants' root systems.
Hydroponic plants tend to grow well and produce high yields. Plant roots have a constant supply of oxygen.They also have access to as much or as little water as they need. Water in hydroponic systems is also reused constantly, thereby lowering water costs.
Hydroponics has many benefits in the modern world. In areas where good soil is scarce, hydroponics allows residents to grow fresh food. Since hydroponic farms can be set up indoors, fresh food can be grown all year long.
Did you get it?
Wonder What's Next?
If you can turn the letters R-E-S-P-E-C-T into a song, then you are ready for tomorrow’s Wonder about the Queen of Soul.
Try It Out
Are you ready to learn more about hydroponics? Grab a friend or family member and explore the following activities:
Get outside to see how plants grow in the soil near where you live. If you already have a garden in your yard, that's great! You already have a place to explore. If not, don't worry! There are all sorts of plants growing around you, from grass and trees to flowers and vegetables. Find some plants and examine them closely. Dig up a small area of soil and look at it with a magnifying glass. What do you see?
Ready to explore gardening without soil on your own? With just a few simple items, you can try to Build a 2 Liter Bottle Garden at home! Just follow the directions and see what grows. Which plants would you want to grow at home?
Check out the Plants in Space activity to learn more about NASA's efforts to find ways to grow plants effectively in space. If you went to outer space, would you want to tend a garden? Why or why not? Do you think fresh produce would be a nice change of pace from prepackaged meals? If you could grow any plants in space, what would they be?
Marlowe
Charley
When was this written? I am doing a bibliography and need to know, Thank you
Jun 4, 2019
Hi, Charley!
You can use the date accessed. Thanks for checking!
Emma
May 27, 2019
Hi Wonderpolis,
Who is the author of this site? Do they study plants? I am writing an OPVL on this and I was just wondering.
From Emma
May 29, 2019
Hi Emma!
You can cite Wonderopolis as the author of this WONDER. Our WonderTeam researches the topics and writes the articles. On most of our Wonders, the sources used to gather information are listed. They are listed for this Wonder.
No one on staff that writes Wonders is a botanist.
Mynameisjeff
Feb 4, 2019
Are plants important in life?
Feb 4, 2019
YES! Plants are super important! Here is a WONDER (especially the 4th paragraph) that will tell you about why trees are important--and trees are plants!
Maesy
Alex Decker
ecent research has discovered a break-through new way of growing plants organically.
In short… you can grow up to 10 times the amount of plants in half the time it normally takes… and the plants are amazingly healthy and vibrant.
Here's how you do it...
http://www.bestquicktips.com/aquaponics-at-home
You will have your garden going in no time!
Feb 14, 2018
Thanks for sharing, Alex!
erik
Feb 2, 2018
how do you make a hydroponic system?
Feb 11, 2018
Hi, erik! Try reading through paragraphs 6 and 7 to learn more about what is needed for a hydroponic system!
Jasmyne
Oct 24, 2017
Does plants ever need water???
Oct 26, 2017
Plants do need water! Thanks for WONDERing with us, Jasmyne!!
khantshu
Jun 30, 2017
I had a chance to visit this kind of garden in Chiang Mai a few months ago. It is cool. I want to know more about it and want to try it out.
Jul 3, 2017
Wow! That's awesome! If you find out more about it, let us know, Khantshu!
katreena
May 22, 2017
i like fishes
May 24, 2017
Cool! How do you feel about plants?
arec
May 22, 2017
hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
May 24, 2017
?
Anthony
May 17, 2017
Cool dude
May 18, 2017
?
Anthony
May 17, 2017
Hi
May 18, 2017
?
who found this out
May 12, 2017
who found this out
May 15, 2017
Check out our Wonder Sources! ?
who
May 17, 2017
tell me
who found this out
May 16, 2017
just tell me
Cole
May 3, 2017
Hey can you grow beans in a bag in the dark
May 4, 2017
Can it be done? Have you tried it?
21
May 9, 2017
No.....
ally
May 2, 2017
when i was in 5th grade i had a science experiment and it was with flowers i put then in colored die and they started to change color. So i would expect the plants to. So, therefore i am very surprised.
May 3, 2017
That is a very interesting experiment that you did! Thanks for sharing what you were WONDERing about!
ally
May 4, 2017
What is your favorite wonder of the day
May 5, 2017
Ooo tough question! There are SO many, it's hard to pick one...but we do really love coffee so one of our favorites is What is a Barista? What's one of your favorites, Ally?
Travis
May 1, 2017
This is fake my mom works with plants and she HAS TO use soil
May 2, 2017
Thanks for sharing your connection, Travis! Soil is certainly the best and much easier but we hope you learned something new from this Wonder!
travis
May 4, 2017
but it is fake me and my mom tried and it is impossible. i don't believe you lied to us :(
May 4, 2017
We are not in the business of lying, Travis - we are in the business of WONDERing! What we found out as we did research is that it has been done before: people have grown plants in hydroponic containers, without soil. We have no idea how difficult it might be but we DO know it can be done! Thanks for commenting!
Travis
May 9, 2017
ur in the business of lieing
Travis
May 8, 2017
it CAN NOT BE DONE!! one star for the topic :(
Caleb
Sep 18, 2018
Stop being rude! ????????????
May 9, 2017
?
Delcia M
Apr 28, 2017
l´d never that plants grow without plants
May 1, 2017
This was a pretty crazy one, huh Delcia? So glad you checked it out! Have a great day!
awesomeman
Apr 26, 2017
i did not know that they could grow without soil
Apr 27, 2017
Pretty crazy, right? So glad you learned something new with us, Awesomeman!
A-Aron
Apr 3, 2017
This website is amazing
Apr 3, 2017
Thanks, A-aron! Good luck with that substitute teacher. We heard he does not PLAY!
Shawna the softball player?
Mar 7, 2017
We use this website all the time in science class and I love it?Today I have to search plants find my favorite wonder about plants and write a paragraph about it☺Gtg have to leave class
Mar 9, 2017
Incredible, Shawna! So glad you are enjoying WONDERing with us!
bro sup
Nov 15, 2016
Plant life is cool bro sup
Josh
Jan 18, 2017
Hi
Jan 19, 2017
Hey, Josh! How'd you like this Wonder?
Nov 16, 2016
We agree, bro sup! We love WONDERing about plants! :)
Bruh
Nov 3, 2016
I love these my science teacher uses them for extra homework that's optional but gives us better grades and I do every sing one of them because they are so fun and interesting to read. I was sad today because my mom would not let me go onto this page to read todays article. But then I got to. LOVE IT.
Nov 4, 2016
Thanks for sharing your comment with us, Bruh! We are so glad to be WONDERing with you and your classmates. We look forward to hearing from you again soon! :)
Thanks for asking, Aspen! The following is how you would cite this Wonder of the Day. You may use Wonderopolis as the author and since we do not list the publish date, you can use the date you accessed the article for information. ---> "Can Plants Grow Without Soil?" Wonderopolis. Web. 11 September 2016. https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/can-plants-grow-without-soil.
jk
Aug 30, 2016
hi
Aug 30, 2016
Hello there, jk! Thanks for visiting Wonderopolis! :)
ewan hogarth
May 5, 2016
very good would plant again
May 9, 2016
We're glad you liked this Wonder, ewan! We hope you plant some plants this Spring and Summer! Let us know how it goes! :)
Llllll
We're sorry to hear about that, Wonder Friend. Maybe you can talk with your family to learn more about your Mom. Thanks for visiting! :)
hi
Apr 13, 2016
k
Apr 15, 2016
Hi, Wonder Friend! Thanks for WONDERing with us! We hope you learned more about what you need to grow plants! :)
ssssdds
Apr 5, 2016
I'm wondering if plants can grow with like toys and other stuff please get back to me as soon as possible
Apr 7, 2016
Interesting question, ssssdds! That would be SUPER cool! We encourage you to keep researching at your library and online! Maybe even try growing a plant with a toy! :)
Emma
Jan 6, 2016
I am doing a project on Hydroponics and need to know some more information. Who is the author of this article? Also, when was this article published? Thanks:)
Jan 7, 2016
Hi, Emma! Thanks for remembering to cite your resources! The following is how you would cite the Wonder of the Day. You may use Wonderopolis as the author and since we do not list the publish date, you can use the date you accessed the article for information. If that was today, then use today's date for your citation.
"Does Hand Sanitizer Really Work?" Wonderopolis. Web. 4 January 2016.
Jessica Jimenez
Dec 6, 2015
I need to know if its better to grow a plant in water or in soil by its self
Dec 8, 2015
Great question, Jessica! It probably depends on the type of plant you're growing. We encourage you to do research about your plant and talk with someone at your local gardening store. Have fun! :)
Oct 21, 2015
hahaha kool
Oct 22, 2015
Hi, WONDER Friend! We're glad you liked this Wonder. We thought it was cool, too! :)
Katie Dodgen
Oct 31, 2014
Wow! Hydroponics is a really cool way to grow plants without soil! How long does it take a plant to grow using hydroponics? Would it take longer using soil?
Wonderopolis
Oct 31, 2014
What great questions, Katie! We hope you'll do some extra digging to find the answers to your questions! When you do, please come back to Wonderopolis and share with us what you discovered! :)
Gabriella Umana
Sep 23, 2013
If so what kind?
Wonderopolis
Sep 24, 2013
Hi Gabriella, we hope you'll continue to do some research of your own about hydroponics - perhaps you'll even create your own hydroponics garden with the help of your family! Seeds require nutrients in order to grow, and if they can find this nutrients without soil, they will grow! :)
Gabriella Umana
Sep 23, 2013
Can all seeds grow without soil?
Emma Watson
Jan 24, 2013
Can plants plants grow without soil?
Wonderopolis
Jan 24, 2013
Great question, Emma! We bet you'll learn about soil-less plants from the excerpt below:
"Researchers discovered hundreds of years ago that soil simply holds mineral nutrients close to plant roots, but the soil itself isn’t necessary for plant growth.
Using a growing method called “hydroponics,” you can grow plants in a watery solution of mineral nutrients instead of soil. The word “hydroponic” comes from the Greek words hydro (“water”) and ponos (“labor”).
The keys to plant growth are a variety of mineral nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. If you can add these necessary mineral nutrients into a plant’s water supply, you no longer need soil for the plant to grow. Just about any plant can be grown with hydroponics." :-)
Wonderopolis
Meredith/MC
I remember something else we did in the life science unit: One of the teachers had a plant that had roots growing in it and the plant was growing regularly. I thought that that plant was sooooo cool!!
I agree with Grace that it could be poison ivy because they have three leaves, but I also think that it could be shamrocks because most of them have three leaves. I am very curious to see tomorrow's wonder!!! :D
Wonderopolis
Jun 23, 2011
That DOES sound cool, Meredith! It also sounds like you learned a LOT when you guys studied that life science unit. We know you had a WONDERful teacher!
Grace M/C
Jun 22, 2011
I think that the next wonder of the day Is about poison ivy. I can't wait to see what the big surprise is!
Wonderopolis
Jun 22, 2011
Hi, Grace! Thanks for hanging out in Wonderopolis today! We're excited about tomorrow, too! You'll have to check back to see if your guess about Poison Ivy was right! :-)
This is a great wonder! At our school we're looking at different options for urban farming in a dirt-free environment. You can watch a video about our AeroFarm unit here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY3sx-LKr6E&feature=player_embedded
Wonderopolis
Jun 22, 2011
Thank you SO MUCH for sharing about your school and the AeroFarm, Katrina! We could all learn a lot about urban farming and dirt-free planting and growing from you and your classmates! The video was really awesome...EcoSPACES sounds like a super special program! :-)
Our class used to ask the same question during our life science unit. We didn't use hydroponics though but what great idea. We used large Ziploc baggies, a wet paper towel and place the seeds inside the paper towel. Just lay the bag flat near a sunny window and just observe. You can even measure the growth through the bag. It was an amazing way to watch the root system develop. I WONDER if anyone will try watching seeds grow this way without dirt???
Wonderopolis
Jun 22, 2011
That's a GREAT way to watch the wonder of sprouting seeds and growing seedlings, Maria! What a FUN summertime learning experience...thank you so much for sharing!
We are undergoing some spring clearing site maintenance and need to temporarily disable the commenting feature. Thanks for your patience. | How long does it take a plant to grow using hydroponics? Would it take longer using soil?
Wonderopolis
Oct 31, 2014
What great questions, Katie! We hope you'll do some extra digging to find the answers to your questions! When you do, please come back to Wonderopolis and share with us what you discovered! :)
Gabriella Umana
Sep 23, 2013
If so what kind?
Wonderopolis
Sep 24, 2013
Hi Gabriella, we hope you'll continue to do some research of your own about hydroponics - perhaps you'll even create your own hydroponics garden with the help of your family! Seeds require nutrients in order to grow, and if they can find this nutrients without soil, they will grow! :)
Gabriella Umana
Sep 23, 2013
Can all seeds grow without soil?
Emma Watson
Jan 24, 2013
Can plants plants grow without soil?
Wonderopolis
Jan 24, 2013
Great question, Emma! We bet you'll learn about soil-less plants from the excerpt below:
"Researchers discovered hundreds of years ago that soil simply holds mineral nutrients close to plant roots, but the soil itself isn’t necessary for plant growth.
Using a growing method called “hydroponics,” you can grow plants in a watery solution of mineral nutrients instead of soil. The word “hydroponic” comes from the Greek words hydro (“water”) and ponos (“labor”).
The keys to plant growth are a variety of mineral nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. If you can add these necessary mineral nutrients into a plant’s water supply, you no longer need soil for the plant to grow. Just about any plant can be grown with hydroponics." :-)
Wonderopolis
Meredith/MC
I remember something else we did in the life science unit: One of the teachers had a plant that had roots growing in it and the plant was growing regularly. | yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://myplantin.com/blog/plants-you-can-grow-without-soil | Plants you can grow without soil | Plants you can grow without soil
Usually, houseplants are associated with cute pots with the soil - however, some species can be grown differently! Read our list to get acquainted with wonderful plants that can be cared for without getting dirt under your nails. Here are ten examples of green pets that don't need soil.
Lucky Bamboo
Lucky bamboo actually has nothing to do with bamboo and is called Dracaena sanderiana. But it is known as a houseplant which is very difficult to kill. In general, dracaena can grow in soil, but in most cases, gardeners prefer to grow it hydroponically, that is, in water. Just place it in a glass of water and add some small pebbles for stability. In addition, specific vases resembling a laboratory test tube can be found in multiple stores, including Ikea. Buy a ready-made set - and may happiness come to your home!
Philodendron
A common houseplant is easily recognizable by its lush, bright, heart-shaped leaves. It tolerates both bright light and shady places well and requires very little maintenance. Although philodendron is usually planted in pots, it can easily do without soil and will happily grow in a container of ordinary water. Try this method of growing if you want to add an unusual accent to your interior: select beautiful vases of different shapes or bizarre florariums.
To propagate philodendron in this way, simply pinch off about 15 cm from the grown-up plant and remove the two bottom leaves. Place the shoot in a container of water and wait about ten days for roots to appear. Then, put the plant in its vase and don’t forget to change the water regularly.
Orchid
Most tropical orchids are epiphytes, meaning they grow on other plants, not in the soil. However, it should be understood that orchids, like other epiphytes, are not parasites - their roots are covered with a moist membrane that absorbs water from the air. Many orchids that are sold as houseplants come with a special filler, usually moss or rocks, but they can live on a piece of bark as well - just wait once their roots are firmly established.
Tillandsia
Plants of the Tillandsia genus, which are also called aerial plants, fully justify their unofficial name. They can grow in the air instead of on the ground. There are about 650 varieties of this flower, differing in color and leaf shape. Tillandsia leaves grow in a rosette shape that helps the plant take water and nutrients directly from the environment. As a home plant, tillandsia is usually placed in decorative trays. Don’t forget to bathe it - and that’s all the care the air plant needs.
Spanish moss
The official name is Tillandsia usneoides, which is also called Louisiana moss, or Spanish beard. Its drooping, gray-green curls are reminiscent of wet summer days in a southern city. This plant can often be seen growing directly on trees. It absorbs water and nutrients from the atmosphere; however, if you create suitable conditions, it will thrive indoors.
If you want to grow Spanish moss at home, remember to spray it with water at least twice a week and fertilize it with high-phosphorus liquid fertilizers. Please note that it is better not to take the plant from the wild because the moss will be infested with small insects.
Aegagropila linnaei (Marimo)
This interesting plant is essentially a spherical clot of algae. This underwater plant looks like a fluffy green ball, and it will become a great addition to the interior. Highly popular in Japan, marimo moss can be grown in a fish tank or simply placed in a water container. Keep it in indirect sunlight and change the water every couple of weeks to help this adorable green ball last long.
Narcissus papery
This cute daffodil variety can be grown indoors directly from the bulbs. These delicate flowers can grow in a mixture of water and pebbles and do not require additional hassle, and the bright white and yellow colors will brighten up the mood in the winter months. Just put them in the high cylinder vase for a spectacular decoration.
Hyacinth
You can grow these beautiful flowers at home similar to the previous plant. Place the hyacinths in a vase filled with stones and add a small amount of water. You will be rewarded with a graceful bloom and wonderful aroma of the flower.
Amaryllis
This is another blooming bulbous plant that does not require soil. All you need is a vase, stones to keep the bulb stable, and water. Amaryllis has a unique shape with its thick stem and massive flowers. Choose the color which suits your interior best - white for a delicate decoration, or orange, pink, or red for an unusual accent.
Aechmea
This plant belongs to the genus of perennial herbaceous plants of the Bromeliad family. It requires very little soil since in the wild, achmea survives by clinging to other plants with its roots without being a parasite. Aechmea will survive in both shade and sun and is not affected by pests. The flower is easy to care for and looks colorful, so it is not surprising that it often becomes a gift.
Our plant identifier with database of more than 17,000 species is also the best place to Ask the Botanist, get plant watering recommendations, adjust your plant care schedule, try disease identification, and much more! | Plants you can grow without soil
Usually, houseplants are associated with cute pots with the soil - however, some species can be grown differently! Read our list to get acquainted with wonderful plants that can be cared for without getting dirt under your nails. Here are ten examples of green pets that don't need soil.
Lucky Bamboo
Lucky bamboo actually has nothing to do with bamboo and is called Dracaena sanderiana. But it is known as a houseplant which is very difficult to kill. In general, dracaena can grow in soil, but in most cases, gardeners prefer to grow it hydroponically, that is, in water. Just place it in a glass of water and add some small pebbles for stability. In addition, specific vases resembling a laboratory test tube can be found in multiple stores, including Ikea. Buy a ready-made set - and may happiness come to your home!
Philodendron
A common houseplant is easily recognizable by its lush, bright, heart-shaped leaves. It tolerates both bright light and shady places well and requires very little maintenance. Although philodendron is usually planted in pots, it can easily do without soil and will happily grow in a container of ordinary water. Try this method of growing if you want to add an unusual accent to your interior: select beautiful vases of different shapes or bizarre florariums.
To propagate philodendron in this way, simply pinch off about 15 cm from the grown-up plant and remove the two bottom leaves. Place the shoot in a container of water and wait about ten days for roots to appear. Then, put the plant in its vase and don’t forget to change the water regularly.
Orchid
Most tropical orchids are epiphytes, meaning they grow on other plants, not in the soil. However, it should be understood that orchids, like other epiphytes, are not parasites - their roots are covered with a moist membrane that absorbs water from the air. | yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://www.tomsguide.com/how-to/7-houseplants-you-can-grow-without-soil | 7 houseplants you can grow without soil | Tom's Guide | 7 houseplants you can grow without soil
Houseplants make beautiful additions to our homes, and are a great way of bringing the outside in. But if you lack the time for proper plant care, or keep making repotting mistakes, you’ll be happy to know there are some plants you can grow without soil.
Since we all know that soil is a major part of growing plants, this might come as a surprise. However, there are certain water plants with roots that are visibly and structurally different from the roots that are grown for soil. Hydroponics (growing plants in water), allow such plants to adapt to only using the oxygen and nutrients directly in water to survive.
This method simply involves taking a cutting from an existing houseplant, and placing it in a glass jar/glass of water with a little fertilizer. Leave in a bright spot, and you’ll have thriving, new plants — without the need to buy more. In fact, this is one of the easiest ways to grow plants, especially if you don’t have a backyard or have limited space in your home.
While some plants might only last for a season, many can last for a few years. Plus, you’ll never have to get your hands dirty again, clean up spilled soil, or have the worry of drainage and repotting.
So, if you fancy the idea of no-soil gardening, check out these 7 houseplants you can grow without soil.
1. Lucky Bamboo (Dracaena)
Lucky Bamboo is an attractive houseplant that can be grown in both soil and water. They tend to easily produce roots and offshots in water, as they are known to be “thirsty” plants.
Simply pop it into a glass of water at least an inch deep and fertilize your lucky bamboo at least once every two months — preferably when you change the water.
It’s always best to use distilled, bottled, filtered or rainwater. This is because the stalks can be sensitive to chlorinated water — usually in tap water. If you do use tap water however, leave it to stand for about 24 hours just to let any chemicals evaporate. You want to ensure you keep your bamboo's roots are moist and healthy.
2. Spider Plant
Spider plant in water (Image credit: Shutterstock)
Another easy plant to propagate in water is the Spider Plant. Also known as the Ribbon Plant or Airplane Plant, these are known to grow quickly.
Start off with baby spider plants, rather than a mature plant, and leave them in a glass of water. This will soon grow roots and leaves in a matter of days, as long as you monitor the water levels.
Ideally, add a nutritionally complete fertilizer once the roots start to grow, and change the water once every five to seven days. With regular fertilizing, your spider plant will stand the test of time.
3. Orchids
An orchid sitting on a table in a living room next to a watering can (Image credit: Shutterstock)
Orchids are popular, flowering plants, available in different species and vibrant colors. And if you’re having trouble caring for an orchid in soil, these can surprisingly do well in just water.
What’s more, orchids are prone to rotting root systems when planted in soil. So when you grow orchids in water, this can avoid those issues, and provide essential nutrients to prevent the roots from drying.
Essentially, there are two methods for orchids to thrive in water. The first is to simply leave your plant in a glass/jar of water and change the water at least once a week or fortnightly. Or you can soak the orchid for two days and then allow it to dry for five days.
Orchid stems can take anywhere between two to three months to grow, however, each species is different, so not all types will thrive the same. In any case, this is a great method of making your beautiful orchids last longer — without the hard work.
4. Succulents
Succulents are another popular houseplant that are grown in both soil and water. And while they are usually sensitive to overwatering, the best types to propagate are Jades, Sempervivum and Echeveria.
First, remove a few leaves from an existing plant, and let the end dry well before popping it into a glass of water. Ensure the tip is right above the water, not fully submerged, and a root system should begin to grow within a few weeks. In addition, keep out of direct sunlight to avoid damage, and monitor the water level.
5. Pothos
Pothos are popular, vining houseplants that grow easily in water. These are usually low-maintenance plants, and can tolerate low-light conditions.
Simply take stem cuttings that have at least three to four nodes on it — these are the small bumps along the stem where the new roots and leaves will grow. Cut off the bottom leaves, only leaving at least one or two leaves at the top.
Next, submerge the cuttings in a glass or jar of fresh water, ensuring that the leaves stay above the surface. Root growth usually takes a couple of weeks, and it’s advisable to change the water once a week.
6. Philodendron Monstera (Swiss Cheese Plant)
Swiss cheese plant in water (Image credit: Shuttersock)
Climbing Philodendron Monstera, also known as Swiss Cheese Plant, is also easy to grow in water. Simply take a cutting of the plant that includes the nodes, and submerge most of the stem in a glass of fresh water. Provided you change the water at least once a week, new roots should develop within a few weeks.
In addition, Monsteras can tolerate humid conditions, and can thrive well in different lighting conditions. Just make sure the plants are not placed in direct, hot sun. With their tropical, lush leaves, these vine plants make a beautiful feature in any home.
7. Ficus Benjamina
Ficus Benjamina plants in water (Image credit: Shutterstock)
Also known as the Weeping Fig, this tropical plant grows rapidly in water. Popular for its drooping branches, and glossy, dark leaves, stems can be cut and placed in a glass of fresh water. Ideally, the cutting needs to be about 4-6 inches in length, removing any leaves at the bottom of the stem.
Place in a warm location, away from direct sunlight, and the roots will start to grow within a few weeks at least. Remember to change the water every few days, to keep your plant healthy, and lush.
How often do you change your water propagation?
Plants in water (Image credit: Shutterstock)
Ideally, you should change the water every few days, and simply top it up when the water levels are low. Always replace the water if there are signs of murkiness or fungi growing, as this will affect the health and condition of the root system.
Get the Tom’s Guide newsletter!
Instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsorsBy submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.
As the Homes Content Editor, Cynthia Lawrence covers all things homes, interior decorating, and garden-related. She has a wealth of editorial experience testing the latest, ‘must-have’ home appliances, writing buying guides and the handy ‘how to’ features.
Her work has been published in various titles including, T3, Top Ten Reviews, Ideal Home, Real Homes, Livingetc. and House Beautiful, amongst many.
With a rather unhealthy obsession for all things homes and interiors, she also has an interior design blog for style inspiration and savvy storage solutions (get rid of that clutter!). When she’s not testing cool products, she’ll be searching online for more decor ideas to spruce up her family home or looking for a great bargain! | 7 houseplants you can grow without soil
Houseplants make beautiful additions to our homes, and are a great way of bringing the outside in. But if you lack the time for proper plant care, or keep making repotting mistakes, you’ll be happy to know there are some plants you can grow without soil.
Since we all know that soil is a major part of growing plants, this might come as a surprise. However, there are certain water plants with roots that are visibly and structurally different from the roots that are grown for soil. Hydroponics (growing plants in water), allow such plants to adapt to only using the oxygen and nutrients directly in water to survive.
This method simply involves taking a cutting from an existing houseplant, and placing it in a glass jar/glass of water with a little fertilizer. Leave in a bright spot, and you’ll have thriving, new plants — without the need to buy more. In fact, this is one of the easiest ways to grow plants, especially if you don’t have a backyard or have limited space in your home.
While some plants might only last for a season, many can last for a few years. Plus, you’ll never have to get your hands dirty again, clean up spilled soil, or have the worry of drainage and repotting.
So, if you fancy the idea of no-soil gardening, check out these 7 houseplants you can grow without soil.
1. Lucky Bamboo (Dracaena)
Lucky Bamboo is an attractive houseplant that can be grown in both soil and water. They tend to easily produce roots and offshots in water, as they are known to be “thirsty” plants.
Simply pop it into a glass of water at least an inch deep and fertilize your lucky bamboo at least once every two months — preferably when you change the water.
It’s always best to use distilled, bottled, filtered or rainwater. This is because the stalks can be sensitive to chlorinated water — usually in tap water. If you do use tap water however, leave it to stand for about 24 hours just to let any chemicals evaporate. | yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://www.littlegreenthumbs.org/2021/03/08/can-we-grow-plants-without-soil/ | Can We Grow Plants Without Soil? | Little Green Thumbs 2023 | Experiment: Can We Grow Plants Without Soil?
Students will discover how to grow plants without using soil in a system called hydroponics.
Set up: 1 hour
Observation: 1 hour the next day
What do plants need to survive? We use the acronym L.A.W.N.S. to remember that plants need light, air, water, nutrients and space. When we think of space for plants, we know that the parts of the plant growing above ground like stems and leaves need space to grow and should not be crowded. But plants also need space for their roots. What about soil? Plants grown indoors or outdoors have their roots in the soil. Don’t plants need soil to survive?
Let’s think about what soil does for plants. Soil is a space for plants to anchor their roots. Garden soil is made up of tiny particles of sand, silt and clay. Healthy soil is porous, which means that there are tiny little spaces in between these tiny particles of sand, silt and clay. Water and nutrients move between these spaces and is absorbed by the roots. We know from L.A.W.N.S. that plants also need air to survive. Plants take in air through their leaves and roots. Since air is also in the tiny spaces in soil, this is how the roots get air.
There is a way to grow plants without using soil called hydroponics. (Hydro is the Greek word for water.) Since plants still need something to anchor their roots into, soil is replaced with rockwool or cotton. (Rockwool is made from molten rock that is spun into fibers and then compressed into mats or cubes.) This growing medium is kept constantly moist. What is missing now are nutrients. That’s why fertilizer is added to the water. In this way the plant gets a steady supply of the nutrients and water it needs for photosynthesis so it can make its own food. The last thing the roots need is air and that is where the straw comes in. By gently blowing into the straw, the students are aerating or putting air into the water which the roots can absorb.
Materials:
Cotton balls or rockwool
Seeds: Leaf lettuces like red sails, oak leaf or Grand Rapids work well. You can also try basil, water cress, pak choi, arugula and spinach
Join our mailing list!
For a limited time, you'll receive a digital copy of AITC-Canada's newest illustrated children's book, Blossom's Big Job - available in French or English! Link to book downloads will be sent after subscribing. | Experiment: Can We Grow Plants Without Soil?
Students will discover how to grow plants without using soil in a system called hydroponics.
Set up: 1 hour
Observation: 1 hour the next day
What do plants need to survive? We use the acronym L.A.W.N.S. to remember that plants need light, air, water, nutrients and space. When we think of space for plants, we know that the parts of the plant growing above ground like stems and leaves need space to grow and should not be crowded. But plants also need space for their roots. What about soil? Plants grown indoors or outdoors have their roots in the soil. Don’t plants need soil to survive?
Let’s think about what soil does for plants. Soil is a space for plants to anchor their roots. Garden soil is made up of tiny particles of sand, silt and clay. Healthy soil is porous, which means that there are tiny little spaces in between these tiny particles of sand, silt and clay. Water and nutrients move between these spaces and is absorbed by the roots. We know from L.A.W.N.S. that plants also need air to survive. Plants take in air through their leaves and roots. Since air is also in the tiny spaces in soil, this is how the roots get air.
There is a way to grow plants without using soil called hydroponics. (Hydro is the Greek word for water.) Since plants still need something to anchor their roots into, soil is replaced with rockwool or cotton. (Rockwool is made from molten rock that is spun into fibers and then compressed into mats or cubes.) This growing medium is kept constantly moist. What is missing now are nutrients. That’s why fertilizer is added to the water. In this way the plant gets a steady supply of the nutrients and water it needs for photosynthesis so it can make its own food. The last thing the roots need is air and that is where the straw comes in. By gently blowing into the straw, the students are aerating or putting air into the water which the roots can absorb.
| yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project-ideas/PlantBio_p045/plant-biology/hydroponics-gardening-without-soil | Hydroponics: Gardening Without Soil | Science Project | Hydroponics: Gardening Without Soil
Abstract
What do plants need to grow? Most of us would answer that they need light, air, water, and soil. But by using a process called hydroponics, you can grow plants without soil! How does it work? Try this project and see for yourself!
Objective
Compare the rate of growth and vigor of hydroponically-grown plants given nutrient-rich water to those given nutrient-poor water.
Introduction
You probably know that just as we get our nutrients from food, generally plants get their nutrients from the soil. To thrive, plants need both macronutrients (like carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) and micronutrients (like iron, sodium, and zinc). Soil can contain all of these, but purified water does not.
Plants also need water and use it in many ways. First, water acts as a solvent and helps to transport nutrients from the soil throughout the plant. Second, water-filled cells help support various biochemical reactions in the plant. A biochemical reaction is a reaction that occurs between chemicals inside the plants' cells to keep it alive. A plant biochemical reaction that you may have heard of is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a reaction involving sunlight, the chlorophyll in plant cells, water, and carbon dioxide. It produces sugar for the plant to use as food. When a plant doesn't receive water, photosynthesis and other biochemical reactions stop, the plant begins to turn yellow, dries up, and then dies.
So is soil really necessary for a plant to survive, or can plants survive in just water? What if the water had all of the nutrients in it that soil does? The answer to this question is yes. Plants can survive without being planted in soil. The science of growing plants in nutrient-rich water is hydroponics. The word hydroponics means "working water" and comes from the Latin words hydro, meaning "water," and ponos, meaning "work." In hydroponics, the nutrients are available at the plant's roots. So, without any work, the plant gets its food and nutrition. A plant with roots in soil has to work hard to extract its nutrition from the soil, and it can waste a lot of energy doing that. But a plant in nutrient-rich water can spend its energy growing bigger leaves, fruits, and flowers in a shorter amount of time. One benefit of growing plants hydroponically is that the nutrients in the water can be completely controlled, and the plant can receive exactly the right amount of nutrients at exactly the right time. Another benefit of hydroponics is that it works in areas where the soils are not arable (not suitable for farming) and in areas where there is no soil. Figure 1 shows a NASA scientist examining hydroponically-grown plants.
There are six basic types of hydroponic systems: wick system, water culture system, ebb-and-flow system, drip system, nutrient-film technique, and the aeroponics system. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. In this plant biology science project, you will experiment with the wick system and perform your own hydroponics experiment. You will compare the growth rate of basil or lettuce seeds grown hydroponically, one set with nutrient-rich water and the other with plain water. Which method will produce seedlings the fastest? Will one method yield more vigorously growing plants compared to the other? At the end of this science project, instead of having a "green thumb," you might have a "blue thumb"!
Terms and Concepts
Macronutrient
Micronutrient
Solvent
Cell
Biochemical reaction
Photosynthesis
Chlorophyll
Hydroponics
Arable
Physiologist
Wick system
Water culture system
Aerate
Area
Ellipse
Questions
What are the differences between a macronutrient and a micronutrient?
You might think that hydroponics is a new way of growing plants, but it isn't. What ancient cultures reportedly used or mentioned hydroponics? How old is the science of hydroponics?
Why is NASA interested in hydroponics? What kinds of hydroponics experiments do NASA scientists perform?
What are the differences between the six basic types of hydroponic systems? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Disclaimer:
Science Buddies participates in affiliate programs with
Home Science Tools,
Amazon.com,
Carolina Biological, and
Jameco Electronics.
Proceeds from the affiliate programs help support
Science Buddies, a 501(c)(3) public charity, and keep our resources free for everyone. Our top priority is student learning.
If you have any comments (positive or negative) related to purchases you've made for science projects from recommendations on our site, please let us know. Write to us at
scibuddy@sciencebuddies.org.
Experimental Procedure
Making your Hydroponic Containers
In this project, you will try hydroponics—the process of growing plants without soil. In hydroponics, the plant grows in a medium that retains moisture but does not contain nutrients.
The medium provides structure for the plants. If you are using coconut coir as the growing medium, prepare it by adding filtered or purified water to the coconut coir brick as directed on the package. This loosens it so it can expand. Soil and coconut coir may look similar, but soil contains nutrients a plant needs to grow, and coconut coir does not.
Figure 2. Brick of coconut coir in the process of loosening up.
Start by creating hydroponics containers from the empty, clean two-liter soda bottles. Repeat steps 3-8 six times so you have six identical hydroponics containers. The video can also guide you in building the containers.
Use the permanent marker to draw a line around the bottle just below where the cylinder starts to curve in towards the cap.
Cut the bottle along the line with your scissors or utility knife.
Figure 3. Cut the top of a two-liter plastic soda bottle to transform it into a hydroponics container.
Flip the top upside down and rest it in the larger bottom part of the bottle. You will grow your plant in the upside-down top part, and the bottom part of the bottle serves as a reservoir to hold the water.
Figure 4. Two-liter plastic soda bottle in the process of being transformed into a hydroponics container.
A wick will transfer nutrient-rich water from the reservoir to the roots of the plant. To create the wick, knot the two cotton or felt strips together at one end.
Figure 5. Cotton strips knotted together will be used as the wick.
Push the loose ends through the bottle top so they hang down into the reservoir. The knot should stop the wick from going all the way through—if it doesn't, retie a larger knot.
Figure 6. The knot in the wick keeps it in place.
Place the top with the wick back into the bottom bottle. Your hydroponics container is ready.
Setting Up the Hydroponic Experiment
You will grow plants in six containers. You will nourish half of them with nutrient-rich water and the others with plain purified or filtered water.
You will prepare the containers, seed and treat all plants in the same way. The only difference will be the type of water you provide to the plants.
Do you expect one group to grow more vigorously than the other? Why? Write your expectations down in your notebook.
Fill the growing area of all six containers with the growing medium. A growing medium in hydroponics is inert, meaning that it does not contain nutrients like soil.
It is used to hold moisture and provide structure to the plant. Be sure to pull the wick up about 2/3 of the way into the growing medium.
This will ensure that the water and nutrients stored in the reservoir reach the plant's roots.
Figure 7. Hydroponics container ready for seeding or planting.
Seeds can germinate in coconut coir but not in clay pebbles; you will need a rooter plug or soil plug for germination if you use clay pebbles.
If you are using a plug: place three seeds into the plug and place the plug just above the knot in the wick.
If you seed in coconut coir, place three seeds in the coconut coir just above the knot in the wick.
Cover the seeds with growing medium (seeds germinate better when in the dark).
Record the data of seeding in your lab notebook (top row of your table like Table 1).
Mark the other three containers with 'W 1', 'W 2', and 'W 3' respectively. These containers will receive plain filtered or purified water.
To prepare the nutrient-rich water, measure 1 quart of bottled, filtered, or purified water into your second bottle or container.
Avoid unfiltered tap water as that can contain contaminants that may inhibit your plants' growth.
Look at the label of the liquid nutrients bottle to find out how much of the solution you need to add to a quart of water in the growing phase of the plant.
Mix that into the water in your second bottle or container. Your tiny plants will not consume much, so the water you prepare now will last until the plant is somewhat larger.
Record the recipe for nutrient-rich water that you used in your lab notebook.
For the three containers marked with an N for nutrient-rich: pour the prepared water over the growing medium.
It will seep into the reservoir. Keep pouring until the reservoir is about 1/2 to 2/3 full. The water should never reach the spout of the bottle.
Make sure that the area around the seeds gets wet as you pour the water.
Figure 8. Hydroponics container of which the water reservoir is filled.
For the three containers marked with a W left with an empty water reservoir: repeat step 19 using pure purified or filtered water.
Optional: the reservoirs can stay exposed to sunlight, but algae will grow and turn the water green. This will not hurt the plant, but it will not look very pretty! To prevent this, you can cover the reservoirs with aluminum foil.
Figure 9. Hydroponics container wrapped in foil.
Conducting the Hydroponic Experiment
Seeds can germinate in the dark, but once they emerge above the soil, plants need air and sunlight to survive.
Once the seed is sprouted, place the container near a window (preferably south-facing or west-facing, so the plants receive plenty of sunlight) and wait.
If natural sunlight is unavailable, use a grow lamp to provide light for the plants.
For the first couple of days, check daily to make sure the area around the seed or tiny plant is moist. Add a little purified or filtered water if needed.
As the plant grows, its roots will extend deeper and get better access to the water (for the plants that only receive plain water) or water and nutrients (for the plants that receive enriched water) sucked up by the wick.
If you see sprouts peak out, check the container's label and mark the date in your table, like Table 1.
Once you see clear leaves:
Measure the largest leaf seen in each container and note its length (in millimeters) down in your data table like Table 1.
Count the number of leaves for the plants in this container and note it down in your data table.
Do not forget to write down the date you did the observation.
Repeat this every couple of days.
Once the plant is established, check the water level in the reservoir weekly. If you use aluminum to cover the reservoir, you will need to remove it to check the water level.
If it runs low in a container, check if this container is marked with an N for nutrient-rich.
If the container is marked: Make a new batch of nutrient-rich water and add it. Check the directions that come with the nutrients—you will
probably need to add more nutrients for the same amount of water once the plant is well established.
If the container is not marked: Add filtered or purified water.
Notice that it is ok to fill the water reservoir up early. You do not need to wait until it is almost empty!
Keep monitoring, measuring, feeding, and watering your plants for about 3 to 6 weeks, or until some plants are well developed.
Analyzing Your Data
Gently uproot the plants and carefully remove and wash the medium from the roots. Carefully dry the plants between paper towels.
Write the container label on the paper towels so you always remember whether this plant received nutrients.
Some variables you can study are:
Using the digital scale, weigh the uprooted plants.
Observe the color of the roots for the plants. Are there differences between those that received nutrients and those that did not?
Weigh the roots separately. Did plants receiving nutrient rich water develop more, less or about the same mass of roots?
Look at the number of hairs that you see on the roots for each plant. Root hairs enable a plant to take in water and nutrients.
Trace the largest leaf found on each plant on millimeter paper. Count the squares it covers; this quantifies the area of the leaf.
Make a new table like Table 2 in your notebook to store your data.
Data Hydroponics Experiment
Date uprooting: ______________
Receive nutrient-rich water
Receive plain water
Container:
N 1
N 2
N 3
Average
W 1
W 2
W 3
Average
Root development
Weight of plant
....
Table 2. Table to store the data of your final observations.
If you have numerical values (like the weight), calculate the average for each group.
Can you present this data graphically?
Review the data that you collected during the growth to see if you can conclude something about the growth of plants that received nutrient-rich water compared to those that received plain water.
Choose the number of leaves together with one of the following variables to study:
The length of the largest leaf.
The width of the largest leaf.
The estimated area of the leaf. To calculate the area of the largest leaf for each container on each day that you made measurements,
you may have to make an estimation about the shape of the leaf. Separate the shape of the leaf into two shapes, like an ellipse, or oval, and a triangle, as shown in Figure 11.
You can estimate the area of the leaf by calculating the area of the oval and adding the value to the area of the triangle. If you would like some additional information on calculating the area of common shapes, refer to the Bibliography.
For the uprooted plants, you can also trace the leaves on millimeter paper and count the squares it covers.
Figure 11. This image gives an idea of how to estimate the area of a leaf using an ellipse (oval) and a triangle.
Rewrite your collected data in two tables, one for each variable you will study in detail. Calculate the average for each group (the group that received nutrients and the other that did not receive nutrients).
Table 3 is an example table that has been partially filled in. Your data will be different!
Hydroponics Growth Data
Measurement: Length of leaves
Unit: mm
Receive nutrient-rich water
Receive plain water
Date
N 1
N 2
N 3
Average
W 1
W 2
W 3
Average
05/01
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
05/05
5
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
05/09
...
Table 3. Table to store the data about the growth of plants.
Plot the average number of leaves. Label the x-axis 'Day' and the y-axis 'Average number of leaves'. Plot the averages for plants receiving nutrient-rich water in one color.
In a different color, plot the averages for plants receiving plain water. Make your plots by hand or online. For help creating plots online, try the Create a Graph website.
In a similar way, plot the average of the other growth variable you studied (length, width, or area of the largest leaf).
Look at your tables and graphs. Do they show a difference in the average growth of the two groups of plants? Is there a difference in the weight and in the number of root hairs between the two groups?
Can you conclude that one group grew more vigorously than the other, or is your data inconclusive?
Seeing your data, do you conclude that growing plants hydroponically in nutrient-rich water is a good choice? Is it better than growing plants hydroponically in plain water?
Now that you have done the experiment, are there unanswered questions you would like to study? Are there parts in your experiment you would do differently if you had to do the experiment all over again?
Ask an Expert
Do you have specific questions about your science project? Our team of volunteer scientists can help. Our Experts won't do the work for you, but they will make suggestions, offer guidance, and help you troubleshoot.
Variations
Grow different varieties of plants hydroponically. Do all varieties grow better hydroponically, or does growth depend on the variety?
Compare hydroponically grown plants with soil-grown plants. Do hydroponically grown plants grow more or less vigorously? Do they taste differently?
What happens if you don't have a balanced nutrient-water solution to grow plants hydroponically?
Look at the directions given on the nutrient bottle for the optimum amount of nutrients, and vary the amounts of nutrients in the nutrient solution to see how it affects the growth of the plants.
Study the effect of the acidity of the water on hydroponically grown plants. The pH kit allows you to vary the pH of the prepared water.
What happens to plants if they are watered with nutrient-rich but very acidic or very basic water?
Careers
If you like this project, you might enjoy exploring these related careers:
With a growing world population, making sure that there is enough food for everyone is critical. Plant scientists work to ensure that agricultural practices result in an abundance of nutritious food in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner.
Read more
As the world's population grows larger, it is important to improve the quality and yield of food crops and animal food sources. Agricultural technicians work in the forefront of this very important research area by helping scientists conduct novel experiments. If you would like to combine technology with the desire to see things grow, then read further to learn more about this exciting career.
Read more
Related Links
News Feed on This Topic
Note: A computerized matching algorithm suggests the above articles. It's not as smart as you are, and it may occasionally give humorous, ridiculous, or even annoying results! Learn more about the News Feed
Cite This Page
General citation information is provided here. Be sure to check the formatting, including capitalization, for the method you are using and update your citation, as needed.
You can find this page online at: https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project-ideas/PlantBio_p045/plant-biology/hydroponics-gardening-without-soil
You may print and distribute up to 200 copies of this document annually, at no charge, for personal and classroom educational use. When printing this document, you may NOT modify it in any way. For any other use, please contact Science Buddies.
We use cookies and those of third party providers to deliver the best possible web experience and to compile statistics.
By continuing and using the site, including the landing page, you agree to our
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Use. | A plant biochemical reaction that you may have heard of is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a reaction involving sunlight, the chlorophyll in plant cells, water, and carbon dioxide. It produces sugar for the plant to use as food. When a plant doesn't receive water, photosynthesis and other biochemical reactions stop, the plant begins to turn yellow, dries up, and then dies.
So is soil really necessary for a plant to survive, or can plants survive in just water? What if the water had all of the nutrients in it that soil does? The answer to this question is yes. Plants can survive without being planted in soil. The science of growing plants in nutrient-rich water is hydroponics. The word hydroponics means "working water" and comes from the Latin words hydro, meaning "water," and ponos, meaning "work." In hydroponics, the nutrients are available at the plant's roots. So, without any work, the plant gets its food and nutrition. A plant with roots in soil has to work hard to extract its nutrition from the soil, and it can waste a lot of energy doing that. But a plant in nutrient-rich water can spend its energy growing bigger leaves, fruits, and flowers in a shorter amount of time. One benefit of growing plants hydroponically is that the nutrients in the water can be completely controlled, and the plant can receive exactly the right amount of nutrients at exactly the right time. Another benefit of hydroponics is that it works in areas where the soils are not arable (not suitable for farming) and in areas where there is no soil. Figure 1 shows a NASA scientist examining hydroponically-grown plants.
There are six basic types of hydroponic systems: wick system, water culture system, ebb-and-flow system, drip system, nutrient-film technique, and the aeroponics system. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. In this plant biology science project, you will experiment with the wick system and perform your own hydroponics experiment. You will compare the growth rate of basil or lettuce seeds grown hydroponically, one set with nutrient- | yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://www.indoorplantsforbeginners.com/can-aloe-plants-survive-without-soil/ | Can Aloe Plants Survive Without Soil? – Indoor Plants for Beginners | Can Aloe Plants Survive Without Soil?
Selecting the right growth medium for your aloe vera plant can begin its road to success. I’m sure you’re aware that some plants can grow in water or in otherwise soilless conditions, but is the aloe vera plant one of them? Can aloe vera plants survive without soil?
Yes, aloe vera plants can survive without soil. You can grow your aloe vera plant hydroponically in a mix of pebbles and sand with some water and plenty of sunlight.
In this article, I’ll discuss in more detail whether aloe vera plants can live without potting soil as well as elaborate on your soilless growing methods. By the time you’re done reading, you’ll have all the info you need to grow your own aloe vera plants without soil!
Does Aloe Vera Need Potting Soil?
Soil is one of those plant necessities along with water and sunlight, or is it? That depends on the houseplant in question. I’ll use a classic example, the lucky bamboo. You can grow this plant in a container of water with some pebbles and it will do just fine (provided you change out the water periodically, of course).
Aloe vera, it turns out, is another plant that can forego soil and not only survive, but thrive. This soil-free means of growing plants is known as hydroponic gardening.
All you need to start a hydroponic garden for your aloe vera plant is some sand, pebbles, and water (I’ll talk in more detail about this soon). To be perfectly clear, there’s no soil involved.
Now wait, I know what you’re saying. You’re relatively new to indoor plants, but you know a few things about gardening. For example, you know that when you grow a houseplant in soil, its roots unfurl within the soil and absorb water and nutrients.
So how will your aloe vera plant survive if it can’t get soil from the nutrients? That’s a very good question, but not one that’s unaccounted for when hydroponically growing houseplants.
Rather than insert the nutrients into the soil through houseplant fertilizer, the nutrients go straight into the water that the aloe vera plant is surrounded by. The nutrients then dissolve.
This is a more direct way of providing nutrients to houseplants. When grown in soil, the plant’s roots have to find the nutrients and then absorb them. In a hydroponic garden, there’s no need for a search mission, as the nutrients are in the water all around the plant.
Can Aloe Vera Grow in Just Water?
Okay, your next question might be this: How does your plant avoid root rot if it’s in standing water all the time? Well, in the case of aloe vera, it wouldn’t. That’s why you’re not supposed to plunk yours in a cup of water and grow it like you would a lucky bamboo.
Instead, as I mentioned in the intro, you should add pebbles and/or sand to a container. The container needs drainage holes in the bottom of it too.
Although pebbles are rarely recommended in non-hydroponic indoor gardens, in a hydroponic situation, they’re beneficial. So too is sand, as both these materials provide aeration and allow for optimal water drainage. Your aloe vera isn’t submerged in standing water, as the water is constantly moving out of its container until you refill it.
How to Grow an Aloe Vera Plant Without Soil
Hmmm, you had never known growing your aloe vera plant without soil was an option, but now you’re definitely intrigued. Should you want to move forward with hydroponics, how do you get started?
7 Easy Steps to Growing an Aloe Vera Plant Without Soil
Here are the steps to follow.
Step 1: Determine If Your Aloe Vera Plant Is Ready
You shouldn’t start your aloe vera plant on a soilless lifestyle until it’s grown to a certain point. If its roots are not yet a foot in length, then it’s too early. By putting your plant in a hydroponic garden at this point, its roots might not be able to settle into its pebbly base, which can spell disaster for your plant.
If your aloe vera plant isn’t yet ready, that’s okay. Continue tending to it in its soil-filled pot for a little while longer. Make sure the soil you use is well-draining; a succulent mix is best.
Step 2: Remove Your Aloe Vera from Its Pot
When the day has come for your aloe vera to transition to a soilless growth medium, you’ll have to take it out of its pot. Aloe vera plants can reach heights of two to three feet, so yours might have grown significantly by now.
As I always say when dealing with a mid-sized or larger plant, it’s not a bad idea to have a second person who can assist you with plant removal from the pot. One of you should hold the pot and the other should grip the plant by its base.
Aloe vera leaves may be thick and hardy, but that doesn’t mean you can’t rip one right out of the plant if you pull too hard.
Step 3: Let the Roots Soak
Now that you can see your aloe vera plant inside and out, take a look at its roots. If they’re over a foot long, it doesn’t hurt to prune them back using clean cutting shears. Disinfect the shears when you’re done.
Then fill a bucket or container large enough to house the aloe vera. This is just a temporary home.
Put the plant into the container so its root ball is covered in water. The roots were probably caked in soil before now, and cleaning them one by one would be time-consuming.
Soaking the root ball will clean the roots and help them retain water so they’re pliable and moist. Leave the aloe vera plant there overnight.
Overnight means eight to 12 hours, but nothing longer than that. Remember, aloe vera plants aren’t huge on being saturated in water for long periods, so don’t cause your houseplant undue stress.
Step 4: Rinse the Roots If They’re Still Dirty
What if you pull your aloe vera plant out of its water-filled container some 10 or so hours later and the roots are still dirty? You can always soak the plant for two hours longer, but even that might not make enough of a difference. Instead, you can gently rinse the roots using cold water from your kitchen or bathroom tap.
Just a short rinse suffices here since the roots are quite moist already. If you douse them in too much water, the plant might not survive upon being moved.
Step 5: Set up the Aloe Vera Plant’s Hydroponic Home
Now it’s time to ready your aloe vera’s new home. A translucent plastic or glass container is ideal so you can clearly see how much water you’ve poured into the plant’s container at any one time. As I said before, drainage holes are a must.
You also want to carefully select the pebbles you add to the container. The pebbles should be marble-sized apiece. If they’re smaller than that, then the roots of your aloe vera plant won’t be able to get a good enough grip and the new setup will fail.
Larger pebbles won’t introduce enough space from one stone to another. This will limit water drainage as well as how much oxygen reaches the aloe vera.
If you have doubts about how well-draining your hydroponic indoor garden is, adding sand is definitely not a bad idea. Sand can make the water cloudy though, so be prepared to replace your aloe vera plant’s water a lot.
Step 6: Add the Exterior Shell
The interior container or shell is one part of the equation when hydroponically growing an aloe vera plant. You also must have an exterior shell for the water to drain into so all that extra water doesn’t leak onto your carpeting or flooring.
Step 7: Use a Water Gauge
The last part of your setup is installing a water gauge, also known as a hydroponic gauge. Instead of eyeballing how much water is in the aloe vera’s container, the gauge will tell you in precise measurements so you never forget to refill.
The Benefits of Growing an Aloe Vera Plant Without Soil
If you’ve only ever raised houseplants in soil, the move to a soilless setup can be a little daunting. Since you may still be on the fence about what to do, here are some reasons that I hope will convince you to give hydroponic gardening a try for your aloe vera and other plants!
Fewer Invasive Pests
I’ve written about this on the blog before, but mites and aphids are the two biggest enemies of aloe vera. They want to drink the bountiful sap within its leaves just as much as you want to use that gel for its soothing, cooling effects.
Aphids drown in water and so do mites unless they’re water mites, which can live in streams, rivers, and ponds. While your plant’s pest problem may never be 100 percent gone, growing aloe vera hydroponically is the closest you’ll get to a pest-free existence for your houseplant.
No Mold or Mildew on the Soil
Using contaminated soil, overwatering your plant, and/or leaving it in standing water can contribute to the development of mold and mildew in the soil. This is quite a significant problem for your indoor plants that often requires removing all the infected soil and rehoming your plant.
Since no plant likes being moved more often than necessary, your plant undergoes a lot of undue stress.
I’m not saying that because you switched your aloe vera plant to a hydroponic garden that its risk of mold and/or mildew is nonexistent. That would be nice, but it’s not the case.
Since the water you feed your aloe vera is nutrient-rich (more on nutrients in just a moment), there’s a higher likelihood of mold developing.
However, getting rid of the mold would be just as easy as dumping the water, scouring the plant’s container, and refilling. That’s a lot better than removing mold-infested soil scoop by scoop, that’s for sure.
More Nutrients
I talked about this earlier, but it’s certainly worth bringing up again now. Instead of making your aloe vera plant’s roots seek out the nutrients like it must when growing in soil, the nutrients in its water-filled container encircle the plant. That makes for easier nutrient absorption with less energy required.
Water Efficiency
Growing succulents like aloe vera is already an eco-friendly move since these plants need less water than the average houseplant. You may also find with a hydroponic setup that you’re using even less water than you would compared to watering your indoor plants that grow in soil.
On top of that, if the water is healthy (you know, no mold or anything), you can recycle the aloe vera’s water so it goes through the drainage holes of the exterior shell and right back into the interior shell!
Indoor Plants for Beginners is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We are compensated for referring traffic and business to Amazon and other companies linked to on this site. | Can Aloe Plants Survive Without Soil?
Selecting the right growth medium for your aloe vera plant can begin its road to success. I’m sure you’re aware that some plants can grow in water or in otherwise soilless conditions, but is the aloe vera plant one of them? Can aloe vera plants survive without soil?
Yes, aloe vera plants can survive without soil. You can grow your aloe vera plant hydroponically in a mix of pebbles and sand with some water and plenty of sunlight.
In this article, I’ll discuss in more detail whether aloe vera plants can live without potting soil as well as elaborate on your soilless growing methods. By the time you’re done reading, you’ll have all the info you need to grow your own aloe vera plants without soil!
Does Aloe Vera Need Potting Soil?
Soil is one of those plant necessities along with water and sunlight, or is it? That depends on the houseplant in question. I’ll use a classic example, the lucky bamboo. You can grow this plant in a container of water with some pebbles and it will do just fine (provided you change out the water periodically, of course).
Aloe vera, it turns out, is another plant that can forego soil and not only survive, but thrive. This soil-free means of growing plants is known as hydroponic gardening.
All you need to start a hydroponic garden for your aloe vera plant is some sand, pebbles, and water (I’ll talk in more detail about this soon). To be perfectly clear, there’s no soil involved.
Now wait, I know what you’re saying. You’re relatively new to indoor plants, but you know a few things about gardening. For example, you know that when you grow a houseplant in soil, its roots unfurl within the soil and absorb water and nutrients.
So how will your aloe vera plant survive if it can’t get soil from the nutrients? That’s a very good question, but not one that’s unaccounted for when hydroponically growing houseplants.
| yes |
Ecophysiology | Can plants survive without soil? | yes_statement | "plants" can "survive" without "soil".. it is possible for "plants" to "survive" without "soil". | https://succulentsbox.com/blogs/blog/how-long-can-succulents-survive-without-soil | How Long Can Succulents Survive Without Soil? - Succulents Box | How Long Can Succulents Survive Without Soil?
Succulents are naturally hardy plants and can live a while without water and, in some cases, inadequate sunlight. But how long can they survive without soil, and can they survive without it altogether?
The Short Answer
Succulents always need some sort of potting medium to protect their roots from damage. However, they can survive up to about two weeks in the open air as long as they’re given proper care and attention.
If you’re planning on making a unique succulent arrangement like a wreath or boutonniere, your succulents’ roots will, unfortunately, be exposed to the open air. These kinds of projects put your succulents on a timer, and you’ll need to take extra care to ensure they stay verdant and vibrant until you’re done using them.
Taking extra care to succulents before makingwreathorboutonniere. Photo by fottograff
Keeping Your Succulents Alive Without Soil
Fortunately, there are quite a few ways to keep your bare-root succulents alive and well. Although they will wilt eventually, these methods can help keep your succulents alive for a while, but you’ll have to repot them or toss them in the compost as soon as possible.
Give them Plenty of Nutrients
Soil is what gives your succulents nutrients to continue growing and the energy to stay alive and well. Without proper nutrients, your succulents will wilt. So, keep them fed with a diluted, water-soluble fertilizer when you water them. The dilution should be about half the amount of fertilizer to your water amount.
Keeping succulents fed with a diluted, water-soluble fertilizer when you water them. Photo by Yulia Naumenko
Keep Your Succulents Hydrated
Drainage and hydration are a must for bare-root succulents, so you’ll need to water them regularly to avoid letting their roots dry out. However, some soilless arrangements (like terrariums) have poor drainage, and it can be easy to overwater your succulent. We recommend frequent watering with small amounts of water in a syringe or misting your succulent’s roots directly with a spray bottle.
Using Alternative Potting Mediums
Depending on your arrangement, there are some alternatives to soil to help keep your succulents happy and healthy while in their arrangement. The two most popular alternatives to soil are sphagnum moss and sand. However, you can’t use them interchangeably.
Sand or Rocks
Sand or loose rocks are an excellent alternative to using soil as a potting medium, particularly because there are lots of succulents out there that grow in sand, both in deserts and on beaches. If you’re working with an artistic terrarium arrangement, sand is your best friend, as it can provide something for your roots to grip onto while also protecting them from the sunlight. Some succulents do better in sand than others and may even need a little sand in their potting mixes to begin with:
Sphagnum Moss
Sphagnum moss is another great alternative potting medium florists commonly use in their rooted topiary arrangements. The moss is excellent at absorbing extra moisture, and it gives succulents a lightweight but strong medium for the roots to grab.
The Benefits of Well-Draining Soil
Ideally, you’ll have time to plant your bare-root succulents after using them for whatever purpose they’re arranged for. However, you’ll want to stick with well-draining soil for your potting medium. Since succulents need soil for nutrients, root protection, and something to grip onto, it’s best to stick with well-draining succulent soil overall. To help improve drainage, we recommend using a little coarse sand, perlite, peat, and compost in your mix.
Succulents For Sale In A Box
Founded in 2017, Succulents Box is the ultimate destination for plant lovers to easily buy succulents online with over 300 succulent varieties and many gardening accessories. Specialized in monthly subscription succulent boxes ranging from 1 to 4 succulents, we also offer numerous customizable gift options for yourself, your beloved friends and family, or events, wedding and corporate gifting.
All plants are locally grown, carefully selected and packed by hand in our succulent greenhouse in California. Your orders will be quality guaranteed; our dedicated customer service team is always available to support you to find the most perfect succulents box. Click to buy succulents and houseplants online and start your plants-journey now! | How Long Can Succulents Survive Without Soil?
Succulents are naturally hardy plants and can live a while without water and, in some cases, inadequate sunlight. But how long can they survive without soil, and can they survive without it altogether?
The Short Answer
Succulents always need some sort of potting medium to protect their roots from damage. However, they can survive up to about two weeks in the open air as long as they’re given proper care and attention.
If you’re planning on making a unique succulent arrangement like a wreath or boutonniere, your succulents’ roots will, unfortunately, be exposed to the open air. These kinds of projects put your succulents on a timer, and you’ll need to take extra care to ensure they stay verdant and vibrant until you’re done using them.
Taking extra care to succulents before makingwreathorboutonniere. Photo by fottograff
Keeping Your Succulents Alive Without Soil
Fortunately, there are quite a few ways to keep your bare-root succulents alive and well. Although they will wilt eventually, these methods can help keep your succulents alive for a while, but you’ll have to repot them or toss them in the compost as soon as possible.
Give them Plenty of Nutrients
Soil is what gives your succulents nutrients to continue growing and the energy to stay alive and well. Without proper nutrients, your succulents will wilt. So, keep them fed with a diluted, water-soluble fertilizer when you water them. The dilution should be about half the amount of fertilizer to your water amount.
Keeping succulents fed with a diluted, water-soluble fertilizer when you water them. Photo by Yulia Naumenko
Keep Your Succulents Hydrated
Drainage and hydration are a must for bare-root succulents, so you’ll need to water them regularly to avoid letting their roots dry out. | no |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://ecostandard.org/not-so-biodegradable-there-is-no-such-thing-as-environmentally-friendly-plastic/ | (Not so) biodegradable – there is no such thing as environmentally ... | (Not so) biodegradable – there is no such thing as environmentally-friendly plastic
Biodegradable plastics are still plastics – they are intended for short-lived use and often stay in the environment for a very long time before they actually degrade. After years of raising awareness about this simple truth, we managed to convince the European Commission to finally say it: producing plastics with biodegradability properties is not a solution to littering.
Single-use alternatives labelled as ‘compostable’, ‘biodegradable’ or ‘bio-based’ are more and more popular. This creates confusion not only among consumers, but among lawmakers and NGOs too. Bans on single-use plastic are being introduced across the world, but their results will be watered down if ‘bio’ plastics are granted inappropriate exemptions.
This is why back in 2019 we were particularly relieved to see that the European Single Use Plastics Directive explicitly covered ‘bio-based and biodegradable plastics regardless of whether they are derived from biomass or are intended to biodegrade over time’, a tangible sign that our advocacy efforts brought results.
Plastic Myth-busters
‘Compostable’ plastics do not vanish into the environment. They require specific conditions to biodegrade in industrial composting plants (such as defined temperature, microorganisms, oxygen, moisture and time). In natural conditions, the plastics may biodegrade slowly or not at all, or fragment into microplastics. In fact, the only effective way to tackle the pressure plastics pose on the oceans is reducing their use, boosting reuse and – as a last resort – recycling them.
We have raised awareness about many false assumptions surrounding biodegradable plastics. In countless webinars, events and in meetings with policymakers, we have explained how ‘plastic biodegradability’ really works, why the technical standards behind need to be improved, and why the only effective way to tackle the pressure plastics pose on the environment is reducing their use.
There exists a wide array of standards specifying the conditions for plastic to biodegrade. They are used, for example, to determine the compostability of plastics, assess chemical characteristics and ecotoxicity, and degradation in industrial composting or home composting conditions. However, they still present considerable shortcomings, which, in turn, have a great environmental impact: if the method describing how a plastic product behaves in the composting bin is imperfect or does not reflect real-life conditions, the product is simply not truly compostable.
For years, we have worked to make these standards more robust, for example, to avoid confusion between ‘home composting’ and ‘industrial composting’ conditions – or to ensure lab tests are performed under realistic conditions. We managed to introduce more restrictive requirements in a number of standards for ‘biodegradable’ and ‘compostable’ plastics, for instance to minimise the presence of non-biodegradable constituents (such as additives).
While standards are important, restrictions placed by public authorities on plastic use are crucial. The fact that both the Plastics Strategy and the SUP Directive treat biodegradable products as regular plastic, is indeed very encouraging. But the job is nowhere near done: in 2019, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published new rules limiting the use of single-use plastics, but they granted too wide exemptions to so-called ‘biodegradable’ plastics. As a response, we launched an action to tell ECHA that their biodegradation criteria were not sufficient. Following our calls, the ECHA restriction for biodegradable plastics were improved in 2020.
The best type of plastic? The one that is not produced
Improving test methods, rules and standards for ‘biodegradable’ and ‘compostable’ plastics is essential, and an important part of our work. But the only solution to fight the plastic crisis is to cut its production. Policymakers must promote long-lasting products and pave the way to eliminating lightweight and short-lived plastic products – which inevitably end up piling up in our oceans and in the environment as microplastics. ECOS will be there to make sure this message is heard, and that consumers are not misled into believing otherwise by false green claims on plastic products.
ECOS is co-funded by the European Commission and EFTA
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or EISMEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. | (Not so) biodegradable – there is no such thing as environmentally-friendly plastic
Biodegradable plastics are still plastics – they are intended for short-lived use and often stay in the environment for a very long time before they actually degrade. After years of raising awareness about this simple truth, we managed to convince the European Commission to finally say it: producing plastics with biodegradability properties is not a solution to littering.
Single-use alternatives labelled as ‘compostable’, ‘biodegradable’ or ‘bio-based’ are more and more popular. This creates confusion not only among consumers, but among lawmakers and NGOs too. Bans on single-use plastic are being introduced across the world, but their results will be watered down if ‘bio’ plastics are granted inappropriate exemptions.
This is why back in 2019 we were particularly relieved to see that the European Single Use Plastics Directive explicitly covered ‘bio-based and biodegradable plastics regardless of whether they are derived from biomass or are intended to biodegrade over time’, a tangible sign that our advocacy efforts brought results.
Plastic Myth-busters
‘Compostable’ plastics do not vanish into the environment. They require specific conditions to biodegrade in industrial composting plants (such as defined temperature, microorganisms, oxygen, moisture and time). In natural conditions, the plastics may biodegrade slowly or not at all, or fragment into microplastics. In fact, the only effective way to tackle the pressure plastics pose on the oceans is reducing their use, boosting reuse and – as a last resort – recycling them.
We have raised awareness about many false assumptions surrounding biodegradable plastics. In countless webinars, events and in meetings with policymakers, we have explained how ‘plastic biodegradability’ really works, why the technical standards behind need to be improved, and why the only effective way to tackle the pressure plastics pose on the environment is reducing their use.
There exists a wide array of standards specifying the conditions for plastic to biodegrade. | no |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/08/31/video-how-to-make-plastic-truly-biodegradable | VIDEO: How to make plastic truly biodegradable | Berkeley | Graduate student Ivan Jayapurna explains the research in Ting Xu’s lab to create a plastic that decomposes after use, addressing the pollution problem from single-use plastics. (UC Berkeley video by Roxanne Makasdjian and Jeremy Snowden)
The world produces more than 380 million tons of plastic every year, and by some reports, more than a third of that is for products used once and then tossed away, ending up as litter or landfill. Some 10 million tons of this plastic end up in the oceans each year, littering beaches and killing sea life.
UC Berkeley’s Ting Xu and her students have come up with one solution for the global problem of single-use plastics: embed enzymes in the plastic, so that once the bag or cup is no longer wanted, it will self-destruct with a little heat and water.
In a
study published this spring
, they showed that this method could make some plastics — the polylactic acid and polycaprolactone plastics used in many so-called compostable plastic bags — dissolve within days. This occurs without producing microplastics; instead, the plastic is broken down into its chemical constituents, which feed the microbes in the soil.
Ivan Jayapurna explains the process of embedding enzymes in plastics to make them self-destruct after use. (
Click
to view UC Berkeley YouTube video by Roxanne Makasdjian and Jeremy Snowden)
Xu hopes to make the technique more practicable, and a new four-year, $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) starting Sept. 1 could help her achieve that. She will lead a group that includes Berkeley’s Corinne Scown, Alfredo Alexander-Katz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jared Lewis of Indiana University and Emiko Zumbro of the Mitre Corporation in Virginia.
“This grant puts UC Berkeley on the map for plastic issues,” said Xu, professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry.
“NSF’s investment will advance the creation of a circular plastics economy that makes manufacturing more sustainable and helps protect our health and environmental well-being,” said Susan Margulies, NSF assistant director for engineering. “In the future, our manufacturing and recycling systems could be redesigned so that the plastic waste no longer contaminates our oceans and lands.”
Check out the videos to learn more about Xu’s process for making biodegradable plastics, as demonstrated by graduate student Ivan Jayapurna, which could make forever plastics disappear — forever.
In a PBS NOVA video about plastics, Ting Xu explains her process for making compostable plastics, and how the process could help solve the problem of pollution from single-use plastics. Click
here
to jump to Ting Xu’s segment. (Video courtesy of PBS NOVA) | Graduate student Ivan Jayapurna explains the research in Ting Xu’s lab to create a plastic that decomposes after use, addressing the pollution problem from single-use plastics. (UC Berkeley video by Roxanne Makasdjian and Jeremy Snowden)
The world produces more than 380 million tons of plastic every year, and by some reports, more than a third of that is for products used once and then tossed away, ending up as litter or landfill. Some 10 million tons of this plastic end up in the oceans each year, littering beaches and killing sea life.
UC Berkeley’s Ting Xu and her students have come up with one solution for the global problem of single-use plastics: embed enzymes in the plastic, so that once the bag or cup is no longer wanted, it will self-destruct with a little heat and water.
In a
study published this spring
, they showed that this method could make some plastics — the polylactic acid and polycaprolactone plastics used in many so-called compostable plastic bags — dissolve within days. This occurs without producing microplastics; instead, the plastic is broken down into its chemical constituents, which feed the microbes in the soil.
Ivan Jayapurna explains the process of embedding enzymes in plastics to make them self-destruct after use. (
Click
to view UC Berkeley YouTube video by Roxanne Makasdjian and Jeremy Snowden)
Xu hopes to make the technique more practicable, and a new four-year, $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) starting Sept. 1 could help her achieve that. She will lead a group that includes Berkeley’s Corinne Scown, Alfredo Alexander-Katz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jared Lewis of Indiana University and Emiko Zumbro of the Mitre Corporation in Virginia.
“This grant puts UC Berkeley on the map for plastic issues,” said Xu, professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry.
| yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2021/04/21/compostable-plastic-nature/ | To Design Truly Compostable Plastic, Scientists Take Cues From ... | Biodegradable plastic bags and containers could help, but if they’re not properly sorted, they can contaminate otherwise recyclable #1 and #2 plastics. What’s worse, most biodegradable plastics take months to break down, and when they finally do, they form microplastics – tiny bits of plastic that can end up in oceans and animals’ bodies – including our own.
Now, as reported today in the journal Nature, scientists at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and UC Berkeley have designed an enzyme-activated compostable plastic that could diminish microplastics pollution, and holds great promise for plastics upcycling. The material can be broken down to its building blocks – small individual molecules called monomers – and then reformed into a new compostable plastic product.
“In the wild, enzymes are what nature uses to break things down – and even when we die, enzymes cause our bodies to decompose naturally. So for this study, we asked ourselves, ‘How can enzymes biodegrade plastic so it’s part of nature?” said senior author Ting Xu, who holds titles of faculty senior scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division, and professor of chemistry and materials science and engineering at UC Berkeley.
At Berkeley Lab, Xu – who for nearly 15 years has dedicated her career to the development of functional polymer materials inspired by nature – is leading an interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers from universities and national labs around the country to tackle the mounting problem posed by both single-use and so-called biodegradable plastics.
Most biodegradable plastics in use today are made of polylactic acid (PLA), a vegetable-based plastic material blended with cornstarch. There is also polycaprolactone (PCL), a biodegradable polyester that is widely used for biomedical applications such as tissue engineering.
Image of microplastics on the beach. (Credit: Shutterstock/Eric Dale)
But the problem with conventional biodegradable plastic is that they’re indistinguishable from single-use plastics such as plastic film – so a good chunk of these materials ends up in landfills. And even if a biodegradable plastic container gets deposited at an organic waste facility, it can’t break down as fast as the lunch salad it once contained, so it ends up contaminating organic waste, said co-author Corinne Scown, a staff scientist and deputy director for the Research, Energy Analysis & Environmental Impacts Division in Berkeley Lab’s Energy Technologies Area.
Another problem with biodegradable plastics is that they aren’t as strong as regular plastic – that’s why you can’t carry heavy items in a standard green compost bag. The tradeoff is that biodegradable plastics can break down over time – but still, Xu said, they only break down into microplastics, which are still plastic, just a lot smaller.
So Xu and her team decided to take a different approach – by “nanoconfining” enzymes into plastics.
Putting enzymes to work
Because enzymes are part of living systems, the trick was carving out a safe place in the plastic for enzymes to lie dormant until they’re called to action.
In a series of experiments, Xu and her co-authors embedded trace amounts of the commercial enzymes Burkholderia cepacian lipase (BC-lipase) and proteinase K within PLA and PCL plastic materials. The scientists also added an enzyme protectant called four-monomer random heteropolymer, or RHP, to help disperse the enzymes a few nanometers (billionths of a meter) apart.
In a stunning result, the scientists discovered that ordinary household tap water or standard soil composts converted the enzyme-embedded plastic material into its monomers and eliminated microplastics in just a few days or weeks.
A modified plastic (left) breaks down after just three days (right) in standard compost and entirely after two weeks. (Courtesy of UC Berkeley)
They also learned that BC-lipase is something of a finicky “eater.” Before a lipase can convert a polymer chain into monomers, it must first catch the end of a polymer chain. By controlling when the lipase finds the chain end, it is possible to ensure the materials don’t degrade until being triggered by hot water or compost soil, Xu explained.
In addition, they found that this strategy only works when BC-lipase is nanodispersed – in this case, just 0.02% by weight in the PCL block – rather than randomly tossed in and blended.
And that matters when factoring in costs. Industrial enzymes can cost around $10 per kilogram, but this new approach would only add a few cents to the production cost of a kilogram of resin because the amount of enzymes required is so low – and the material has a shelf life of more than seven months, Scown added.
The proof is in the compost
X-ray scattering studies performed at Berkeley Lab’s Advanced Light Source characterized the nanodispersion of enzymes in the PCL and PLA plastic materials.
Interfacial-tension experiments conducted by co-author Tom Russell revealed in real time how the size and shape of droplets changed as the plastic material decomposed into distinct molecules. The lab results also differentiated between enzyme and RHP molecules.
A new compostable plastic developed by scientists at Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley breaks down to small molecules when it’s triggered by hot water or compost soil. (Courtesy of UC Berkeley)
“The interfacial test gives you information about how the degradation is proceeding,” he said. “But the proof is in the composting – Ting and her team successfully recovered plastic monomers from biodegradable plastic simply by using RHPs, water, and compost soil.”
Russell is a visiting faculty scientist and professor of polymer science and engineering from the University of Massachusetts who leads the Adaptive Interfacial Assemblies Towards Structuring Liquids program in Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division.
Developing a very affordable and easily compostable plastic film could incentivize produce manufacturers to package fresh fruits and vegetables with compostable plastic instead of single-use plastic wrap – and as a result, save organic waste facilities the extra expense of investing in expensive plastic-depackaging machines when they want to accept food waste for anaerobic digestion or composting, Scown said.
Since their approach could potentially work well with both hard, rigid plastics and soft, flexible plastics, Xu would like to broaden their study to polyolefins, a ubiquitous family of plastics commonly used to manufacture toys and electronic parts.
The team’s truly compostable plastic could be on the shelves soon. They recently filed a patent application through UC Berkeley’s patent office. And co-author Aaron Hall, who was a Ph.D. student in materials science and engineering at UC Berkeley at the time of the study, founded UC Berkeley startup Intropic Materials to further develop the new technology.
“When it comes to solving the plastics problem, it’s our environmental responsibility to take up nature on its path. By prescribing a molecular map with enzymes behind the wheel, our study is a good start,” Xu said.
Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest scientific challenges are best addressed by teams, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and its scientists have been recognized with 14 Nobel Prizes. Today, Berkeley Lab researchers develop sustainable energy and environmental solutions, create useful new materials, advance the frontiers of computing, and probe the mysteries of life, matter, and the universe. Scientists from around the world rely on the Lab’s facilities for their own discovery science. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory, managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science. | Biodegradable plastic bags and containers could help, but if they’re not properly sorted, they can contaminate otherwise recyclable #1 and #2 plastics. What’s worse, most biodegradable plastics take months to break down, and when they finally do, they form microplastics – tiny bits of plastic that can end up in oceans and animals’ bodies – including our own.
Now, as reported today in the journal Nature, scientists at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and UC Berkeley have designed an enzyme-activated compostable plastic that could diminish microplastics pollution, and holds great promise for plastics upcycling. The material can be broken down to its building blocks – small individual molecules called monomers – and then reformed into a new compostable plastic product.
“In the wild, enzymes are what nature uses to break things down – and even when we die, enzymes cause our bodies to decompose naturally. So for this study, we asked ourselves, ‘How can enzymes biodegrade plastic so it’s part of nature?” said senior author Ting Xu, who holds titles of faculty senior scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division, and professor of chemistry and materials science and engineering at UC Berkeley.
At Berkeley Lab, Xu – who for nearly 15 years has dedicated her career to the development of functional polymer materials inspired by nature – is leading an interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers from universities and national labs around the country to tackle the mounting problem posed by both single-use and so-called biodegradable plastics.
Most biodegradable plastics in use today are made of polylactic acid (PLA), a vegetable-based plastic material blended with cornstarch. There is also polycaprolactone (PCL), a biodegradable polyester that is widely used for biomedical applications such as tissue engineering.
Image of microplastics on the beach. (Credit: Shutterstock/Eric Dale)
| yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic | Biodegradable plastic - Wikipedia | Biodegradable plastics are plastics that can be decomposed by the action of living organisms, usually microbes, into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass.[1] Biodegradable plastics are commonly produced with renewable raw materials, micro-organisms, petrochemicals, or combinations of all three.[2]
While the words "bioplastic" and "biodegradable plastic" are similar, they are not synonymous.[3] Not all bioplastics (plastics derived partly or entirely from biomass) are biodegradable, and some biodegradable plastics are fully petroleum based.[4] As more companies are keen to be seen as having "Green" credentials, solutions such as using bioplastics are being investigated and implemented more. The definition of bioplastics is still up for debate. The phrase is frequently used to refer to a wide range of diverse goods that may be biobased, biodegradable, or both. This could imply that polymers made from oil can be branded as "bioplastics" even if they have no biological components at all.[5] However there are many skeptics who believe that bioplastics will not solve problems others expect.[6]
Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) was first observed in bacteria in 1888 by Martinus Beijerinck.[7] In 1926, French microbiologist Maurice Lemoigne chemically identified the polymer after extracting it from Bacillus megaterium.[7][8] It was not until the early 1960s that the groundwork for scaled production was laid.[9] Several patents for the production and isolation of PHB, the simplest PHA, were administered to W.R. Grace & Co. (USA), but as a result of low yields, tainted product and high extraction costs, the operation was dissolved.[9] When OPEC halted oil exports to the US to boost global oil prices in 1973,[10] more plastic and chemical companies began making significant investment in the biosynthesis of sustainable plastics. As a result, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI UK) successfully produced PHB at a yield of 70% using the strain Alcaligenes latus.[9] The specific PHA produced in this instance was a scl-PHA.[9] Production efforts slowed dramatically due to the undesirable properties of the PHA produced and the diminishing threat of rising oil prices soon thereafter.[9]
In 1983, ICI received venture capital funding and founded Marlborough Biopolymers to manufacture the first broad-application biodegradable plastic, PHBV, named Biopol. Biopol is a copolymer composed of PHB and PHV, but was still too costly to produce to disrupt the market. In 1996, Monsanto discovered a method of producing one of the two polymers in plants and acquired Biopol from Zeneca, a spinout of ICI, as a result of the potential for cheaper production.[11]
As a result of the steep increase in oil prices in the early 2000s (to nearly $140/barrel US$ in 2008), the plastic-production industry finally sought to implement these alternatives to petroleum-based plastics.[12] Since then, countless alternatives, produced chemically or by other bacteria, plants, seaweed and plant waste have sprung up as solutions. Geopolitical factors also impact their use.
Biodegradable plastics are commonly used for disposable items, such as packaging, cutlery, and food service containers.[13]
In principle, biodegradable plastics could replace many applications for conventional plastics. However, this entails a number of challenges.
Many biodegradable plastics are designed to degrade in industrial composting systems. However, this requires a well-managed waste system to ensure that this actually happens. If products made from these plastics are discarded into conventional waste streams such as landfill, or find their way into the open environment such as rivers and oceans, potential environmental benefits are not realised and evidence indicates that this can actually worsen, rather than reduce, the problem of plastic pollution.[14]
Plastic items labelled as 'biodegradable', but that only break down into smaller pieces like microplastics, or into smaller units that are not biodegradable, are not an improvement over conventional plastic.[14]
A 2009 study found that the use of biodegradable plastics was financially viable only in the context of specific regulations which limit the usage of conventional plastics.[15] For example, biodegradable plastic bags have been compulsory in Italy since 2011 with the introduction of a specific law.[16]
Polyhydroxyalkanoates are a class of biodegradable plastic naturally produced by various micro-organisms (example: Cuprividus necator). Specific types of PHAs include poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB), polyhydroxyvalerate (PHV) and polyhydroxyhexanoate (PHH). The biosynthesis of PHA is usually driven by depriving organisms of certain nutrients (e.g. lack of macro elements such as phosphorus, nitrogen, or oxygen) and supplying an excess of carbon sources.[19] PHA granules are then recovered by rupturing the micro-organisms.[20]
Starch blends are thermoplastic polymers produced by blending starch with plasticizers. Because starch polymers on their own are brittle at room temperature, plasticizers are added in a process called starch gelatinization to augment its crystallization.[23] While all starches are biodegradable, not all plasticizers are. Thus, the biodegradability of the plasticizer determines the biodegradability of the starch blend.
Lignin-based polymer composites are bio-renewable natural aromatic polymers with biodegradable properties. Lignin is found as a byproduct of polysaccharide extraction from plant material through the production of paper, ethanol, and more.[27] It is high in abundance with reports showing that 50 million tons are being created by chemical pulp industries each year.[28] Lignin is useful due to its low weight material and the fact that it is more environmentally friendly than other alternatives. Lignin is neutral to CO2 release during the biodegradation process.[27] Other biodegradable plastic processes such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) have been found to release CO2 and water as waste products produced by the degrading microorganisms.[28]
Lignin contains comparable chemical properties in comparison to current plastic chemicals, which includes reactive functional groups, the ability to form into films, high carbon percentage, and it shows versatility in relation to various chemical mixtures used with plastics. Lignin is also stable, and contains aromatic rings. It is both elastic and viscous yet flows smoothly in the liquid phase. Most importantly lignin can improve on the current standards of plastics because it is antimicrobial in nature.[27] It is being produced at such great quantities and is readily available for use as an emerging environmentally friendly polymer.
Petroleum-based plastics are derived from petrochemicals, which are obtained from fossil crude oil, coal or natural gas. The most widely used petroleum-based plastics such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS) are not biodegradable. However, the following petroleum-based plastics listed are.
Polyglycolic acid is a thermoplastic polymer and an aliphatic polyester. PGA is often used in medical applications such as PGA sutures for its biodegradability. The ester linkage in the backbone of polyglycolic acid gives it hydrolytic instability. Thus polyglycolic acid can degrade into its nontoxic monomer, glycolic acid, through hydrolysis. This process can be expedited with esterases. In the body, glycolic acid can enter the tricarboxylic acid cycle, after which can be excreted as water and carbon dioxide.[29]
Polybutylene succinate is a thermoplastic polymer resin that has properties comparable to propylene. It is used in packaging films for food and cosmetics. In the agricultural field, PBS is used as a biodegradable mulching film[30] PBS can be degraded by Amycolatopsis sp. HT-6 and Penicillium sp. strain 14-3. In addition, Microbispora rosea, Excellospora japonica and E. viridilutea have been shown to consume samples of emulsified PBS.[31]
Polycaprolactone has gained prominence as an implantable biomaterial because the hydrolysis of its ester linkages offers its biodegradable properties. It has been shown that Bacillota and Pseudomonadota can degrade PCL. Penicillium sp. strain 26-1 can degrade high density PCL; though not as quickly as thermotolerant Aspergillus sp. strain ST-01. Species of clostridium can degrade PCL under anaerobic conditions.[31]
Poly(vinyl alcohol) is one of the few biodegradable vinyl polymers that is soluble in water. Due to its solubility in water (an inexpensive and harmless solvent), PVA has a wide range of applications including food packaging, textiles coating, paper coating, and healthcare products.[32]
No international standard has been established to define home-compostable plastics (i.e. those which do not rely on industrial composting facilities), but national standards have been created in Australia (AS 5810 "biodegradable plastics suitable for home composting") and in France (NF T 51-800 "Specifications for plastics suitable for home composting"). The French standard is based on the "OK compost home certification scheme", developed by Belgian certifier TÜV Austria Belgium.[33] The following are examples of plastics that have conformed to an established national standard for home compostability:[34]
One of the challenges for the design and use of biodegradable plastics is that biodegradability is a "system property". That is, whether a particular plastic item will biodegrade depends not only on the intrinsic properties of the item, but also on the conditions in the environment in which it ends up. The rate at which plastic biodegrades in a specific ecosystem depends on a wide range of environmental conditions, including temperature and the presence of specific microorganisms.[14]
Though the terms "compostable, "bioplastics", and "oxo-degradative plastics" are often used in place of "biodegradable plastics", these terms are not synonymous. The waste management infrastructure currently recycles regular plastic waste, incinerates it, or places it in a landfill. Mixing biodegradable plastics into the regular waste infrastructure poses some dangers to the environment.[36] Thus, it is crucial to identify how to correctly decompose alternative plastic materials.
Both compostable plastics and biodegradable plastics are materials that break down into their organic constituents; however, composting of some compostable plastics requires strict control of environmental factors, including higher temperatures, pressure and nutrient concentration, as well as specific chemical ratios. These conditions can only be recreated in industrial composting plants, which are few and far between.[37] Thus, some plastics that are compostable can degrade only under highly controlled environments.[38] Additionally, composting typically takes place in aerobic environments, while biodegradation may take place in anaerobic environments.[39] Biologically-based polymers, sourced from non-fossil materials, can decompose naturally in the environment, whereas some plastics products made from biodegradable polymers require the assistance of anaerobic digesters or composting units to break down synthetic material during organic recycling processes.[40][14]
Contrary to popular belief, non-biodegradable compostable plastics do indeed exist. These plastics will undergo biodegradation under composting conditions but will not begin degrading until they are met. In other words, these plastics cannot be claimed as “biodegradable” (as defined by both American and European Standards) due to the fact that they cannot biodegrade naturally in the biosphere. An example of a non-biodegradable compostable plastic is polylactic acid (PLA).[41][42]
The ASTM standard definition outlines that a compostable plastic has to become "not visually distinguishable" at the same rate as something that has already been established as being compostable under the traditional definition.[43]
A plastic is considered a bioplastic if it was produced partly or wholly with biologically sourced polymers. A plastic is considered biodegradable if it can degrade into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass in a given time frame (dependent on different standards). Thus, the terms are not synonymous. Not all bioplastics are biodegradable.[44] An example of a non-biodegradable bioplastic is bio-based PET. PET is a petrochemical plastic, derived from fossil fuels. Bio-based PET is the same plastic but synthesized with bacteria. Bio-based PET has identical technical properties to its fossil-based counterpart.[45]
In addition, oxo-degradable plastics are commonly perceived to be biodegradable. However, they are simply conventional plastics with additives called prodegredants that accelerate the oxidation process. While oxo-degradable plastics rapidly break down through exposure to sunlight and oxygen, they persist as huge quantities of microplastics rather than any biological material.[46]
Oxo-degradable plastics cannot be classified as biodegradable under American and European standards because they take too long to break down and leave plastic fragments not capable of being consumed by microorganisms. Although intended to facilitate biodegradation, oxo-degradable plastics often do not fragment optimally for microbial digestion.[47]
All materials are inherently biodegradable, whether it takes a few weeks or a million years to break down into organic matter and mineralize.[48] Therefore, products that are classified as “biodegradable” but whose time and environmental constraints are not explicitly stated are misinforming consumers and lack transparency.[44] Normally, credible companies convey the specific biodegradable conditions of their products, highlighting that their products are in fact biodegradable under national or international standards. Additionally, companies that label plastics with oxo-biodegradable additives as entirely biodegradable contribute to misinformation. Similarly, some brands may claim that their plastics are biodegradable when, in fact, they are non-biodegradable bioplastics.
Labelling plastic items as ‘biodegradable’, without explaining what conditions are needed for them to biodegrade, causes confusion among consumers and other users. It could lead to contamination of waste streams and increased pollution or littering. Clear and accurate labelling is needed so that consumers can be confident of what to expect from plastic items, and how to properly use and dispose of them.
In response, the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors recommended in 2021 to develop "coherent testing and certification standards for biodegradation of plastic in the open environment", including "testing and certification schemes evaluating actual biodegradation of biodegradable plastics in the context of their application in a specific receiving open environment".[14]
Microbial degradation: The primary purpose of biodegradable plastics is to replace traditional plastics that persist in landfills and harm the environment. Therefore, the ability of microorganisms to break down these plastics is an incredible environmental advantage. Microbial degradation is accomplished by 3 steps: colonization of the plastic surface, hydrolysis, and mineralization. First, microorganisms populate the exposed plastics. Next, the bacteria secrete enzymes that bind to the carbon source or polymer substrates and then split the hydrocarbon bonds. The process results in the production of H2O and CO2. Despite the release of CO2 into the environment, biodegradable plastics leave a smaller footprint than petroleum-based plastics that accumulate in landfills and cause heavy pollution, which is why they are explored as alternatives to traditional plastics.[31]
Municipal solid waste: According to a 2010 report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the US had 31 million tons of plastic waste, representing 12.4% of all municipal solid waste. Of that, 2.55 million tons were recovered. This 8.2% recovery was much less than the 34.1% overall recovery percentage for municipal solid waste.[49]
Depressed plastics recovery rates can be attributed to conventional plastics are often commingled with organic wastes (food scraps, wet paper, and liquids), leading to accumulation of waste in landfills and natural habitats.[50] On the other hand, composting of these mixed organics (food scraps, yard trimmings, and wet, non-recyclable paper) is a potential strategy for recovering large quantities of waste and dramatically increasing community recycling goals. As of 2015, food scraps and wet, non-recyclable paper respectively comprise 39.6 million and 67.9 million tons of municipal solid waste.[51]
Biodegradable plastics can replace the non-degradable plastics in these waste streams, making municipal composting a significant tool to divert large amounts of otherwise nonrecoverable waste from landfills.[18] Compostable plastics combine the utility of plastics (lightweight, resistance, relative low cost) with the ability to completely and fully compost in an industrial compost facility. Rather than worrying about recycling a relatively small quantity of commingled plastics, proponents argue that certified biodegradable plastics can be readily commingled with other organic wastes, thereby enabling composting of a much larger portion of nonrecoverable solid waste.
Commercial composting for all mixed organics then becomes commercially viable and economically sustainable. More municipalities can divert significant quantities of waste from overburdened landfills since the entire waste stream is now biodegradable and therefore easier to process. This move away from the use of landfills may help alleviate the issue of plastic pollution.
The use of biodegradable plastics, therefore, is seen as enabling the complete recovery of large quantities of municipal solid waste (via aerobic composting and feedstocks) that have heretofore been unrecoverable by other means except land filling or incineration.[52]
Oxo-biodegradation: There are allegations that biodegradable plastic bags may release metals, and may require a great deal of time to degrade in certain circumstances[53] and that OBD (oxo-biodegradable) plastics may produce tiny fragments of plastic that do not continue to degrade at any appreciable rate regardless of the environment.[54][55] The response of the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association (www.biodeg.org) is that OBD plastics do not contain metals.[citation needed] They contain salts of metals, which are not prohibited by legislation and are in fact necessary as trace-elements in the human diet. Oxo-biodegradation of low-density polyethylene containing a proprietary manganese-salt-based additive showed 91% biodegradation in a soil environment after 24 months.[56]
Effect on food supply: There is also much debate about the total carbon, fossil fuel and water usage in manufacturing biodegradable bioplastics from natural materials and whether they are a negative impact to human food supply. To make 1 kg (2.2 lb) of polylactic acid, the most common commercially available compostable plastic, 2.65 kg (5.8 lb) of corn is required.[57] Since as of 2010, approximately 270 million tonnes of plastic are made every year,[58] replacing conventional plastic with corn-derived polylactic acid would remove 715.5 million tonnes from the world's food supply, at a time when global warming is reducing tropical farm productivity.[59]
Methane release: There is concern that another greenhouse gas, methane, might be released when any biodegradable material, including truly biodegradable plastics, degrades in an anaerobiclandfill environment. Methane production from 594 managed landfill environments is captured and used for energy;[60] some landfills burn this off through a process called flaring to reduce the release of methane into the environment. In the US, most landfilled materials today go into landfills where they capture the methane biogas for use in clean, inexpensive energy.[61] Incinerating non-biodegradable plastics will release carbon dioxide as well. Disposing of non-biodegradable plastics made from natural materials in anaerobic (landfill) environments will result in the plastic lasting for hundreds of years.[60]
Biodegradation in the ocean: Biodegradable plastics that have not fully degraded are disposed of in the oceans by waste management facilities with the assumption that the plastics will eventually break down in a short amount of time. However, the ocean is not optimal for biodegradation, as the process favors warm environments with an abundance of microorganisms and oxygen. Remaining microfibers that have not undergone biodegradation can cause harm to marine life.[62]
Various researchers have undertaken extensive life cycle assessments of biodegradable polymers to determine whether these materials are more energy efficient than polymers made by conventional fossil fuel-based means. Research done by Gerngross, et al. estimates that the fossil fuel energy required to produce a kilogram of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) is 50.4 MJ/kg,[63][64] which coincides with another estimate by Akiyama, et al.,[65] who estimate a value between 50-59 MJ/kg. This information does not take into account the feedstock energy, which can be obtained from non-fossil fuel based methods. Polylactide (PLA) was estimated to have a fossil fuel energy cost of 54-56.7 from two sources,[66] but recent developments in the commercial production of PLA by NatureWorks has eliminated some dependence of fossil fuel-based energy by supplanting it with wind power and biomass-driven strategies. They report making a kilogram of PLA with only 27.2 MJ of fossil fuel-based energy and anticipate that this number will drop to 16.6 MJ/kg in their next generation plants. In contrast, polypropylene and high-density polyethylene require 85.9 and 73.7 MJ/kg, respectively,[67] but these values include the embedded energy of the feedstock because it is based on fossil fuel.
Gerngross reports a 2.65 kg total fossil fuel energy equivalent (FFE) required to produce a single kilogram of PHA, while polyethylene only requires 2.2 kg FFE.[64] Gerngross assesses that the decision to proceed forward with any biodegradable polymer alternative will need to take into account the priorities of society with regard to energy, environment, and economic cost.
Furthermore, it is important to realize the youth of alternative technologies. Technology to produce PHA, for instance, is still in development today, and energy consumption can be further reduced by eliminating the fermentation step, or by utilizing food waste as feedstock.[68] The use of alternative crops other than corn, such as sugar cane from Brazil, are expected to lower energy requirements. For instance, "manufacturing of PHAs by fermentation in Brazil enjoys a favorable energy consumption scheme where bagasse is used as source of renewable energy."[69]
Many biodegradable polymers that come from renewable resources (i.e. starch-based, PHA, PLA) also compete with food production, as the primary feedstock is currently corn. For the US to meet its current output of plastics production with BPs, it would require 1.62 square meters per kilogram produced.[70]
The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) is the primary certification organization in the US. ASTM International defines methods to test for biodegradable plastic, both anaerobically and aerobically, as well as in marine environments. The specific subcommittee responsibility for overseeing these standards falls on the Committee D20.96 on Environmentally Degradable Plastics and Bio based Products.[71] The current ASTM standards are defined as standard specifications and standard test methods. Standard specifications create a pass or fail scenario whereas standard test methods identify the specific testing parameters for facilitating specific time frames and toxicity of biodegradable tests on plastics.
Both standards above indicate that a minimum of 70% of the material should have biodegraded by 30 days (ASTM D5511-18) or the duration of the testing procedure (ASTM D5526-18) to be considered biodegradable under anaerobic conditions. Test methodologies provide guidelines on testing but provide no pass/fail guidance on results.[72]
Standard Specification for Labeling of Plastics Designed to be Aerobically Composted in Municipal or Industrial Facilities
ASTMD6868
Standard Specification for Labeling of End Items that Incorporate Plastics and Polymers as Coatings or Additives with Paper and Other Substrates Designed to be Aerobically Composted in Municipal or Industrial Facilities
Both standards above outline procedures for testing and labelling biodegradability in aerobic composting conditions. Plastics can be classified as biodegradable in aerobic environments when 90% of the material is fully mineralized into CO2 within 180 days (~6 months). Specifications carry pass/fail criteria and reporting.[72]
In October 2020 British Standards published new standards for biodegradable plastic. In order to comply with the standards biodegradable plastic must degrade to a wax which contains no microplastics or nanoplastics within two years. The breakdown of the plastics can be triggered by exposure to sunlight, air and water. Chief executive of Polymateria, Niall Dunne, said his company had created polyethylene film which degraded within 226 days and plastic cups which broke down in 336 days.[76]
With rising concern for environmental ramifications of plastic waste, researchers have been exploring the application of genetic engineering and synthetic biology for optimizing biodegradable plastic production. This involves altering the endogenous genetic makeup or other biological systems of organisms.[77]
In 1995, an article titled “Production of Polyhydroxyalkanoates, a Family of Biodegradable Plastics and Elastomers, in Bacteria and Plants” describes the use of synthetic biology to increase the yield of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), specifically in Arabidopsis plants.[78] Similarly, a study conducted in 1999 investigated how the oil seed rape plant can be genetically modified to produce PHBVs. Although a high yield was not produced, this displays the early use of genetic engineering for production of biodegradable plastics.[79]
Efforts are still being made in the direction of biodegradable plastic production through genetic fabrication and re-design. A paper published in 2014 titled “Genetic engineering increases yield of biodegradable plastic from cyanobacteria” outlines procedures conducted to produce a higher yield of PHBs that is industrially comparable. Previous research indicated that both Rre37 and SigE proteins are separately responsible for the activation of PHB production in the Synechocystis strain of cyanobacteria. Thus, in this study, the Synechocystis strain was modified to overexpress Rre37 and SigE proteins together under nitrogen-limited conditions.[80]
Currently, a student-run research group at the University of Virginia (Virginia iGEM 2019) is in the process of genetically engineering Escherichia coli to convert styrene (monomer of polystyrene) into P3HBs (a type of PHA). The project aims to demonstrate that waste polystyrene can effectively be used as a carbon source for biodegradable plastic production, tackling both issues of polystyrene waste accumulation in landfills and high production cost of PHAs.[81]
Biodegradable Conducting Polymers (CPs) are a polymeric material designed for applications within the human body. Important properties of this material are its electrical conductivity comparable to traditional conductors and its biodegradability. The medical applications of biodegradable CPs are attractive to medical specialties such as tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.[82] In tissue engineering, the key focus is on providing damaged organs with physicochemical cues to damaged organs for repair. This is achieved through use of nanocomposite scaffolding.[83] Regenerative medicine applications are designed to regenerate cells along with improving the repair process of the body.[84] The use of biodegradable CPs can also be implemented into biomedical imaging along with implants, and more.[82]
The design of biodegradable CPs began with the blending of biodegradable polymers including polylactides, polycaprolactone, and polyurethanes. This design triggered innovation into what is being engineered as of the year 2019. The current biodegradable CPs is applicable for use in the biomedical field. The compositional architecture of current biodegradable CPs includes the conductivity properties of oligomer-based biodegradable polymers implemented into compositions of linear, starshaped, or hyperbranched formations. Another implementation to enhance the biodegradable architecture of the CPs is by use of monomers and conjugated links that are degradable.[82] The biodegradable polymers used in biomedical applications typically consist of hydrolyzable esters and hydrazones. These molecules, upon external stimulation, go on to be cleaved and broken down. The cleaving activation process can be achieved through use of an acidic environment, increasing the temperature, or by use of enzymes.[82] Three categories of biodegradable CP composites have been established in relation to their chemistry makeup. The first category includes partially biodegradable CP blends of conductive and biodegradable polymeric materials. The second category includes conducting oligomers of biodegradable CPs. The third category is that of modified and degradable monpmer units along with use of degradable conjugated links for use in biodegradable CPs polymers.[82][83] | Additionally, composting typically takes place in aerobic environments, while biodegradation may take place in anaerobic environments.[39] Biologically-based polymers, sourced from non-fossil materials, can decompose naturally in the environment, whereas some plastics products made from biodegradable polymers require the assistance of anaerobic digesters or composting units to break down synthetic material during organic recycling processes.[40][14]
Contrary to popular belief, non-biodegradable compostable plastics do indeed exist. These plastics will undergo biodegradation under composting conditions but will not begin degrading until they are met. In other words, these plastics cannot be claimed as “biodegradable” (as defined by both American and European Standards) due to the fact that they cannot biodegrade naturally in the biosphere. An example of a non-biodegradable compostable plastic is polylactic acid (PLA).[41][42]
The ASTM standard definition outlines that a compostable plastic has to become "not visually distinguishable" at the same rate as something that has already been established as being compostable under the traditional definition.[43]
A plastic is considered a bioplastic if it was produced partly or wholly with biologically sourced polymers. A plastic is considered biodegradable if it can degrade into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass in a given time frame (dependent on different standards). Thus, the terms are not synonymous. Not all bioplastics are biodegradable.[44] An example of a non-biodegradable bioplastic is bio-based PET. PET is a petrochemical plastic, derived from fossil fuels. Bio-based PET is the same plastic but synthesized with bacteria. Bio-based PET has identical technical properties to its fossil-based counterpart.[45]
In addition, oxo-degradable plastics are commonly perceived to be biodegradable. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/biodegradable-plastic-has-composting-enzymes-built-180977577/ | This Biodegradable Plastic Will Actually Break Down in Your ... | This Biodegradable Plastic Will Actually Break Down in Your Compost
The enzyme-enhanced plastic film had the same strength and flexibility as a standard plastic grocery bag.
UC Berkeley photo by Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering
Some single-use plastics have been replaced with biodegradable options in recent years, but even those aren’t fully compostable. Polymer scientist Ting Xu knows that because when she picks up composted soil from her parents’ garden, it is often littered with plastic bits that haven’t fully degraded, she tells Carmen Drahl at Science News.
For more than a decade, Xu has researched how plastic could be created with enzymes that break down the stubborn material. Now, a paper published on April 21 in the journal Naturedescribes a new plastic material that degrades by up to 98 percent after less than a week in damp composting soil. The plastic itself has a sprinkling of polymer-munching enzymes mixed in that are activated by heat and moisture to degrade the plastic from the inside.
The goal is to create truly compostable plastics that can replace the single-use plastics that have become especially common amid the Covid-19 pandemic. “We want this to be in every grocery store,” says Xu to Science News.
Only a few kinds of plastic, labeled as types one and two, are reliably recyclable. A 2015 study showed just nine percent of plastics in the world are recycled—most plastics wind up in landfills or scattered across the globe as pollution. The recent introduction of biodegradable plastics offered promise to rid the world of some debris, but these materials require specific processing to fully break down. If standard biodegradable plastics don’t reach an industrial composting facility, they won’t fully degrade.
"Under other conditions such as soil or marine environments, these materials often display a similar durability as their conventional fossil-fuel-based counterparts, causing significant environmental damage and pollution," says Queensland University of Technology materials scientist Hendrik Frisch, who was not involved in the new study, to Gemma Conroy at ABC Science.
The new plastic has enzymes embedded in it that have been individually wrapped with four-part nanoparticles. The nanoparticles prevent the enzymes from falling apart while they wait to go to work. The wrapped enzymes are mixed with polymer beads early in the plastic-forming process. The end material includes thin film pieces and thick plastic filaments.
The enzymes don’t alter the plastic’s usual properties—the film is as strong and flexible as standard plastic bags. But when the material is immersed in warm water, or damp soil, the enzymes’ polymer coating falls away and the enzymes become activated. Because the enzymes are embedded throughout the material itself, and not added later, they can thoroughly degrade it.
“If you have the enzyme only on the surface of the plastic, it would just etch down very slowly,” says Xu in a statement. “You want it distributed nanoscopically everywhere so that, essentially, each of them just needs to eat away their polymer neighbors, and then the whole material disintegrates.”
One of the plastics tested in the new study, called PLA, is commonly used in single-use food packaging. But with the addition of the embedded enzymes, the plastic was degraded into its molecular parts after just six days at about 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The enzymes break the PLA down into lactic acid, which microbes in the soil can use as food.
Frisch tells ABC Science that the researchers have more work to do to show whether the enzymes could be applied to other kinds of plastic. But for now, Xu plans to patent the technology and support a co-author in commercializing it.
"Enzymes are really just catalysts evolved by nature to carry out reactions," says Xu to ABC Science. "If you want to get a material to become a part of nature, we should go with what nature has already developed.” | This Biodegradable Plastic Will Actually Break Down in Your Compost
The enzyme-enhanced plastic film had the same strength and flexibility as a standard plastic grocery bag.
UC Berkeley photo by Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering
Some single-use plastics have been replaced with biodegradable options in recent years, but even those aren’t fully compostable. Polymer scientist Ting Xu knows that because when she picks up composted soil from her parents’ garden, it is often littered with plastic bits that haven’t fully degraded, she tells Carmen Drahl at Science News.
For more than a decade, Xu has researched how plastic could be created with enzymes that break down the stubborn material. Now, a paper published on April 21 in the journal Naturedescribes a new plastic material that degrades by up to 98 percent after less than a week in damp composting soil. The plastic itself has a sprinkling of polymer-munching enzymes mixed in that are activated by heat and moisture to degrade the plastic from the inside.
The goal is to create truly compostable plastics that can replace the single-use plastics that have become especially common amid the Covid-19 pandemic. “We want this to be in every grocery store,” says Xu to Science News.
Only a few kinds of plastic, labeled as types one and two, are reliably recyclable. A 2015 study showed just nine percent of plastics in the world are recycled—most plastics wind up in landfills or scattered across the globe as pollution. The recent introduction of biodegradable plastics offered promise to rid the world of some debris, but these materials require specific processing to fully break down. If standard biodegradable plastics don’t reach an industrial composting facility, they won’t fully degrade.
| yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.sciencenews.org/article/plastic-compost-new-enzyme-technique-biodegradable | A new technique could make some plastic trash compostable at home | “Biodegradability does not equal compostability,” says Xu, a polymer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She often finds bits of biodegradable plastic in the compost she picks up for her parents’ garden. Most biodegradable plastics go to landfills, where the conditions aren’t right for them to break down, so they degrade no faster than normal plastics.
Embedding polymer-chomping enzymes in biodegradable plastic should accelerate decomposition. But that process often inadvertently forms potentially harmful microplastics, which are showing up in ecosystems across the globe (SN: 11/20/20). The enzymes clump together and randomly snip plastics’ molecular chains, leading to an incomplete breakdown. “It’s worse than if you don’t degrade them in the first place,” Xu says.
Her team added individual enzymes into two biodegradable plastics, including polylactic acid, commonly used in food packaging. They inserted the enzymes along with another ingredient, a degradable additive Xu previously developed, which ensured the enzymes didn’t clump together and didn’t fall apart. The solitary enzymes grabbed the ends of the plastics’ molecular chains and ate as though they were slurping spaghetti, severing every chain link and preventing microplastic formation.
Filaments of a new plastic material degrade completely (right) when submerged in tap water for several days.Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering
Adding enzymes usually makes plastic expensive and compromises its properties. However, Xu’s enzymes make up as little as 0.02 percent of the plastic’s weight, and her plastics are as strong and flexible as one typically used in grocery bags.
The technology doesn’t work on all plastics because their molecular structures vary, a limitation Xu’s team is working to overcome. She’s filed a patent application for the technology, and a coauthor founded a startup to commercialize it. “We want this to be in every grocery store,” she says.
From the Nature Index
Science News was founded in 1921 as an independent, nonprofit source of accurate information on the latest news of science, medicine and technology. Today, our mission remains the same: to empower people to evaluate the news and the world around them. It is published by the Society for Science, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) membership organization dedicated to public engagement in scientific research and education (EIN 53-0196483). | “Biodegradability does not equal compostability,” says Xu, a polymer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She often finds bits of biodegradable plastic in the compost she picks up for her parents’ garden. Most biodegradable plastics go to landfills, where the conditions aren’t right for them to break down, so they degrade no faster than normal plastics.
Embedding polymer-chomping enzymes in biodegradable plastic should accelerate decomposition. But that process often inadvertently forms potentially harmful microplastics, which are showing up in ecosystems across the globe (SN: 11/20/20). The enzymes clump together and randomly snip plastics’ molecular chains, leading to an incomplete breakdown. “It’s worse than if you don’t degrade them in the first place,” Xu says.
Her team added individual enzymes into two biodegradable plastics, including polylactic acid, commonly used in food packaging. They inserted the enzymes along with another ingredient, a degradable additive Xu previously developed, which ensured the enzymes didn’t clump together and didn’t fall apart. The solitary enzymes grabbed the ends of the plastics’ molecular chains and ate as though they were slurping spaghetti, severing every chain link and preventing microplastic formation.
Filaments of a new plastic material degrade completely (right) when submerged in tap water for several days. Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering
Adding enzymes usually makes plastic expensive and compromises its properties. However, Xu’s enzymes make up as little as 0.02 percent of the plastic’s weight, and her plastics are as strong and flexible as one typically used in grocery bags.
The technology doesn’t work on all plastics because their molecular structures vary, a limitation Xu’s team is working to overcome. She’s filed a patent application for the technology, and a coauthor founded a startup to commercialize it. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenbobrow/2020/05/28/tarek-moharram-discusses-truly-green-plastic-biodegradable-cannabis-biomass-solutions/ | Tarek Moharram Discusses Truly Green Plastic Biodegradable ... | Truly Green Plastic™ is an environmentally encouraging solution to packaging cannabis in traditional non-disposable, plastic bags. This product comes from cannabis biomass and it is biodegradable. I couldn’t help but be intrigued by it. There is so much waste in packaging cannabis for sale. Truly Green Plastic™ offers an alternative that is good for the earth.
Warren Bobrow=WB: Where are you from? Where do you live now? How did you discover the business you are in now? What is your professional background?
Tarek Moharram=TM: I’ve been fortunate to have already experienced living in three different countries and two separate continents. I was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, but my family moved to nearby London a few years after I was born. When I was in early elementary school (and after a year of being home-schooled), our family sold almost everything and moved to Egypt (where my father was born). We spent the first few months living in Cairo and then transitioned to a little resort town on the shore of the Red Sea called Hurghada. Living there showed me a whole different side to life. Many of the people we knew didn’t have very much in the way of material possessions, and it made me appreciate all of the things for which I quickly became thankful. I don’t speak Arabic though, and so it was a difficult adjustment to make, at times. After about a year, it became pretty clear that our future wasn’t in Egypt, and so we moved back to London, Canada. That was a tough decision for my father, who had far better career prospects in his home country than in the West – but, he did it anyways because it was the best thing for our family.
I spent more than a decade growing up in London. Once I earned my Bachelor’s (with honours and specialization in political science), it was time for another move – this time, to New York City for law school. I lived for three years in a pre-war walk-up in Sunset Park, Brooklyn – now my second time living in a neighbourhood where English was not the predominant language. I learned a lot about life, myself, and a little bit about law, too. Well before I graduated or made Dean’s List, I knew that I wanted to do something more broadly focused than practicing law. I started planning my career in business and I also came up with my first invention – a performance recognition system for e-reading which I successfully patented in the United States.
During the first few years out of law school, I was in healthcare leadership – specifically in Long-Term Care (LTC). I managed two LTC homes during this period, each with a couple of hundred employees and annual operating budgets around of $10-$12M. I had success in these roles, but I wasn’t fulfilling my purpose. I was mostly focused on preventing things from happening rather than making things happen. Much to the shock of those around me, I quit before I had turned 30 and started a construction company with a business partner that was focused on seniors’ living environments. We spent three years scaling it into a million-dollar business, at which point I sold my half to my partner and used the proceeds to establish my current company, Moharram Ventures.
WB: Please tell me about your company? What do you do? Where do you want to take your ideas?
TM: I often call Moharram Ventures a project management and business consulting company – but, really, we’re an idea factory. We take concepts and build them into reality. My role to this point has been to catalyze our projects based upon opportunities that I identify, build agile teams which are capable of turning my concepts into reality, and creating the partnerships necessary to ensure our work has the greatest possible impact. As time goes on, and the size and capacity of our Contributor teams expand, we will be working on more than just my ideas – there will be plenty of brilliant concepts which arise from other members of our team.
One of the projects we’re most proud of has resulted in the creation of Truly Green Plastic™. At first, it was a simple idea – why didn’t dog waste bags have the capacity to break down in landfill based on contact with their organic contents? I realized that the products which were on the market at the time were over-engineered – they could do much more than hold dog waste and, as a result, took much longer than needed to break down. Many of the so-called ‘biodegradable’ options required either industrial composting plants (which are sparsely available) or significant access to oxygen and sunlight in order to break down (circumstances which do not exist when buried under layer upon layer of other types of landfill waste). I built a team of experts and challenged them to make a polymer that would naturally break down based on contact with organic matter within less than a year and leave no harmful residual material behind. The other problem with traditional biodegradable plastics that we had to solve was one of cost – in addition to poor mechanical properties, past biodegradable polymers were far too expensive to create widespread consumer demand. In order to succeed, we had to also make our solution affordable.
Our team has discovered that cannabis plant biomass can produce biodegradable plastics with enhanced mechanical properties and developed the technology to accomplish this feat. Also, since this particular input material is often discarded as waste, using it to create Truly Green Plastic™ helps to drive down our production cost because waste removal becomes an additional revenue stream to subsidize our expenses. Shockingly, only about 10% of what is grown to support the adult use cannabis marketplace ends up on the shelves – the rest is biomass we can use! We’ve also realized that our sustainable polymers can be turned into many more things than just dog waste bags – other types of packaging materials (like envelope films and press & twist containers), drug delivery devices (like inhalers and transdermal patches), and hospitality products (like straws and food packaging) are just some of the options we are considering at this time. Our work has been funded by the Government of Canada through a partnership with Lambton College and we have begun attracting significant interest from the investment community.
WB: What is your six and twelve-month plan? What obstacles do you face? How do you anticipate removing them?
TM: An area where I need to do better is promoting awareness about our team’s breakthrough innovations. Truly Green Plastic™ is a game-changer and it’s my responsibility to ensure that the right people know we exist. Our team has been doing the first part of that famous Ted Turner adage quite well, my job is to handle the second part. In the next six months, we will have at least one partnership with a company who produces biomass and/or a party who contributes to the consumer packaged goods value chain. A year from now, there are two possible directions available to us – we will have either entirely sold our intellectual property or we will be constructing a processing facility and evaluating the process to go public.
Obstacles? The existing regulatory environment. However, this is becoming less of an issue and more of an opportunity each day. We’ve been having meaningful discussions with legislators and regulators in a handful of jurisdictions to more appropriately tailor the existing rules to promote opportunities for bio-circular economies of scale to occur. Nothing has been set in stone at this point, but we have faith in the partners with whom we have been working and I am confident that we can clear a sensible path forward.
WB: Moving to a culinary question, just because. What is your favorite food memory from growing up? Do you have a favorite recipe that you or someone else cooks for you? What is your favorite restaurant? Where?
TM: Growing up, my family certainly wasn’t the wealthiest in the neighbourhood. My parents worked incredibly hard to support the family and it’s only because of their sacrifices that I have accomplished what I have in life. Based on the facts that resources were sometimes scarce, and because they were (and are) quite skilled in the kitchen, I was the beneficiary of all sorts of simple, yet tasty dishes. A few come to mind – toasted tomato sandwiches, lentil soup, biscuits – but, I would probably say tortillas with cinnamon and brown sugar. Take a tortilla, heat it in a frying pan with a little butter, drop in some cinnamon and brown sugar, fold it up before taking it out of the pan, and voila! Simple, yet satisfying.
Cannabis Materials
Alejandra Valencia, Prisma Photography Studio
WB: What is your passion?
TM: Learning. There are so many things to know. So much information available, knowledge to be gained, experiences to embrace. I’m an avid reader and, through books, my perspective on life continues to expand. Without having curiosity – that desire to become more than you were yesterday by adding kernels wisdom – one simply cannot enhance one’s ability to take effective action in this world. My legacy will be made up of the things I create – the teams, companies, products, services, and concepts. As long as I can keep making things, I’m happy. | I built a team of experts and challenged them to make a polymer that would naturally break down based on contact with organic matter within less than a year and leave no harmful residual material behind. The other problem with traditional biodegradable plastics that we had to solve was one of cost – in addition to poor mechanical properties, past biodegradable polymers were far too expensive to create widespread consumer demand. In order to succeed, we had to also make our solution affordable.
Our team has discovered that cannabis plant biomass can produce biodegradable plastics with enhanced mechanical properties and developed the technology to accomplish this feat. Also, since this particular input material is often discarded as waste, using it to create Truly Green Plastic™ helps to drive down our production cost because waste removal becomes an additional revenue stream to subsidize our expenses. Shockingly, only about 10% of what is grown to support the adult use cannabis marketplace ends up on the shelves – the rest is biomass we can use! We’ve also realized that our sustainable polymers can be turned into many more things than just dog waste bags – other types of packaging materials (like envelope films and press & twist containers), drug delivery devices (like inhalers and transdermal patches), and hospitality products (like straws and food packaging) are just some of the options we are considering at this time. Our work has been funded by the Government of Canada through a partnership with Lambton College and we have begun attracting significant interest from the investment community.
WB: What is your six and twelve-month plan? What obstacles do you face? How do you anticipate removing them?
TM: An area where I need to do better is promoting awareness about our team’s breakthrough innovations. Truly Green Plastic™ is a game-changer and it’s my responsibility to ensure that the right people know we exist. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/berkeley-scientists-single-use-plastic-eats-itself/ | Scientists Create World's First Truly Biodegradable Single-use ... | Ivan Jayapurna preparing a sample film of a new biodegradable plastic. Adam Lau/UC Berkeley
Despite our efforts to sort and recycle, less than 9% of plastic gets recycled in the U.S., and most ends up in landfill or the environment.
Biodegradable plastic bags and containers could help, but if they’re not properly sorted, they can contaminate otherwise recyclable #1 and #2 plastics. What’s worse, most biodegradable plastics take months to break down, and when they finally do, they form microplastics, tiny bits of plastic that can end up in oceans and animals’ bodies, including our own.
Now, scientists at the the Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley have designed an enzyme-activated compostable plastic that could diminish microplastics pollution, and holds great promise for plastics upcycling.
The material can be broken down to its building blocks—small individual molecules called monomers—and then reformed into a new compostable plastic product.
“In the wild, enzymes are what nature uses to break things down—and even when we die, enzymes cause our bodies to decompose naturally. So for this study, we asked ourselves, ‘How can enzymes biodegrade plastic so it’s part of nature?” said senior author Ting Xu , who holds titles of faculty senior scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division, and professor of chemistry and materials science and engineering at UC Berkeley.
At Berkeley Lab, Xu is leading an interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers from universities and national labs around the country to tackle the mounting problem of plastic landfill posed by both single-use and so-called biodegradable plastics.
Most biodegradable plastics in use today are usually made of polylactic acid (PLA), a vegetable-based plastic material blended with cornstarch. There is also polycaprolactone (PCL), a biodegradable polyester that is widely used for biomedical applications such as tissue engineering.
But the problem with conventional biodegradable plastic is that they’re indistinguishable from single-use plastics such as plastic film, so a good chunk of these materials ends up in landfills. And even if a biodegradable plastic container gets deposited at an organic waste facility, it can’t break down as fast as the lunch salad it once contained, so it ends up contaminating organic waste, said co-author Corinne Scown at the Berkeley Lab’s Energy Technologies Area.
Another problem with biodegradable plastics is that they aren’t as strong as regular plastic. That’s why you can’t carry heavy items in a standard green compost bag. The tradeoff is that biodegradable plastics can break down over time, but still, Xu said, they only break down into microplastics, which are still plastic, just a lot smaller.
So Xu and her team decided to take a different approach—by “nanoconfining” enzymes into plastics.
Putting enzymes to work
The plastic breaks down after just 3 days (right) in standard compost and entirely after 2 weeks. UC Berkeley
In a series of experiments, reported in the journal Nature, Xu and co-authors embedded trace amounts of commercial enzymes Burkholderia cepacian lipase (BC-lipase) and proteinase K within the PLA and PCL plastic materials. The scientists also added an enzyme protectant called four-monomer random heteropolymer, or RHP, to help disperse the enzymes a few nanometers (billionths of a meter) apart.
In a stunning result, the scientists discovered that ordinary household tap water or standard soil composts converted the enzyme-embedded plastic material into its small-molecule building blocks called monomers, and eliminated microplastics in just a few days or weeks.
They also learned that BC-lipase is something of a finicky “eater.” Before a lipase can convert a polymer chain into monomers, it must first catch the end of a polymer chain. By controlling when the lipase finds the chain end, it is possible to ensure the materials don’t degrade until being triggered by hot water or compost soil, Xu explained.
In addition, they found that this strategy only works when BC-lipase is nanodispersed — in this case, just 0.02 percent by weight in the PCL block, rather than randomly tossed in and blended.
And that matters when factoring in costs. Industrial enzymes can cost around $10 per kilogram, but this new approach would only add a few cents to the production cost of a kilogram of resin because the amount of enzymes required is so low, and the material has a shelf life of more than 7 months, Scown added.
Looking to the future
Developing a very affordable and easily compostable plastic film could incentivize produce manufacturers to package fresh fruits and vegetables with compostable plastic instead of single-use plastic wrap. And as a result, save organic waste facilities the extra expense of investing in expensive plastic-depackaging machines when they want to accept food waste for anaerobic digestion or composting.
Since their approach could potentially work well with both hard, rigid plastics and soft, flexible plastics, Xu would like to broaden their study to polyolefins, a ubiquitous family of plastics commonly used to manufacture toys and electronic parts.
The team’s truly compostable plastic could be on the shelves soon. They recently filed a patent application through UC Berkeley’s patent office.
“When it comes to solving the plastics problem, it’s our environmental responsibility to take up nature on its path. By prescribing a molecular map with enzymes behind the wheel, our study is a good start,” Xu said. | Ivan Jayapurna preparing a sample film of a new biodegradable plastic. Adam Lau/UC Berkeley
Despite our efforts to sort and recycle, less than 9% of plastic gets recycled in the U.S., and most ends up in landfill or the environment.
Biodegradable plastic bags and containers could help, but if they’re not properly sorted, they can contaminate otherwise recyclable #1 and #2 plastics. What’s worse, most biodegradable plastics take months to break down, and when they finally do, they form microplastics, tiny bits of plastic that can end up in oceans and animals’ bodies, including our own.
Now, scientists at the the Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley have designed an enzyme-activated compostable plastic that could diminish microplastics pollution, and holds great promise for plastics upcycling.
The material can be broken down to its building blocks—small individual molecules called monomers—and then reformed into a new compostable plastic product.
“In the wild, enzymes are what nature uses to break things down—and even when we die, enzymes cause our bodies to decompose naturally. So for this study, we asked ourselves, ‘How can enzymes biodegrade plastic so it’s part of nature?” said senior author Ting Xu , who holds titles of faculty senior scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division, and professor of chemistry and materials science and engineering at UC Berkeley.
At Berkeley Lab, Xu is leading an interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers from universities and national labs around the country to tackle the mounting problem of plastic landfill posed by both single-use and so-called biodegradable plastics.
Most biodegradable plastics in use today are usually made of polylactic acid (PLA), a vegetable-based plastic material blended with cornstarch. There is also polycaprolactone (PCL), a biodegradable polyester that is widely used for biomedical applications such as tissue engineering.
| yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/news/new-process-makes-%E2%80%98biodegradable%E2%80%99-plastics-truly-compostable-0 | New process makes 'biodegradable' plastics truly compostable ... | The central mission of the College of Chemistry is to advance society through education and research, and we have made it our responsibility to fulfill this mission, year in and year out, for more than 140 years.
Our two departments provide fundamental and applied studies of an outstanding caliber. The remarkable breadth and depth of resources available to our students readies them as chemists and chemical engineers to address society’s most urgent 21st-century issues.
College faculty have been leaders at the frontiers of knowledge since 1872. Current pioneering research includes premier programs in catalysis, thermodynamics, chemical biology, atmospheric chemistry, the development of polymer, optical and semiconductor materials, and nanoscience, among others.
The College of Chemistry is consistently ranked as one of the best places on earth to learn, teach, and create new tools in the chemical sciences. This is no accident. It’s the direct result of exceptional scholarship as well as thousands and thousands of donations from our loyal alumni and friends.
New process makes ‘biodegradable’ plastics truly compostable
A modified plastic (left) breaks down after just three days in standard compost (right) and entirely after two weeks. (UC Berkeley photo by Ting Xu)
Biodegradable plastics have been advertised as one solution to the plastic pollution problem bedeviling the world, but today’s “compostable” plastic bags, utensils and cup lids don’t break down during typical composting and contaminate other recyclable plastics, creating headaches for recyclers. Most compostable plastics, made primarily of the polyester known as polylactic acid, or PLA, end up in landfills and last as long as forever plastics.
University of California, Berkeley, scientists have now invented a way to make these compostable plastics break down more easily, with just heat and water, within a few weeks, solving a problem that has flummoxed the plastics industry and environmentalists.
“People are now prepared to move into biodegradable polymers for single-use plastics, but if it turns out that it creates more problems than it’s worth, then the policy might revert back,” said Ting Xu, UC Berkeley professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry. “We are basically saying that we are on the right track. We can solve this continuing problem of single-use plastics not being biodegradable.”
Xu is the senior author of a paper describing the process that will appear in this week’s issue of the journal Nature.
The new technology should theoretically be applicable to other types of polyester plastics, perhaps allowing the creation of compostable plastic containers, which currently are made of polyethylene, a type of polyolefin that does not degrade. Xu thinks that polyolefin plastics are best turned into higher value products, not compost, and is working on ways to transform recycled polyolefin plastics for reuse.
The new process involves embedding polyester-eating enzymes in the plastic as it’s made. These enzymes are protected by a simple polymer wrapping that prevents the enzyme from untangling and becoming useless. When exposed to heat and water, the enzyme shrugs off its polymer shroud and starts chomping the plastic polymer into its building blocks — in the case of PLA, reducing it to lactic acid, which can feed the soil microbes in compost. The polymer wrapping also degrades.
The process eliminates microplastics, a byproduct of many chemical degradation processes and a pollutant in its own right. Up to 98% of the plastic made using Xu’s technique degrades into small molecules.
One of the study’s co-authors, former UC Berkeley doctoral student Aaron Hall, has spun off a company to further develop these biodegradable plastics.
Making plastic self-destruct
Plastics are designed not to break down during normal use, but that also means they don’t break down after they’re discarded. The most durable plastics have an almost crystal-like molecular structure, with polymer fibers aligned so tightly that water can’t penetrate them, let alone microbes that might chew up the polymers, which are organic molecules.
Enzymes such as lipase (green balls) can degrade plastic polymers from the surface (top left), but they cut up the polymer randomly, leaving microplastics behind (top right). A UC Berkeley group embedded enzyme nanoclusters throughout the plastic (lower left), protected by random heteropolymers (chains of colored balls). The embedded enzymes are immobilized near the end of the polymer chains and, under the right conditions of heat and moisture, degrade polymer molecules primarily from the chain end. This technique retains the plastic’s integrity during use but, when the user triggers depolymerization, the plastic goes all the way down to recyclable small-molecule by-products. (Graphic by Christopher DelRe)
Xu’s idea was to embed nanoscale polymer-eating enzymes directly in a plastic or other material in a way that sequesters and protects them until the right conditions unleash them. In 2018, she showed how this works in practice. She and her UC Berkeley team embedded in a fiber mat an enzyme that degrades toxic organophosphate chemicals, like those in insecticides and chemical warfare agents. When the mat was immersed in the chemical, the embedded enzyme broke down the organophosphate.
Her key innovation was a way to protect the enzyme from falling apart, which proteins typically do outside of their normal environment, such as a living cell. She designed molecules she called random heteropolymers, or RHPs, that wrap around the enzyme and gently hold it together without restricting its natural flexibility. The RHPs are composed of four types of monomer subunits, each with chemical properties designed to interact with chemical groups on the surface of the specific enzyme. They degrade under ultraviolet light and are present at a concentration of less than 1% of the weight of the plastic — low enough not to be a problem.
For the research reported in the Nature paper, Xu and her team used a similar technique, enshrouding the enzyme in RHPs and embedding billions of these nanoparticles throughout plastic resin beads that are the starting point for all plastic manufacturing. She compares this process to embedding pigments in plastic to color them. The researchers showed that the RHP-shrouded enzymes did not change the character of the plastic, which could be melted and extruded into fibers like normal polyester plastic at temperatures around 170 degrees Celsius, or 338 degrees Fahrenheit.
A film of PLA (polylactic acid) plastic immediately after being placed in compost (left) and after one week in the compost (right). Embedded with an enzyme, the PLA plastic can biodegrade to simple molecules, making it promising as a future alternative to a non-degradable plastic. (UC Berkeley photo by Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering)
To trigger degradation, it was necessary only to add water and a little heat. At room temperature, 80% of the modified PLA fibers degraded entirely within about one week. Degradation was faster at higher temperatures. Under industrial composting conditions, the modified PLA degraded within six days at 50 degrees Celsius (122 F). Another polyester plastic, PCL (polycaprolactone), degraded in two days under industrial composting conditions at 40 degrees Celsius (104 F). For PLA, she embedded an enzyme called proteinase K that chews PLA up into molecules of lactic acid; for PCL, she used lipase. Both are inexpensive and readily available enzymes.
“If you have the enzyme only on the surface of the plastic, it would just etch down very slowly,” Xu said. “You want it distributed nanoscopically everywhere so that, essentially, each of them just needs to eat away their polymer neighbors, and then the whole material disintegrates.”
Composting
The quick degradation works well with municipal composting, which typically takes 60 to 90 days to turn food and plant waste into usable compost. Industrial composting at high temperatures takes less time, but the modified polyesters also break down faster at these temperatures.
Graduate student Ivan Jayapurna with a sample film of PCL (polycaprolactone), a new, biodegradable polyester plastic. PCL with embedded enzymes has mechanical properties very similar to those of low-density polyethylene, making it a promising future alternative to non-biodegradable plastics. (UC Berkeley photo by Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering)
Xu suspects that higher temperatures make the enshrouded enzyme move around more, allowing it to more quickly find the end of a polymer chain and chew it up and then move on to the next chain. The RHP-wrapped enzymes also tend to bind near the ends of polymer chains, keeping the enzymes near their targets.
The modified polyesters do not degrade at lower temperatures or during brief periods of dampness, she said. A polyester shirt made with this process would withstand sweat and washing at moderate temperatures, for example. Soaking in water for three months at room temperature did not cause the plastic to degrade.
Soaking in lukewarm water does lead to degradation, as she and her team demonstrated.
“It turns out that composting is not enough — people want to compost in their home without getting their hands dirty, they want to compost in water,” she said. “So, that is what we tried to see. We used warm tap water. Just warm it up to the right temperature, then put it in, and we see in a few days it disappears.”
Xu is developing RHP-wrapped enzymes that can degrade other types of polyester plastic, but she also is modifying the RHPs so that the degradation can be programmed to stop at a specified point and not completely destroy the material. This might be useful if the plastic were to be remelted and turned into new plastic.
The project is in part supported by the Department of Defense’s Army Research Office, an element of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command’s Army Research Laboratory.
“These results provide a foundation for the rational design of polymeric materials that could degrade over relatively short timescales, which could provide significant advantages for Army logistics related to waste management,” said Stephanie McElhinny, Ph.D., program manager with the Army Research Office. “More broadly, these results provide insight into strategies for the incorporation of active biomolecules into solid-state materials, which could have implications for a variety of future Army capabilities, including sensing, decontamination and self-healing materials.”
A film of PLA (polylactic acid) plastic embedded with an enzyme to make it biodegrade quickly in regular compost. (UC Berkeley photo by Adam Lau/Berkeley Engineering)
Xu said that programmed degradation could be the key to recycling many objects. Imagine, she said, using biodegradable glue to assemble computer circuits or even entire phones or electronics, then, when you’re done with them, dissolving the glue so that the devices fall apart and all the pieces can be reused.
“It is good for millennials to think about this and start a conversation that will change the way we interface with Earth,” Xu said. “Look at all the wasted stuff we throw away: clothing, shoes, electronics like cellphones and computers. We are taking things from the earth at a faster rate than we can return them. Don’t go back to Earth to mine for these materials, but mine whatever you have, and then convert it to something else.”
Co-authors of the paper include Christopher DelRe, Yufeng Jiang, Philjun Kang, Junpyo Kwon, Aaron Hall, Ivan Jayapurna, Zhiyuan Ruan, Le Ma, Kyle Zolkin, Tim Li and Robert Ritchie of UC Berkeley; Corinne Scown of Berkeley Lab; and Thomas Russell of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. The work was funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC02-05-CH11231), with assistance from the Army Research Office and UC Berkeley’s Bakar Fellowship program. | (UC Berkeley photo by Ting Xu)
Biodegradable plastics have been advertised as one solution to the plastic pollution problem bedeviling the world, but today’s “compostable” plastic bags, utensils and cup lids don’t break down during typical composting and contaminate other recyclable plastics, creating headaches for recyclers. Most compostable plastics, made primarily of the polyester known as polylactic acid, or PLA, end up in landfills and last as long as forever plastics.
University of California, Berkeley, scientists have now invented a way to make these compostable plastics break down more easily, with just heat and water, within a few weeks, solving a problem that has flummoxed the plastics industry and environmentalists.
“People are now prepared to move into biodegradable polymers for single-use plastics, but if it turns out that it creates more problems than it’s worth, then the policy might revert back,” said Ting Xu, UC Berkeley professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry. “We are basically saying that we are on the right track. We can solve this continuing problem of single-use plastics not being biodegradable.”
Xu is the senior author of a paper describing the process that will appear in this week’s issue of the journal Nature.
The new technology should theoretically be applicable to other types of polyester plastics, perhaps allowing the creation of compostable plastic containers, which currently are made of polyethylene, a type of polyolefin that does not degrade. Xu thinks that polyolefin plastics are best turned into higher value products, not compost, and is working on ways to transform recycled polyolefin plastics for reuse.
The new process involves embedding polyester-eating enzymes in the plastic as it’s made. These enzymes are protected by a simple polymer wrapping that prevents the enzyme from untangling and becoming useless. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.ecowatch.com/biodegradable-plastic-solution-2652757387.html | Scientists Develop Truly Biodegradable Plastics - EcoWatch | Scientists Develop Truly Biodegradable Plastics
A research team has found a way to make biodegradable plastics actually disappear, unlike ones that only claim to break down. Agricultural Research Service / Wikimedia Commons / CC0
A research team at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California (UC), Berkeley has found a way to make biodegradable plastics actually disappear.
While biodegradable plastics have been touted as a solution to plastic pollution, in practice they don’t work as advertised.
But by studying nature, Xu and her team have developed a process that actually breaks down biodegradable plastics with just heat and water in a period of weeks. The results, published in Nature on Wednesday, could be game-changing for the plastic pollution problem.
“We want this to be in every grocery store,” Xu told Science News.
What’s the Problem?
Humans have tossed 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic since the 1950s and only recycled 600 million metric tons, leaving 4.9 billion metric tons sitting in landfills or otherwise polluting the environment, BBC Future reported. Plastic waste is a problem because it does not disintegrate, but only breaks apart into tinier pieces known as microplastics, which have infiltrated almost every part of the planet — and our bodies.
Biodegradable plastics were supposed to solve this problem, but face three main limitations, according to Berkeley News and Berkeley Lab.
They get missorted and contaminate recyclable plastics.
They end up in landfills, where the conditions are not suitable for plastic breakdown, so they last as long as forever plastics.
When they are composted, they don’t entirely degrade and still leave microplastics in the soil.
Xu told Science News that she had found supposedly biodegradable plastics in compost.
“It’s worse than if you don’t degrade them in the first place,” Xu said.
The Solution
To create plastics that do disappear, Xu and her team studied nature.
“In the wild, enzymes are what nature uses to break things down — and even when we die, enzymes cause our bodies to decompose naturally,” Xu told Berkeley Lab. “So for this study, we asked ourselves, ‘How can enzymes biodegrade plastic so it’s part of nature?”
The researchers focused on a polyester called polylactic acid, or PLA, which is used for most compostable plastics. Berkeley News explains how the process works:
The new process involves embedding polyester-eating enzymes in the plastic as it’s made. These enzymes are protected by a simple polymer wrapping that prevents the enzyme from untangling and becoming useless. When exposed to heat and water, the enzyme shrugs off its polymer shroud and starts chomping the plastic polymer into its building blocks — in the case of PLA, reducing it to lactic acid, which can feed the soil microbes in compost. The polymer wrapping also degrades.
The researchers found that as much as 98 percent of their modified plastics converted into small molecules, leaving no microplastics behind. At room temperature, the plastics degraded by 80 percent after about a week. In the high heat of industrial composting conditions, plastics degraded even faster. They also disappeared after a few days in warm tap water.
What’s Next?
Aaron Hall, another study coauthor and a former UC Berkeley doctoral student, has founded a company to commercially develop these plastics.
Xu also thinks the process could apply to different types of polyester plastic and various recycling problems, such as developing compostable glue for electronics.
“It is good for millennials to think about this and start a conversation that will change the way we interface with Earth,” Xu told Berkeley News. “Look at all the wasted stuff we throw away: clothing, shoes, electronics like cellphones and computers. We are taking things from the earth at a faster rate than we can return them. Don’t go back to Earth to mine for these materials, but mine whatever you have, and then convert it to something else.” | Scientists Develop Truly Biodegradable Plastics
A research team has found a way to make biodegradable plastics actually disappear, unlike ones that only claim to break down. Agricultural Research Service / Wikimedia Commons / CC0
A research team at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California (UC), Berkeley has found a way to make biodegradable plastics actually disappear.
While biodegradable plastics have been touted as a solution to plastic pollution, in practice they don’t work as advertised.
But by studying nature, Xu and her team have developed a process that actually breaks down biodegradable plastics with just heat and water in a period of weeks. The results, published in Nature on Wednesday, could be game-changing for the plastic pollution problem.
“We want this to be in every grocery store,” Xu told Science News.
What’s the Problem?
Humans have tossed 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic since the 1950s and only recycled 600 million metric tons, leaving 4.9 billion metric tons sitting in landfills or otherwise polluting the environment, BBC Future reported. Plastic waste is a problem because it does not disintegrate, but only breaks apart into tinier pieces known as microplastics, which have infiltrated almost every part of the planet — and our bodies.
Biodegradable plastics were supposed to solve this problem, but face three main limitations, according to Berkeley News and Berkeley Lab.
They get missorted and contaminate recyclable plastics.
They end up in landfills, where the conditions are not suitable for plastic breakdown, so they last as long as forever plastics.
When they are composted, they don’t entirely degrade and still leave microplastics in the soil.
Xu told Science News that she had found supposedly biodegradable plastics in compost.
“It’s worse than if you don’t degrade them in the first place,” Xu said.
The Solution
To create plastics that do disappear, Xu and her team studied nature. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/03/watch-biodegradable-bags-are-not-truly-biodegradable-new-study-says | Watch: Biodegradable bags are not truly biodegradable, new study ... | The study examined the degradation of five plastic bag materials widely available from high street retailers in the UK.
"Biodegradable plastic bags are still capable of carrying full loads of shopping after being exposed in the natural environment for three years," researchers from the University of Plymouth said in a new study.
ADVERTISEMENT
The study examined the degradation of five plastic bag materials widely available from high street retailers in the UK.
While all the materials had completely disintegrated after nine months in the open air, even biodegradable plastic bags were still functional after over three years in the soil or seas.
“For a biodegradable bag to be able to do that was the most surprising. When you see something labelled in that way, I think you automatically assume it will degrade more quickly than conventional bags,” said Research Fellow Imogen Napper, who led the study as part of her PhD.
Bags were tested at regular intervals to see whether they were degradingLloyd Russell, University of Plymouth
“This research raises a number of questions about what the public might expect when they see something labelled as biodegradable," said Professor Richard Thompson OBE, who was involved in the study.
About 100 billion plastic bags are issued every year, according to data published by the EU Commission in 2013, with often dramatic consequences for the marine environment.
"Plastic debris appears in every ocean of the world. Every year, we’re adding millions of tons more plastic to marine environments. Some researchers estimate that we may be adding up to 12 million tonnes annually," co-founder of Greenpeace International Rex Weyler wrote in a 2017 article.
"Researchers have found plastic in the stomachs of 44% of all seabird species, 22% of cetacean species, and in all sea turtle species," Weyler said.
In a bid to reduce marine litters, many governments across the world have recently introduced legislation to cut plastic use. In March 2019, the European Parliament approved a law banning a wide range of single-use plastic items by 2021.
But the new study suggests further regulations are needed to tackle the plastic crisis.
"I think we need clearer policy and international standards to define what we mean when we say something is biodegradable," Professor Thomson said. | The study examined the degradation of five plastic bag materials widely available from high street retailers in the UK.
"Biodegradable plastic bags are still capable of carrying full loads of shopping after being exposed in the natural environment for three years," researchers from the University of Plymouth said in a new study.
ADVERTISEMENT
The study examined the degradation of five plastic bag materials widely available from high street retailers in the UK.
While all the materials had completely disintegrated after nine months in the open air, even biodegradable plastic bags were still functional after over three years in the soil or seas.
“For a biodegradable bag to be able to do that was the most surprising. When you see something labelled in that way, I think you automatically assume it will degrade more quickly than conventional bags,” said Research Fellow Imogen Napper, who led the study as part of her PhD.
Bags were tested at regular intervals to see whether they were degradingLloyd Russell, University of Plymouth
“This research raises a number of questions about what the public might expect when they see something labelled as biodegradable," said Professor Richard Thompson OBE, who was involved in the study.
About 100 billion plastic bags are issued every year, according to data published by the EU Commission in 2013, with often dramatic consequences for the marine environment.
"Plastic debris appears in every ocean of the world. Every year, we’re adding millions of tons more plastic to marine environments. Some researchers estimate that we may be adding up to 12 million tonnes annually," co-founder of Greenpeace International Rex Weyler wrote in a 2017 article.
"Researchers have found plastic in the stomachs of 44% of all seabird species, 22% of cetacean species, and in all sea turtle species," Weyler said.
In a bid to reduce marine litters, many governments across the world have recently introduced legislation to cut plastic use. In March 2019, the European Parliament approved a law banning a wide range of single-use plastic items by 2021.
| no |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.wfs.aero/wfs-reduces-non-biodegradable-plastic-in-landfills-by-the-equivalent-of-68-million-bottles-in-one-year/ | WFS reduces non-biodegradable plastic in landfills by the ... | 27/10/21
WFS reduces non-biodegradable plastic in landfills by the equivalent of 68 million bottles in one year
Worldwide Flight Services (WFS) has reduced the amount of plastic languishing in a landfill by the equivalent of 68 million plastic water bottles in just 12 months after converting to using BioNatur Plastic™ biodegradable stretch wrap for cargo shipments as part of its sustainability programme.
Regular plastic can take 1,000 years to biodegrade in a landfill. BioNatur Plastic™ biodegradable plastics will biodegrade under landfill conditions in only 5 to 10 years (most recent testing shows LDPE stretch wrap 22.8% biodegraded in 387 days). In WFS’ case, in the past year, it has reduced the amount of standard non-biodegradable plastic going to landfill by 616,885kg.
“WFS was excited to partner with M&G Packaging and be the first major consumer of these biodegradable plastics,” said Stephanie Peacock, Worldwide Flight Services’ Director of Sourcing & Supply in North America. “With the state of the plastic recycling market over the last few years, we were desperately looking for a sustainable alternative to sending tons of plastic to a landfill. We are greatly encouraged by the results we have seen in just 12 months and to have found a truly biodegradable option that performs so well.”
WFS converted the majority of the plastic used in its North America cargo handling business over to the BioNatur Plastics™ line of sustainable products launched by M&G Packaging. BioNatur Plastic™ is a growing line of biodegradable plastic products manufactured with a 1% load of an organic, food-safe proprietary additive that allows anaerobic bacteria to digest the plastic in a landfill. Outside of a landfill the plastic has an indefinite shelf life and performs exactly like traditional plastic products.
Charles Rick, President of M&G Packaging, commented: “We’re proud to be supporting WFS’ sustainability goals and appreciate its leadership and commitment on this initiative to reduce the long-term environmental impact of plastic waste. M&G Packaging has always been a leader in developing sustainable products for the cargo industry and will continue to be a pioneer for such a worthy cause.” | 27/10/21
WFS reduces non-biodegradable plastic in landfills by the equivalent of 68 million bottles in one year
Worldwide Flight Services (WFS) has reduced the amount of plastic languishing in a landfill by the equivalent of 68 million plastic water bottles in just 12 months after converting to using BioNatur Plastic™ biodegradable stretch wrap for cargo shipments as part of its sustainability programme.
Regular plastic can take 1,000 years to biodegrade in a landfill. BioNatur Plastic™ biodegradable plastics will biodegrade under landfill conditions in only 5 to 10 years (most recent testing shows LDPE stretch wrap 22.8% biodegraded in 387 days). In WFS’ case, in the past year, it has reduced the amount of standard non-biodegradable plastic going to landfill by 616,885kg.
“WFS was excited to partner with M&G Packaging and be the first major consumer of these biodegradable plastics,” said Stephanie Peacock, Worldwide Flight Services’ Director of Sourcing & Supply in North America. “With the state of the plastic recycling market over the last few years, we were desperately looking for a sustainable alternative to sending tons of plastic to a landfill. We are greatly encouraged by the results we have seen in just 12 months and to have found a truly biodegradable option that performs so well.”
WFS converted the majority of the plastic used in its North America cargo handling business over to the BioNatur Plastics™ line of sustainable products launched by M&G Packaging. BioNatur Plastic™ is a growing line of biodegradable plastic products manufactured with a 1% load of an organic, food-safe proprietary additive that allows anaerobic bacteria to digest the plastic in a landfill. Outside of a landfill the plastic has an indefinite shelf life and performs exactly like traditional plastic products.
| yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/making-plastic-truly-biodegradable-348013 | Making Plastic Truly Biodegradable | Technology Networks | Complete the form below and we will email you a PDF version of
"Making Plastic Truly Biodegradable"
First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address*
Country*
Company Type*
Job Function*
Would you like to receive further email communication from Technology Networks?
Technology Networks Ltd. needs the contact information you provide to us to contact you about our products and services. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For information on how to unsubscribe, as well as our privacy practices and commitment to protecting your privacy, check out our Privacy Policy
Listen with
Speechify
0:00
Register for free to listen to this article
Thank you. Listen to this article using the player above. ✖
Want to listen to this article for FREE?
Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.
Technology Networks Ltd. needs the contact information you provide to us to contact you about our products and services. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For information on how to unsubscribe, as well as our privacy practices and commitment to protecting your privacy, check out our Privacy Policy
Read time:
Biodegradable plastics have been advertised as one solution to the plastic pollution problem bedeviling the world, but today's "compostable" plastic bags, utensils and cup lids don't break down during typical composting and contaminate other recyclable plastics, creating headaches for recyclers. Most compostable plastics, made primarily of the polyester known as polylactic acid, or PLA, end up in landfills and last as long as forever plastics.
University of California, Berkeley, scientists have now invented a way to make these compostable plastics break down more easily, with just heat and water, within a few weeks, solving a problem that has flummoxed the plastics industry and environmentalists.
"People are now prepared to move into biodegradable polymers for single-use plastics, but if it turns out that it creates more problems than it's worth, then the policy might revert back," said Ting Xu, UC Berkeley professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry. "We are basically saying that we are on the right track. We can solve this continuing problem of single-use plastics not being biodegradable."
Xu is the senior author of a paper describing the process that will appear in the April xx issue of the journal Nature.
The new technology should theoretically be applicable to other types of polyester plastics, perhaps allowing the creation of compostable plastic containers, which currently are made of polyethylene, a type of polyolefin that does not degrade. Xu thinks that polyolefin plastics are best turned into higher value products, not compost, and is working on ways to transform recycled polyolefin plastics for reuse.
The new process involves embedding polyester-eating enzymes in the plastic as it's made. These enzymes are protected by a simple polymer wrapping that prevents the enzyme from untangling and becoming useless. When exposed to heat and water, the enzyme shrugs off its polymer shroud and starts chomping the plastic polymer into its building blocks -- in the case of PLA, reducing it to lactic acid, which can feed the soil microbes in compost. The polymer wrapping also degrades.
The process eliminates microplastics, a byproduct of many chemical degradation processes and a pollutant in its own right. Up to 98% of the plastic made using Xu's technique degrades into small molecules.
One of the study's co-authors, former UC Berkeley doctoral student Aaron Hall, has spun off a company to further develop these biodegradable plastics.
Making plastic self-destruct
Plastics are designed not to break down during normal use, but that also means they don't break down after they're discarded. The most durable plastics have an almost crystal-like molecular structure, with polymer fibers aligned so tightly that water can't penetrate them, let alone microbes that might chew up the polymers, which are organic molecules.
Xu's idea was to embed nanoscale polymer-eating enzymes directly in a plastic or other material in a way that sequesters and protects them until the right conditions unleash them. In 2018, she showed how this works in practice. She and her UC Berkeley team embedded in a fiber mat an enzyme that degrades toxic organophosphate chemicals, like those in insecticides and chemical warfare agents. When the mat was immersed in the chemical, the embedded enzyme broke down the organophosphate.
Her key innovation was a way to protect the enzyme from falling apart, which proteins typically do outside of their normal environment, such as a living cell. She designed molecules she called random heteropolymers, or RHPs, that wrap around the enzyme and gently hold it together without restricting its natural flexibility. The RHPs are composed of four types of monomer subunits, each with chemical properties designed to interact with chemical groups on the surface of the specific enzyme. They degrade under ultraviolet light and are present at a concentration of less than 1% of the weight of the plastic -- low enough not to be a problem.
For the research reported in the Nature paper, Xu and her team used a similar technique, enshrouding the enzyme in RHPs and embedding billions of these nanoparticles throughout plastic resin beads that are the starting point for all plastic manufacturing. She compares this process to embedding pigments in plastic to color them. The researchers showed that the RHP-shrouded enzymes did not change the character of the plastic, which could be melted and extruded into fibers like normal polyester plastic at temperatures around 170 degrees Celsius, or 338 degrees Fahrenheit.
To trigger degradation, it was necessary only to add water and a little heat. At room temperature, 80% of the modified PLA fibers degraded entirely within about one week. Degradation was faster at higher temperatures. Under industrial composting conditions, the modified PLA degraded within six days at 50 degrees Celsius (122 F). Another polyester plastic, PCL (polycaprolactone), degraded in two days under industrial composting conditions at 40 degrees Celsius (104 F). For PLA, she embedded an enzyme called proteinase K that chews PLA up into molecules of lactic acid; for PCL, she used lipase. Both are inexpensive and readily available enzymes.
"If you have the enzyme only on the surface of the plastic, it would just etch down very slowly," Xu said. "You want it distributed nanoscopically everywhere so that, essentially, each of them just needs to eat away their polymer neighbors, and then the whole material disintegrates."
Composting
The quick degradation works well with municipal composting, which typically takes 60 to 90 days to turn food and plant waste into usable compost. Industrial composting at high temperatures takes less time, but the modified polyesters also break down faster at these temperatures.
Xu suspects that higher temperatures make the enshrouded enzyme move around more, allowing it to more quickly find the end of a polymer chain and chew it up and then move on to the next chain. The RHP-wrapped enzymes also tend to bind near the ends of polymer chains, keeping the enzymes near their targets.
The modified polyesters do not degrade at lower temperatures or during brief periods of dampness, she said. A polyester shirt made with this process would withstand sweat and washing at moderate temperatures, for example. Soaking in water for three months at room temperature did not cause the plastic to degrade.
Soaking in lukewarm water does lead to degradation, as she and her team demonstrated.
"It turns out that composting is not enough -- people want to compost in their home without getting their hands dirty, they want to compost in water," she said. "So, that is what we tried to see. We used warm tap water. Just warm it up to the right temperature, then put it in, and we see in a few days it disappears."
Xu is developing RHP-wrapped enzymes that can degrade other types of polyester plastic, but she also is modifying the RHPs so that the degradation can be programmed to stop at a specified point and not completely destroy the material. This might be useful if the plastic were to be remelted and turned into new plastic.
The project is in part supported by the Department of Defense's Army Research Office, an element of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command's Army Research Laboratory.
"These results provide a foundation for the rational design of polymeric materials that could degrade over relatively short timescales, which could provide significant advantages for Army logistics related to waste management," said Stephanie McElhinny, Ph.D., program manager with the Army Research Office. "More broadly, these results provide insight into strategies for the incorporation of active biomolecules into solid-state materials, which could have implications for a variety of future Army capabilities, including sensing, decontamination and self-healing materials."
Xu said that programmed degradation could be the key to recycling many objects. Imagine, she said, using biodegradable glue to assemble computer circuits or even entire phones or electronics, then, when you're done with them, dissolving the glue so that the devices fall apart and all the pieces can be reused.
"It is good for millennials to think about this and start a conversation that will change the way we interface with Earth," Xu said. "Look at all the wasted stuff we throw away: clothing, shoes, electronics like cellphones and computers. We are taking things from the earth at a faster rate than we can return them. Don't go back to Earth to mine for these materials, but mine whatever you have, and then convert it to something else." | Most compostable plastics, made primarily of the polyester known as polylactic acid, or PLA, end up in landfills and last as long as forever plastics.
University of California, Berkeley, scientists have now invented a way to make these compostable plastics break down more easily, with just heat and water, within a few weeks, solving a problem that has flummoxed the plastics industry and environmentalists.
"People are now prepared to move into biodegradable polymers for single-use plastics, but if it turns out that it creates more problems than it's worth, then the policy might revert back," said Ting Xu, UC Berkeley professor of materials science and engineering and of chemistry. "We are basically saying that we are on the right track. We can solve this continuing problem of single-use plastics not being biodegradable. "
Xu is the senior author of a paper describing the process that will appear in the April xx issue of the journal Nature.
The new technology should theoretically be applicable to other types of polyester plastics, perhaps allowing the creation of compostable plastic containers, which currently are made of polyethylene, a type of polyolefin that does not degrade. Xu thinks that polyolefin plastics are best turned into higher value products, not compost, and is working on ways to transform recycled polyolefin plastics for reuse.
The new process involves embedding polyester-eating enzymes in the plastic as it's made. These enzymes are protected by a simple polymer wrapping that prevents the enzyme from untangling and becoming useless. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://greentumble.com/what-is-biodegradable-plastic | What Is Biodegradable Plastic? | Greentumble | What Is Biodegradable Plastic?
Biodegradable plastics do not compost, that is, absorb back into the earth with no trace of toxic residue like your kitchen scraps in the compost pile. They simply degrade with the help of biological organisms. They degrade, that is, they break into smaller bits under the right conditions of air and sunlight.
Biodegradable plastics are manufactured so that under the right conditions, air and sunlight will break apart its polymer chains and it will begin to disintegrate from its manufactured form into smaller bits of plastic [1].
Why do we need biodegradable plastic?
Before biodegradables were discovered, plastics were made primarily from petroleum byproducts. In 2009, approximately 10% of the oil and gas the United States produced and imported was used to make synthetic plastics, and the market was expected to grow at a rate of up to 15% per year.
A positive effect of biodegradable plastic is ostensibly reducing the use of fossil fuels and the commensurate greenhouse effect.
Since the advent of biodegradable plastics, has the difference been measurable? How much oil and gas is still devoted today to the manufacture of plastic?
Because the petrochemical industry has a high degree of flexibility in the feedstock [raw materials] it consumes and because EIA does not collect detailed data on this aspect of industrial consumption, it is not possible for EIA to identify the actual amounts and origin of the materials used as inputs by industry to manufacture plastics.
—US Energy Information Administration
The petrochemical industry in the United States has no requirements for reporting what raw materials it uses. Go figure.
The petrochemical industry campaign contributions to Congressmen quadrupled in 2012 as a key player in the industry rallied support to defeat Barack Obama, perceived as “the most dangerous man in America” for his perceived sensibilities in environmental protection [2].
And have risen since then with the movements to defeat GMO labeling, defeat efforts to ban plastic bags, approve fracking operations, approve additional natural gas pipelines and on and on. The coalitions are busy, powerful… and their effects silently omnipresent in American society.
Politics aside, can using biodegradable plastic help the environment?
How does biodegradable plastic help the environment?
The definition of biodegradable plastics are plastics that can be broken down by microorganisms (bacteria or fungi) into water, carbon dioxide and some bio-material.
Accordingly, this definition embraces those biodegradable plastics made from oil in the same way as conventional plastics but that can be broken down by bacteria, the process releasing the toxins along the way.
It is unclear how much difference biodegradable plastic has made ecologically.
In 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency reported that only 5.7% of the nearly four and a half million tons of synthetic plastics discarded in the US was recovered and recycled[3]. The rest ended up in landfills, along roadsides, in lakes and the oceans. Biodegradable plastic is meant to mitigate this problem.
For example, BPA, is a basic building block of common polycarbonate plastics used in bottled water and food packaging. It breaks down under stress and can leach into the product to be consumed, i.e. the water or food. When it becomes trash, it can leach into groundwater. BPA has been recognized since the 1940s as an endocrine disrupting chemical that interferes with normal hormonal function.
President Trump’s Food and Drug Administration recently overrode its additional concerns of “potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children” [4] with a widely-criticized unsubstantiated blanket statement minimizing effects from exposure to BPA [5].
More acutely, marine and wildlife fatally ingesting plastic bits became a widespread phenomenon, diminishing the numbers of albatross and sea turtles at a staggering pace.
Plastic in the north Pacific Ocean outnumbers plankton 36:1 [6].
In the 1980s when it became apparent that our landfills and oceans were filling with plastic, intensive research began on how to break plastic down. During this period of experimenting with chemical additives and genetically modified microorganisms to accelerate the decomposition of petroleum-based plastics, it became apparent that a new plastic could also be made from raw renewable resources that could be broken down by bacteria [8].
Biodegradable plastics can be made from all-natural plant materials. These can include corn oil, orange peels, starch, and plants.
Plant-based biodegradable plastic decomposes naturally in the environment. Microorganisms in the environment metabolize and break down the structure of biodegradable plastic. When they decompose, they do not release toxic chemicals as distinguished from traditional plastic made with chemical fillers that can be harmful to the environment when released.
The more plastic that decomposes the less chance that it can harm marine and wildlife or clog waterways.
How are biodegradable plastics made?
The process of how is biodegradable plastic made differs depending upon the raw materials used.
An example is the bioplastic Mirel. Corn sugar is fed to engineered microbes inside fermentation tanks. The microbes convert the corn sugar into bioplastic polymers within the cells.
The solution can be made into resin pellets which can again be liquefied and poured into molds to make the end product [8].
Disadvantages of biodegradable plastics
Biodegradable plastics do not decompose if they are not properly disposed of. They need the correct conditions of moisture, temperature, and humidity that are similar to a composting environment.
Biodegradable plastics breaking down in an oxygen-free environment, such as in a landfill, can emit methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than CO2.
There is some concern that biodegradable plastics might contain certain metals that could be released into the environment when the plastics break down. However, research and evidence is not conclusive on this issue.
Biodegradable plastics do not solve the litter issue, which is the result of irresponsible behavior. The primary focus of the waste stream should be on waste reduction and recycling.
Not all biodegradable plastics are made from biomaterials. A few types of biodegradable plastics are still made from oil.
What are the problems with biodegradable plastics?
Biodegradable plastic needs air and sunlight to biodegrade. It does not biodegrade in the ocean.
Biodegradable plastics take three to six months to decompose fully in ideal conditions in just the right temperature and humidity present [9].
If the plastic is made from petrochemicals (with compounds added which help it biodegrade), then the problem of toxic residue remaining after the degradation is not solved.
There could well be the perception that using copious amounts of plastic no longer poses a problem.
Furthermore, if the biodegradable plastic ends up in the landfill, it will not have the necessary light and air to biodegrade.
Examples of uses of biodegradable plastic
Biodegradable plastic should be used where it is clearly beneficial. Three examples stand out.
One is using it in the agricultural industry for seed blankets or mulch in lieu of herbicides. Bioplastics could be safely tilled back into the soil and reduce the host of problems agricultural farming poses using fossil fuel and herbicides.
A second is food packaging where the food has spoiled and could then be disposed of along with its contents.
A third is for medical sutures which then do not need to be removed from the body.
If you do decide to purchase products that are made of biodegradable plastic, be sure that you are purchasing a truly biodegradable product, instead of those that just claim to be but aren’t. To ensure that the products are truly biodegradable, look for products with the Biodegradable Products Institute logo, which is earned through a third-party scientifically-based certification process.
At the end of their useful life, biodegradable products should go to a commercial composting facility where they will properly break down. However, not all communities offer such a facility, so be sure to research and find out if your community has one before you purchase such products.
Biodegradable plastic is only helpful as a product in specific situations like the three above. Used for plastic bags or packaging, it is only helpful when it is litter and then the adverse effects might be minimized if they degrade before choking an animal or clogging a sewer drain.
Was this article helpful?
We are working hard to improve our content. Let us know if you liked this article.
Share
About Greentumble
Greentumble was founded in the summer of 2015 by us, Sara and Ovi. We are a couple of environmentalists who seek inspiration for life in simple values based on our love for nature. Our goal is to inspire people to change their attitudes and behaviors toward a more sustainable life. Read more about us.
Greentumble.com
Menu
Disclaimer
Greentumble is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. | The primary focus of the waste stream should be on waste reduction and recycling.
Not all biodegradable plastics are made from biomaterials. A few types of biodegradable plastics are still made from oil.
What are the problems with biodegradable plastics?
Biodegradable plastic needs air and sunlight to biodegrade. It does not biodegrade in the ocean.
Biodegradable plastics take three to six months to decompose fully in ideal conditions in just the right temperature and humidity present [9].
If the plastic is made from petrochemicals (with compounds added which help it biodegrade), then the problem of toxic residue remaining after the degradation is not solved.
There could well be the perception that using copious amounts of plastic no longer poses a problem.
Furthermore, if the biodegradable plastic ends up in the landfill, it will not have the necessary light and air to biodegrade.
Examples of uses of biodegradable plastic
Biodegradable plastic should be used where it is clearly beneficial. Three examples stand out.
One is using it in the agricultural industry for seed blankets or mulch in lieu of herbicides. Bioplastics could be safely tilled back into the soil and reduce the host of problems agricultural farming poses using fossil fuel and herbicides.
A second is food packaging where the food has spoiled and could then be disposed of along with its contents.
A third is for medical sutures which then do not need to be removed from the body.
If you do decide to purchase products that are made of biodegradable plastic, be sure that you are purchasing a truly biodegradable product, instead of those that just claim to be but aren’t. To ensure that the products are truly biodegradable, look for products with the Biodegradable Products Institute logo, which is earned through a third-party scientifically-based certification process.
At the end of their useful life, biodegradable products should go to a commercial composting facility where they will properly break down. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | yes_statement | "plastic" can be "truly" "biodegradable".. it is possible for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/shocking-video-shows-shocking-results-210000841.html | Shocking video shows shocking results from a 3-year experiment on ... | A video posted by TikToker Waste-Ed (@getwasteed) with almost 700 comments showed that most plastic bags marketed as being biodegradable are really just a sack of lies.
In the video, a filthy, supposedly biodegradable, plastic grocery bag is shown holding a full load of groceries as the user states, “These ‘biodegradable’ bags spent three years in the ocean, but you can still carry groceries in them.”
They go on to explain that after discovering this, scientists decided to test other bags that were marketed as biodegradable. They placed them in different conditions for three years, and the user reports that when they dug them up, “Not one of the bags could completely vanish or completely degrade in all of the environments and particularly in the soil and marine environment.”
They end by telling viewers, “Remember that not everything labeled as ‘biodegradable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ is truly safe for nature.”
This video shows one example of what has become frighteningly common among many companies, big and small — greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined as “the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is,” and it’s a major problem.
Greenwashing — like saying a plastic bag is biodegradable when, in fact, no plastic is truly biodegradable — leads consumers to believe they are making an environmentally-safe choice when they really aren’t. It not only stops consumers from making changes and using products that actually do help the environment, but it also actively contributes to the destruction of the environment.
As the video points out, biodegradation was especially low in the marine environment, and about 26 billion pounds of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, where it breaks into microplastics that are incredibly harmful to ocean wildlife.
Commenters were understandably shocked and upset with one of them asking, “Shouldnt that be illegal? Like thats false advertising, no?” and another adding, “Greenwashing is real.”
“This is so sad,” one comment simply stated, while another was just an important reminder to “Reduce. Reuse. Repurpose. Recycle.”
If the video made you feel some kind of way, share it. Talking about our changing climate is one of the best things we can do to help. Well, that and grossing out our friends with dirty garbage bags.
Join our free newsletter for cool news and actionable info that makes it easy to help yourself while helping the planet. | A video posted by TikToker Waste-Ed (@getwasteed) with almost 700 comments showed that most plastic bags marketed as being biodegradable are really just a sack of lies.
In the video, a filthy, supposedly biodegradable, plastic grocery bag is shown holding a full load of groceries as the user states, “These ‘biodegradable’ bags spent three years in the ocean, but you can still carry groceries in them.”
They go on to explain that after discovering this, scientists decided to test other bags that were marketed as biodegradable. They placed them in different conditions for three years, and the user reports that when they dug them up, “Not one of the bags could completely vanish or completely degrade in all of the environments and particularly in the soil and marine environment.”
They end by telling viewers, “Remember that not everything labeled as ‘biodegradable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ is truly safe for nature.”
This video shows one example of what has become frighteningly common among many companies, big and small — greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined as “the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is,” and it’s a major problem.
Greenwashing — like saying a plastic bag is biodegradable when, in fact, no plastic is truly biodegradable — leads consumers to believe they are making an environmentally-safe choice when they really aren’t. It not only stops consumers from making changes and using products that actually do help the environment, but it also actively contributes to the destruction of the environment.
As the video points out, biodegradation was especially low in the marine environment, and about 26 billion pounds of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, where it breaks into microplastics that are incredibly harmful to ocean wildlife.
Commenters were understandably shocked and upset with one of them asking, “Shouldnt that be illegal? Like thats false advertising, no?” and another adding, “Greenwashing is real.”
| no |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | no_statement | "plastic" cannot be "truly" "biodegradable".. there is no way for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/which-is-better-for-the-environment-glass-or-plastic/ | Glass or plastic: Which is Better For The Environment? - Going Zero ... | Glass or plastic: Which is Better For The Environment?
September 13, 2019 | Kathryn Kellogg
Glass or plastic, which one is actually better for our environment? Well, we are going to explain glass vs plastic so you can make an informed decision on which one to use.
It’s no secret that there are lots of factories making new glass bottles, jars, and so much more every day. Plus, there are just as many factories making plastic too. We are going to break it down for you and answer your questions like can glass be recycled, is glass biodegradable, and is plastic a natural resource.
glass vs plastic
When you look up zero waste, you’re bound to notice tons and tons of pictures of glass jars everywhere. From the trash jar to the jars lining our pantries, glass is pretty popular in the zero waste community.
But what’s our obsession with glass? Is it really so much better for the environment than plastic? Is glass biodegradable or eco-friendly?
Plastic tends to get a really bad rep from environmentalists – that’s got a lot to do with the fact only 9 percent of it is recycled. That said, there’s so much more to think about in terms of what goes into manufacturing and recycling both glass and plastic, not to mention its afterlife.
Which is truly the eco-friendliest choice when you get down to it, glass or plastic? Well, perhaps the answer isn’t as clear cut as you may think.
Is glass or plastic more environmentally friendly?
glass:
Let’s start by analyzing every zero waster’s beloved material: Glass. First, it’s important to note that glass is endlessly recyclable, back to its original use.
It never loses its quality and purity, no matter how many times it’s recycled…. but is it actually being recycled?
the truth about glass
First up, making new glass requires sand. While we have tons of sand on beaches, deserts, and under the ocean, we’re using it faster than the planet can replenish it.
We use sand more than we use oil, and only a specific kind of sand can be used to get the job done (no, desert sand can’t be used). Here are some more concerning issues:
Mostly, sand is harvested from riverbeds and seabeds.
Taking sand out of the natural environment also disrupts the ecosystem, considering microorganisms live on it which feed the base of the food chain.
Removing sand from the seabed leaves shore communities open to flooding and erosion.
Since we need sand to create new glass, you can see where this would be an issue.
more problems with glass
Another problem with glass? Glass is heavier than plastic, and breaks much easier during transit.
This means it produces more emissions in transportation than plastic and costs more to transport.
can glass be recycled?
Yet another thing to consider is most glass isn’t actually recycled. In fact, only 33 percent of waste glass is recycled in America.
When you consider 10 million metric tons of glass is disposed of every year in America, that’s not a very high recycling rate. But why is recycling so low? Here are a few reasons:
There are many reasons glass recycling is so low: Glass put into the recycling bin is used as a cheap landfill cover to keep costs low.
Consumers participating in “wish-cycling” where they toss non-recyclables into the recycling bin and contaminate the entire bin.
Colored glass can only be recycled and melted down with like-colors.
Windows and Pyrex bakeware are not recyclable because of the way it’s manufactured to withstand high temperatures.
is glass biodegradable?
Last but not least, glass takes one million years to decompose in the environment, perhaps even more in a landfill.
In total, that’s about four major problems with glass that impact the environment.
Now, let’s analyze the lifecycle of glass bit closer.
how glass is made:
Glass is made from all-natural resources, such as sand, soda ash, limestone and recycled glass.
However, it is important to note that we’re running out of the sand that’s used to make glass in the first place.
Worldwide, we go through 50 billion tons of sand every year. That is twice the amount produced by every river in the world.
Once these raw materials are harvested, they’re transported to a batch house where they are inspected and then sent to the furnace for melting, where they’re heated to 2600 to 2800 degrees Fahrenheit.
Afterwards, they go through conditioning, forming, and the finishing process before becoming the final product.
Once the final product is created, it’s transported so it can be washed and sterilized, then transported again to stores for sale or use.
Once it comes to its end of life, it’s (hopefully) collected and recycled.
Unfortunately, each year only one-third of the roughly 10 million metric tons of glass that Americans throw away is recycled.
The rest goes to a landfill.
When glass is collected and recycled, it has to begin this process of being transported, going through batch preparation, and everything else that follows again.
emissions + energy:
As you can imagine, this entire process of making glass, especially using virgin materials, takes up a lot of time, energy, and resources.
Also, the amount of transporting the glass has to go through adds up, too, creating more emissions in the long run.
A lot of the furnaces used to create glass also run on fossil fuels, thus creating a lot of pollution.
The total fossil fuel energy consumed to make glass in North America, primary energy demand (PED), averaged to 16.6 megajoule (MJ) per 1 kilogram (kg) of container glass produced.
plastic:
The zero waste community has a habit of criminalizing plastic. But is it really as bad as they say?
Let’s take a look, shall we?
is plastic a natural resource?
First, most plastic (not counting the bio-plastics) are petroleum-based, thus making the materials non-renewable and unsustainable to harvest.
Drilling for oil has caused many problems, including disturbing land and marine ecosystems.
Also, dealing with oil tends to result in oil spills, which contaminate soil and water and may cause horrendous fires and explosions.
carbon footprint of plastic
The carbon footprint of plastic is pretty hard to ignore.
From the moment raw materials are made into plastic to their disposal, plastic emits carbon dioxide.
In fact, the emissions from plastic in 2015 were equivalent to nearly 1.8 billion metric tons of CO2.
It doesn’t help the factories used to create plastic also run on fossil fuels and produce emissions as well.
To be fair though, factories that produce glass also create emissions and run on fossil fuels for the most part.
can plastic be recycled?
Yes! This is another problem!? Only 9 percent of plastic is actually recycled.
Considering we’ve made 8.5 billion metric tons of it since large scale production began, that’s a very small recycle rate.
The glass recycling rate is 33 percent, which isn’t fantastic compared to other countries (there’s a 90 percent glass recycling rate in Switzerland, Germany and other European countries), but still higher than plastic.
When it is recycled, plastic can only be downcycled, meaning it becomes an item of lesser quality.
It will never be the same item again.
Eventually, this leads it to become a waste item that is no longer recyclable and destined to end up in a landfill, or the environment.
is plastic biodegradable?
Plastic takes 450+ years to decompose in the environment, and 1000 years in a landfill.
Compared to glass, which takes 1 million years to break down, these numbers may seem kind of low.
However, it’s important to remember that, unlike glass, plastic leeches toxic chemicals into the environment as time passes.
Plastic doesn’t truly break down either, but instead becomes microplastics that pollute our waterways and even contaminate our very soil and the air we breathe.
Altogether, that’s about six major problems with plastic that impact the environment.
Let’s look at plastic’s life cycle a little bit closer.
raw materials used in making plastic:
First, oil and natural gas are the major raw materials used to manufacture plastics.
Plastic production often begins by treating components of crude oil or natural gas in a “cracking process” where these components are converted into hydrocarbon monomers, such as ethylene and propylene.
Even more, processing leads to various other monomers, such as styrene, ethylene glycol, terephthalic acid, vinyl chloride, and several others.
These monomers are then chemically bonded into chains called polymers.
The different combinations of monomers yield various different kinds of plastics, all with a wide range of characteristics and properties.
There are seven major plastics that are used widely such as Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS) and other plastics (ex: nylon).
plastic emissions + energy:
All these different plastics serve different functions, though some are easier to recycle than others.
As you can imagine, creating all those plastics takes a lot of energy and resources.
In fact, in 2007, researchers Peter Gleick and Heather Cooley estimated that satisfying the existing bottle water demand alone required the energy equivalent of between 32 and 54 million barrels of oil.
And that’s just bottled water! This means producing plastic bottles each year releases more greenhouse gas emissions than over a million cars on the road.
From production to the end of life, plastics have a surprisingly carbon-intense life cycle.
When they’re transformed into products and transported to market, they emit greenhouse gases either directly or via the energy required to accomplish them.
Even after you dispose of plastic, be it through dumping, incinerating, recycling and composting (for certain bio-plastics), all release carbon dioxide.
I try to opt for packaging that contains mostly recycled content because are we really recycling if we don’t buy products made from recycled content?
And, you should definitely reuse your glass bottles and jars!
In closing, refer to this post as often as you need to! We have answered many questions like “can glass be recycled, is glass biodegradable, and is plastic a natural resource?” but feel free to let us know if you have other questions.
Guest Post: Ariana Palmieri is the founder of Greenify-Me.com, a blog dedicated to zero waste living and sustainability. Her work has been featured on MindBodyGreen, Green Matters, The Penny Hoarder and several other publications. Get her free e-book “10 Ways to Reduce Trash” by signing up to her newsletter and learn how to reduce your waste today.
Without looking at the numbers, I think you can be sure that the transportation footprint of glass is much higher. When we order packaging for our food (we produce fermented foods), the glass is brought by a truck, and the box is big and heavy. When we order plastic bags, the postman brings the box, which is much smaller, and much less heavy. 50 packaging units of plastic fit into a package the size of a book, 50 glass jars with the same capacity volume are much, much bigger and heavier.
I’m a hairdresser and I’m now encouraging my clients to bring their shampoo bottles back to me for refills instead of buying new ones each time. The bottles are all bio plastics aswell and the products are all vegan ?. Maybe this is something that more hair salons could offer ?
I’m very impressed with your research, and that you went into this in such depth.
"Recycling is not the answer" certainly holds true. Unfortunately, even for those of us trying to help the planet, sometimes we don’t have a lot of options for buying package-free, or for recycling all items. What we CAN do, however, is to do what we CAN do, and to keep educating our friends, neighbors, family, and community; to keep asking for better options of stores, companies, and cities. I have no bulk or plastic free options for many items (like grains). But have started making my first stop the local farmers market, I avoid the packaging I can avoid (onions loose, for example), and I, like you, choose glass over plastic. Hopefully as more of us do this we are sending a message to companies about what we want and conditions will improve. I’m taking the trouble now to collect the "plastic film" that we have not been able to avoid and take it to a recycling drop off, and I am trying to spend one morning a week making things from scratch to avoid more packaging and, well, …prepared food is usually not of the quality of what we can make from scratch (think crackers, cookies, bread, sauces).
I had a couple of thoughts reading your numbers that perhaps you can answer. When you say only 9% of household plastic gets recycled and 33% of glass, do we know the causes of this? First, how big is the area researched… is it just the U.S.? Second, how much is because of lack of local recycling programs and how much of it is because of households not being compliant? Third, some plastics are not commonly recyclable, as are some types of glass. To give two examples, in our community, even though the type of plastic is recyclable, our community won’t accept clear plastic berry containers, because the facility claims they "explode" in the melting process. (hm… they can’t shred it?) And as for glass… a glass artist friend of mine explained that window glass, drinking glass, and bottle glass can’t be mixed because of different melting points. When you say 33% of household glass is not recycled… is any portion of the total, again glass which is not accepted in recycling programs?
The reason I’m curious about this, is it tells us where we need to get working! I see my neighbors’ recycling bins out every week and on occasion I have had the cheek to talk to a neighbor when I notice they are not recycling (um, true… it sounds awful, i know, but we wound up friends! It’s all how you bring it up.) If instead it is lack of recycling programs (or adequate ones) in many communities, or perhaps in institutions (schools, businesses, restaurants), then we need a different approach. I also hear that many times, particularly for plastic, there are not enough buyers for the raw, recycled material to make a recycling program profitable. What should our next steps be? Perhaps this could be another article. I really value your opinion.
I have used this website numerous times to educate others on the benefits of going zero waste, but wanted to point out that your section on the creation of glass might be incorrect… According to https://www.quora.com/Can-glass-be-made-from-desert-sand and other sites, I think that maybe you can… Can you please elaborate and maybe update this article? Thank you and keep up the great work, sincerely an 8th grader.
Great article. I work for Ripple Glass a Kansas City, Missouri based glass recycling company. We accept all kinds of glass. I believe your information is based on all the glass being recycled ending it’s life at a bottle manufacturer. The glass cullet we produce 95% goes into fiberglass insulation manufacture. This type of cullet allows for use of different types of glass to be mixed.
Good article in a very complex area. You have compared glass and plastic but you are not clear which is better. Which is better for the environment – a 1 litre water bottle made from glass or made from plastic allowing for different weights, recyclability etc.?
numbers, and everything in between. It’s widespread in Southeast Asia and a better resource than Yelp. It has listings for Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines. The app puts the power of the website at your fingertips. App Name: OpenRice OpenRice is the Yelp of Asia. It shows a city’s most popular restaurants, ratings, menus, booking
Thanks for this deep dive! It’s really helpful. I have been concerned for awhile that glass has become almost trendy without considering that it’s only eco-friendly if it can be used over and over again, which largely isn’t happening! | Germany and other European countries), but still higher than plastic.
When it is recycled, plastic can only be downcycled, meaning it becomes an item of lesser quality.
It will never be the same item again.
Eventually, this leads it to become a waste item that is no longer recyclable and destined to end up in a landfill, or the environment.
is plastic biodegradable?
Plastic takes 450+ years to decompose in the environment, and 1000 years in a landfill.
Compared to glass, which takes 1 million years to break down, these numbers may seem kind of low.
However, it’s important to remember that, unlike glass, plastic leeches toxic chemicals into the environment as time passes.
Plastic doesn’t truly break down either, but instead becomes microplastics that pollute our waterways and even contaminate our very soil and the air we breathe.
Altogether, that’s about six major problems with plastic that impact the environment.
Let’s look at plastic’s life cycle a little bit closer.
raw materials used in making plastic:
First, oil and natural gas are the major raw materials used to manufacture plastics.
Plastic production often begins by treating components of crude oil or natural gas in a “cracking process” where these components are converted into hydrocarbon monomers, such as ethylene and propylene.
Even more, processing leads to various other monomers, such as styrene, ethylene glycol, terephthalic acid, vinyl chloride, and several others.
These monomers are then chemically bonded into chains called polymers.
The different combinations of monomers yield various different kinds of plastics, all with a wide range of characteristics and properties.
| no |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | no_statement | "plastic" cannot be "truly" "biodegradable".. there is no way for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://stanfordmag.org/contents/biodegradable-products | Biodegradable Products | STANFORD magazine | Biodegradable Products
The Essential Answer
The short answer is: It depends on the environment in which the biodegradable material is placed and what that material actually is. The term “biodegradable” means that a product can be broken down by naturally occurring microorganisms and turned into compounds found in nature. This is not the same as “compostable.” If something is compostable, in addition to being biodegradable, it has to break down at a rate comparable to yard trimmings or food scraps in a compost pile. And it must do so without leaving any toxic residues.
Now, there are many products labeled as biodegradable, from detergents to packaging materials to bags. I chose to focus on plastics, however, because in the past few years I have noticed how more and more disposable plates and cutlery made of plastic are labeled as "biodegradable" or "compostable." Are those products truly environmentally friendly, or is the label simply a marketing strategy?
Let’s start by looking into the degradation processes of regular versus biodegradable plastics. Regular plastic like PET (used, for example, for soda bottles) never biodegrades. It can degrade, meaning that when exposed to sunlight, moisture and oxygen, it will eventually turn into tiny pieces and even individual molecules. However, these are not naturally occurring molecules and are oftentimes toxic.
For a plastic to be called biodegradable (in the United States, standards are set by the American Society for Testing and Materials) 60 percent of it must be broken down within 180 days in a commercial composting facility. Do you see the catch? How many people who buy biodegradable plastic tableware for a party have access to a commercial composting facility? Currently there are about 200 such facilities across the United States, and the transportation of biodegradable plastics to those facilities is financially and logistically challenging.
So, can you compost them at home? No. The vast majority of them do not degrade in household compost piles, where the temperatures are too low. Put them in regular trash? In landfills, those plastics will not degrade either, because landfills lack the water and oxygen that the microorganisms involved in the breakdown process need. How about recycling? Not a good idea either. Biodegradable plastics are made of materials that are not compatible with regular plastics in the recycling process, and will only lower the quality of the product made of the recycled material.
No tableware is without impact—so much energy goes into producing ceramics, for example, that you would have to reuse a plate 50 times, and a coffee mug 18 times, to break even on their environmental impact compared with their biodegradable versions. Still, reusables are clearly preferable for long-term use. Paper coffee cups that have plastic linings cannot be recycled, and at Stanford 30,000 of them end up in the trash every day. Stanford dining halls use reusable tableware. But what if you want your lunch to go, or you are at an event where reusable tableware isn’t practical? At Stanford, whether cafés use tableware made of compostable or regular plastic is up to them. Compostable tableware costs more than that made of regular plastic but some cafés offer it by request. And of course, you can easily bring your own reusable cutlery and cups—at least—with you to most places where you’ll eat.
How biodegradable materials are made matters, too. The source materials are not always renewable. And even renewable source materials such as corn and potato starch must be made using land, water, energy and crops that otherwise could have been food. Is there a better way? According to Professor Craig Criddle and his research group in Stanford’s Environmental Engineering & Science Program, the answer is definitely yes.
The Nitty Gritty
As I was getting more and more pessimistic about the environmental benefits of so-called biodegradable plastics, I came across Professor Craig Criddle's research on bacteria that can produce biodegradable plastic from waste. Professor Criddle is a faculty member at the department of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University; one of his projects focuses on bacteria that can utilize methane produced by landfills and wastewater treatment plants to make PHB (polyhydroxybutyrate). PHB is a biodegradable plastic with properties similar to polypropylene. Its durability and biodegradability make it suitable for use in medical implants. The bacteria produce it as a way to store energy the way humans use glycogen or fat. The bacteria need carbon sources such as corn or sugarcane to produce PHB. Using methane instead could be a neat solution to two big problems.
Methane is such a potent greenhouse gas that, as Professor Criddle puts it, "You can't let methane escape any more. Anywhere. Nowhere. We must eliminate methane emissions.” That makes methane-based PHB doubly beneficial, he says—as both a source of truly renewable, biodegradable plastic and an incentive to capture methane that would otherwise escape into our atmosphere. “If it pays enough to recover methane,” Criddle says, “people will recover it and then it won't be released."
Most of the infrastructure to make PHB from methane is already set up. Methane is already being captured at landfills and wastewater treatment plants, and burned either to prevent it going into the atmosphere or to produce heat and/or electricity. (Burning does release CO2 into the atmosphere, but CO2 is a less potent greenhouse gas than methane.) Instead, methane could simply be fed into the "reactor" containing the PHB-producing bacteria. To produce PHB from methane, energy and heat are also needed. How convenient that part of the methane could be burned to make electricity and heat! According to Professor Criddle, it would be sufficient to drive the process if 25 percent of the captured methane were burned for energy and heat production. The remaining 75 percent could be used as source material for the bacteria.
The infrastructure to degrade PHB already exists, too. PHB can be completely degraded and converted back to methane by anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that live in environments without oxygen), and there are anaerobic digesters designed to let these bacteria do their job. However, currently there is not enough PHB on the market to make a significant recycling stream. Therefore, the digesters are under capacity and PHB ends up in landfills, releasing methane into the atmosphere unless it is captured. If PHB were degraded in a digester, the recovered methane, together with "fresh" methane from landfills and wastewater treatment plants, could be used to feed the PHB-producing bacteria, closing the loop.
If this new technology could be commercialized, not only would it reduce the amount of methane released into the atmosphere, but also carbon would be sequestered in the PHB loop. Two former students of Professor Criddle have taken on this task and founded a start-up called Mango Materials. It was incorporated in 2010 and produces small, research-grade samples for customers interested in using methane-based PHB. According to Allison Pieja, director of technology, the team is looking into partnerships with methane-producing sites, such as agricultural facilities and landfills, and hopes to build the first commercial plant within two years. I wish them all the best, so we can reduce methane release and plastic waste as soon as possible! | Regular plastic like PET (used, for example, for soda bottles) never biodegrades. It can degrade, meaning that when exposed to sunlight, moisture and oxygen, it will eventually turn into tiny pieces and even individual molecules. However, these are not naturally occurring molecules and are oftentimes toxic.
For a plastic to be called biodegradable (in the United States, standards are set by the American Society for Testing and Materials) 60 percent of it must be broken down within 180 days in a commercial composting facility. Do you see the catch? How many people who buy biodegradable plastic tableware for a party have access to a commercial composting facility? Currently there are about 200 such facilities across the United States, and the transportation of biodegradable plastics to those facilities is financially and logistically challenging.
So, can you compost them at home? No. The vast majority of them do not degrade in household compost piles, where the temperatures are too low. Put them in regular trash? In landfills, those plastics will not degrade either, because landfills lack the water and oxygen that the microorganisms involved in the breakdown process need. How about recycling? Not a good idea either. Biodegradable plastics are made of materials that are not compatible with regular plastics in the recycling process, and will only lower the quality of the product made of the recycled material.
No tableware is without impact—so much energy goes into producing ceramics, for example, that you would have to reuse a plate 50 times, and a coffee mug 18 times, to break even on their environmental impact compared with their biodegradable versions. Still, reusables are clearly preferable for long-term use. Paper coffee cups that have plastic linings cannot be recycled, and at Stanford 30,000 of them end up in the trash every day. Stanford dining halls use reusable tableware. But what if you want your lunch to go, or you are at an event where reusable tableware isn’t practical? | no |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | no_statement | "plastic" cannot be "truly" "biodegradable".. there is no way for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.plasticplace.com/blogs/blog/5-surprising-secrets-of-biodegradable-plastic-bags | 5 Surprising Secrets of Biodegradable Plastic Bags | Subscribe to Newsletter
8 Surprising Secrets of Biodegradable Plastic Bags
The Truth About Biodegradable Trash Bags … and the Compostable Alternative
Plastic has changed our world. It has touched almost every facet of our lives from the way we drink, live, eat, care for our sick, package items, carry our belongings, etc. A great deal of it has brought powerful, important changes. However, today we are better educated about the negative impact it can have on the environment. We also recognize improperly discarded plastic is one of the most urgent problems facing the environment today. Plastics accounted for 12 percent of the 292 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in the U.S. in 2018, totaling some 35.7 million tons. However, the volume of plastic waste recycled in the U.S. that year was 3.1 million tons, giving a recycling rate of just 8.7 percent.
Being so aware of this conflict is what drives our commitment to finding greener ways of dealing with trash, especially when it comes to the production and disposal of plastic bags. It has also driven innovation: biodegradable plastic bags have been inspired by the need for environmental change. But like all new technologies, a great deal of information has been misunderstood. There are still some “secrets” surrounding the world of biodegradable trash bags.
Secret #1: The term “biodegradable” (and sister terms) is often misunderstood.
To best define what “biodegradable” means in the trash bag world, comparisons can help to better understand what it is and what it is not.
“Regular” trash bags are made from a synthetic material created from petrochemicals. Without boring you with the science that fascinates us — basically, the long polymer chains in traditional plastics like polyethylene are so resilient and resistant to breakdown that they can last for hundreds of years. These are the dirty holdouts of the plastic world — the ones that will be around for generations.
Biodegradable plastic is also made from petrochemicals BUT is manufactured differently so that it can begin to break down more quickly in the presence of air and sunshine. You might see this plastic labeled as photodegradable or oxo-degradable.
Bioplastic is a biobased plastic that comes from renewable biomass, meaning plants. It is made from organic, renewable sources, such as vegetable oils, corn starch and grains. It is even made sometimes from algae and seaweed!
Secret #2: Biodegradables are the “Wild West” of trash bags.
One of the first problems with “biodegradable plastic” was that, in the early days, there was no consensus on what qualified as biodegradable and therefore it has evolved in a way that is not regulated.
Dubious claims abounded as companies rushed to get on the green bandwagon and made all kinds of promises to consumers that were simply not true.
Eventually, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stepped in with a strict set of guidelines defining exactly what could and could not be labeled as biodegradable. For a full explanation, you can take a look at the “Truth in Advertising” section of the FTC Green Guides here, but in short, when the term “biodegradable” is used for marketing purposes, it includes a time component regarding the length of time it takes for the plastic to fully degrade. According to the EPA, an item truly qualifies as “biodegradable” if the items completely decompose within one year after customary disposal. Items that are customarily disposed of in landfills, incinerators and recycling facilities are deceptive because these locations do not present conditions in which complete decomposition will occur within one year.
Even today, while the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) sets definitions and standards (which we’ll discuss in a minute), and the Federal Trade Commission is responsible for enforcement against false or deceptive product labeling, there is little solid standard and burden of proof for biodegradability since so much is on the consumer to dispose properly.
That is because so much of a bag being biodegradable depends on…
Secret #3: Location, location, location.
One of THE MOST important aspects of using biodegradable products is where and how it is disposed. Beyond how a bag is manufactured or what it is composed of, the location of its final destination will also define the effectiveness of the product.
Most biodegradable garbage bags end up in landfills but the conditions in a landfill are extremely hostile to the biodegrading process. Nothing is meant to decompose there: air, moisture and sunlight, the three factors most necessary to decomposition, are purposely kept out of landfills to cut down on greenhouse gasemissions.Instead, a biodegradable trash bag must be disposed of in a place where it can receive the proper amount of oxygen and airflow. Many customers are unaware that landfills, incinerators and recycling facilities DO NOT offer this. Therefore, to complete its “destiny” as a biodegradable bag, it must be disposed of properly — typically in an industrial-grade composting facility.
Simply put, you cannot send biodegradable bags to a landfill and expect it to have any positive environmental impact. They will overstay their welcome on this planet like regular plastic.
Secret #4: The dream job of all biodegradables is “bio-assimilation.”
The ideal function of a biodegradable garbage bag or any bag striving to be a good environmental citizen is bio-assimilation. If a bag "bio-assimilates,” it means that the plastic has degraded to a molecular weight that can be consumed by living organisms. Imagine…trash as food. Only when there is no trash of the bag left behind have we received the final nirvana. This final and conclusive stage of plastic biodegradation leaves behind no microplastics, in both marine and terrestrial environments.
Secret #5: You may be saying “biodegradable” when in reality you want compostable.
We like to say that a compostable bag is a “lazy environmentalist’s” dream — it does all the work with far less human confusion.
Because of its unique chemical properties, compostable trash bags will do just that: turn to compost more easily. In other words, you can’t just throw a biodegradable trash bag on your compost pile and think it will decompose. It can’t — the temperature won’t get hot enough. But compostable trash bags will turn into compost sometimes, right in your own backyard. (Please note: If your compostable bag can be used at home, the label will indicate that the product is okay for home composting.) To learn more about composting at home and how to do it right, visit EPA Guide to Composting.
Otherwise, generally, compostable waste bags are intended to be sent to an industrial or commercial composting facility that contains higher temperatures and different breakdown conditions than those found in a typical homeowner’s compost bin. Again, don’t expect a compostable trash bag to break down in your backyard composter unless it specifically says it’s suitable for home composting use.A great first step is to check if your community has a residential compost collection program. They will be able to help you better understand whether compostable garbage bags will be accepted under this program.Shop Our Collection of Compostable Trash Bags Here
Secret #6: Look for compliance with the ASTM D6400 standard to help you determine when garbage bags are actually compostable.
The ASTM D6400 standard is the best indicator to use if you’re hunting for compostable trash bags. This standard defines what plastics should be called “compostable” according to how much of a given plastic bag decomposes within a set amount of time, given the right conditions like heat and moisture.
One easy way to find out if a product is compliant with this standard is to look for plastic products with theBPI Certified Compostable logo. The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) is an independent environmental group that works with bioplastics businesses to test and certify their products as biodegradable or compostable. If your trash canliners are BPI Certified Compostable, as Plasticplace’s compostable trash bags are, you can be confident that they’ve been put through rigorous third-party testing to confirm their ASTM D6400 compliance.
Note that a BPI/ASTM certification only tells you whether a product will undergo degradation in industrial and municipal composters. Many BPI-certified products still aren’t intended for backyard composting, so once again, don’t put a compostable trash bag into the backyard compost with your food scraps. If you’re really curious about the trashy details, you can read up on theBPI’s labeling guidelines.
All that aside, compostable trash bags are the number one choice for anyone seeking an eco-friendly trash bag option. They can take a big bite out of your home or business’s plastic footprint, and they’re especially important for California residents taking part in the state’s mandatory composting program. Naturally, this is why all of Plasticplace’s compostable garbage bags are BPI certified for ASTM D6400 compliance!
Secret #7: Compostable trash bags need to be filled with compost.
Remember that non-compostable trash should never go into a compostable trash bag. If you send your local compost facility a compostable trash bag filled with non-compostable plastic waste, like plastic grocery bags, that waste has no path to its proper spot in the landfill. It will end up as a contaminant at your compost facility. Instead, fill your compostable garbage bags with traditional compost materials like food waste and yard waste (plus any other certified compostable materials you might need to throw away). Check your local composting center’s regulations to verify what kind of materials they do and don’t accept.
Secret #8: Biodegradable concepts perpetuate single-use plastic use.
The concept that we are buying a “biodegradable” bag or “environmentally friendly” bag allows us to use one-time plastics more “guilt-free.” This mentality can lead to an increase in plastic use. Once it's understood that a biodegradable bag will still have a significant environmental impact, especially when improperly disposed of, it is easier to accept the importance of minimizing one-time plastic use and recycling.
Secondly, recycling bags can make it easier to recycle your plastics. For an extra measure of eco-friendliness, you can also choose recycled plastic trash bags. These bags are manufactured by existing plastic so you are recycling as you are recycling!
Let’s Stay Connected!
Who cares about trash bags? You may not, but we do - and that’s the way it should be. With 17 years of history and a consistent five-star customer rating, we continue to offer an iron-clad, 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Who cares about trash bags? You may not, but we do - and that’s the way it should be. With 17 years of history and a consistent five-star customer rating, we continue to offer an iron-clad, 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Plasticplace.com Accessibility Statement
Plasticplace.com Accessibility Statement
Plasticplace.com and the individuals we employ care deeply about the accessibility and usability of our website for all visitors. We strive to offer a seamless and inclusive experience for all customers. If you are experiencing difficulty accessing any feature of our site, please do not hesitate to contact us or our customer service team via phone at (877) 343-2247 or via chat on our website. A representative will assist you in your preferred communication method with the information or service to meet your needs to the extent of our resources and as required by applicable laws.
Our Intention & Ongoing Dedication
Our goal is for our site to comply with all Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and use the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) specifications. We are dedicated to all users on our website having a seamless experience regardless of the device or technology utilized. We are continually seeking out solutions that will bring all areas of the site up to the same level of overall web accessibility as this is an ongoing improvement process. We welcome feedback or suggestions regarding the accessibility of our site. Please don’t hesitate to contact us using the methods listed above. | It has also driven innovation: biodegradable plastic bags have been inspired by the need for environmental change. But like all new technologies, a great deal of information has been misunderstood. There are still some “secrets” surrounding the world of biodegradable trash bags.
Secret #1: The term “biodegradable” (and sister terms) is often misunderstood.
To best define what “biodegradable” means in the trash bag world, comparisons can help to better understand what it is and what it is not.
“Regular” trash bags are made from a synthetic material created from petrochemicals. Without boring you with the science that fascinates us — basically, the long polymer chains in traditional plastics like polyethylene are so resilient and resistant to breakdown that they can last for hundreds of years. These are the dirty holdouts of the plastic world — the ones that will be around for generations.
Biodegradable plastic is also made from petrochemicals BUT is manufactured differently so that it can begin to break down more quickly in the presence of air and sunshine. You might see this plastic labeled as photodegradable or oxo-degradable.
Bioplastic is a biobased plastic that comes from renewable biomass, meaning plants. It is made from organic, renewable sources, such as vegetable oils, corn starch and grains. It is even made sometimes from algae and seaweed!
Secret #2: Biodegradables are the “Wild West” of trash bags.
One of the first problems with “biodegradable plastic” was that, in the early days, there was no consensus on what qualified as biodegradable and therefore it has evolved in a way that is not regulated.
Dubious claims abounded as companies rushed to get on the green bandwagon and made all kinds of promises to consumers that were simply not true.
Eventually, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stepped in with a strict set of guidelines defining exactly what could and could not be labeled as biodegradable. | yes |
Sustainability | Can plastic be truly biodegradable? | no_statement | "plastic" cannot be "truly" "biodegradable".. there is no way for "plastic" to be "truly" "biodegradable". | https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/plastic-bags-biodegradable-plastic/ | Viral video uncovers truth about biodegradable plastic bags | In the video, a filthy, supposedly biodegradable, plastic grocery bag is shown holding a full load of groceries as the user states, “These ‘biodegradable’ bags spent three years in the ocean, but you can still carry groceries in them.”
They go on to explain that after discovering this, scientists decided to test other bags that were marketed as biodegradable. They placed them in different conditions for three years, and the user reports that when they dug them up, “Not one of the bags could completely vanish or completely degrade in all of the environments and particularly in the soil and marine environment.”
They end by telling viewers, “Remember that not everything labeled as ‘biodegradable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ is truly safe for nature.”
This video shows one example of what has become frighteningly common among many companies, big and small — greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined as “the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is,” and it’s a major problem.
Greenwashing — like saying a plastic bag is biodegradable when, in fact, no plastic is truly biodegradable — leads consumers to believe they are making an environmentally-safe choice when they really aren’t. It not only stops consumers from making changes and using products that actually do help the environment, but it also actively contributes to the destruction of the environment.
As the video points out, biodegradation was especially low in the marine environment, and about 26 billion pounds of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, where it breaks into microplastics that are incredibly harmful to ocean wildlife.
Commenters were understandably shocked and upset with one of them asking, “Shouldnt that be illegal? Like thats false advertising, no?” and another adding, “Greenwashing is real.”
“This is so sad,” one comment simply stated, while another was just an important reminder to “Reduce. Reuse. Repurpose. Recycle.”
If the video made you feel some kind of way, share it. Talking about our changing climate is one of the best things we can do to help.Well, that and grossing out our friends with dirty garbage bags.
Join our free newsletter for cool news and actionable info that makes it easy to help yourself while helping the planet. | In the video, a filthy, supposedly biodegradable, plastic grocery bag is shown holding a full load of groceries as the user states, “These ‘biodegradable’ bags spent three years in the ocean, but you can still carry groceries in them.”
They go on to explain that after discovering this, scientists decided to test other bags that were marketed as biodegradable. They placed them in different conditions for three years, and the user reports that when they dug them up, “Not one of the bags could completely vanish or completely degrade in all of the environments and particularly in the soil and marine environment.”
They end by telling viewers, “Remember that not everything labeled as ‘biodegradable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ is truly safe for nature.”
This video shows one example of what has become frighteningly common among many companies, big and small — greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined as “the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is,” and it’s a major problem.
Greenwashing — like saying a plastic bag is biodegradable when, in fact, no plastic is truly biodegradable — leads consumers to believe they are making an environmentally-safe choice when they really aren’t. It not only stops consumers from making changes and using products that actually do help the environment, but it also actively contributes to the destruction of the environment.
As the video points out, biodegradation was especially low in the marine environment, and about 26 billion pounds of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, where it breaks into microplastics that are incredibly harmful to ocean wildlife.
Commenters were understandably shocked and upset with one of them asking, “Shouldnt that be illegal? Like thats false advertising, no?” and another adding, “Greenwashing is real.”
“This is so sad,” one comment simply stated, while another was just an important reminder to “Reduce. Reuse. Repurpose. Recycle.”
If the video made you feel some kind of way, share it. | no |
Dermatology | Can psoriasis be cured with UV light therapy? | yes_statement | "uv" "light" "therapy" can "cure" "psoriasis".. "psoriasis" can be "cured" with "uv" "light" "therapy". | https://www.nwactc.com/blog.html | My Blog - Rogers , AR Dermatologist | Psoriasis is an autoimmune disorder that results in skin plaques, which are sore, itchy patches of dry, red, and thickened skin. Although you can get these plaques anywhere on your body, they typically develop on the face, elbows, scalp, knees, feet, back, and palms. Like other kinds of auto-inflammatory conditions, psoriasis occurs when the immune system starts attacking healthy cells instead of infectious cells. If you find yourself struggling with this problem, reach out to Northwest Arkansas Clinical Trials Center in Rogers, AR. Dr. Cheryl Hull is available to help.
Psoriasis Can’t Be Cured, But It Can Be Managed
According to the National Psoriasis Foundation, psoriasis isn’t curable, and there’s currently no one-size-fits-all solution for it. The good news, however, is that there are ways to keep your symptoms under control. With help from your dermatologist, Dr. Cheryl Hull, here at Northwest AR Clinical Trials Center in Rogers, AR, you can find the right combination of psoriasis treatments to manage your condition.
Your Psoriasis Treatment Options
Essentially, the main goal of any psoriasis treatment plan is to decrease inflammation that leads to the formation of plaques and prevent the faster-than-normal growth of skin cells. Depending on your particular symptoms and the severity of your condition, your treatment plan may include a combination of the following:
Medications
OTC and Prescription Topical Drugs: These must be directly applied to your skin to reduce psoriasis symptoms. They contain various active ingredients and are available in different preparations such as ointments, creams, lotions, sprays, gels, and shampoos.
Biologics: These drugs can help modify your immune system’s response to psoriasis triggers and are typically injected.
Apremilast: This pill functions by quelling a specific enzyme responsible for triggering inflammation.
Methotrexate: This aids in controlling inflammation.
Cyclosporine: This is an immunosuppressant that should only be taken for a short time.
Light Therapy
Phototherapy or light therapy entails exposing the skin to artificial or natural UV light to help minimize psoriasis symptoms. Done consistently, the ultraviolet or UV light will help slow down skin cell growth or turnover. Because of this action, it also helps decrease inflammation signals directly related to psoriasis flares. Your dermatologist in Rogers, AR, may recommend this treatment along with suitable medicines.
Psoriasis is a hereditary skin condition that is associated with periodic flare-ups in which the skin develops either red patches or white flaky scales. While there is no cure for psoriasis, several treatments are available for managing the symptoms. Some patients even experience completely clear skin as a result of treatment. Here at Northwest Arkansas Clinical Trials Center in Rogers, AR, our experienced dermatologist, Dr. Cheryl Hull, can discuss treatment options with you.
Psoriasis Types and Symptoms
Psoriasis is a genetic condition in which the immune system prompts the body to grow new skin cells too quickly before shedding old ones. This overproduction results in the skin cells piling up on the surface of the skin, leading to the development of patches and scales.
Psoriasis can affect both children and adults. For most patients with psoriasis, the condition tends to flare-up for the first time between 15 and 35 years old. Since the condition is chronic, symptoms will continue to recur throughout life following the first flare-up. There are five distinct types of psoriasis, but plaque psoriasis is the most common. The five types of psoriasis include:
Erythrodermic
Guttate
Inverse
Plaque
Pustular
Several symptoms can be experienced during a flare-up of psoriasis. Common symptoms of psoriasis include:
Itchiness
Red patches
White, flaky scales
Nails develop pits, crumble, or fall off
Patches forming on the elbows, knees, scalp, and lower back
Psoriasis Treatments
Psoriasis cannot be cured, but the symptoms associated with a flare-up can be significantly reduced through treatment. We offer several options for treating psoriasis at our center in Rogers, AR. The specific method that is best for you could depend on several factors, such as the severity and type of psoriasis. Examples of psoriasis treatments include:
Oral medications
Topical medications
Phototherapy (also called light therapy)
Biologics to suppress the immune system
Psoriasis can cause physical discomfort, as well as contribute to feeling self-conscious about your skin. The good news is there are many effective treatments that can help. Contact our office in Rogers to learn more about psoriasis treatment options. To speak with Dr. Hull or another member of our dermatology staff about managing your psoriasis, call Northwest Arkansas Clinical Trials Center at (479) 876-8205.
Our clinical research programs could help you find a more effective acne solution.
Acne is one of the most common skin problems that is treated by our Rogers, AR, dermatologist, Dr. Cheryl Hull. Although often associated with teenagers, pervasive acne also has the ability to impact children and adults, as well. Fortunately, no matter your age or the type of acne that you’re dealing with, we have the ability to help—read on to learn how.
How do I know that I have acne?
While this may seem like a silly question, it really isn’t. After all, there are other dermatological conditions that can also produce red bumps such as rosacea and psoriasis. Therefore, if this is the first time dealing with severe acne and you’ve never been properly diagnosed before, then now is the time to turn to our Rogers, AR, skin doctor to find out if acne is truly what you’re dealing with.
What are the different kinds of acne?
Acne comes in many different forms, from whiteheads and blackheads to deep, painful nodules; however, acne is also placed into two categories, inflammatory and non-inflammatory. Non-inflammatory acne includes the standard whiteheads and blackheads that most people deal with at some point during their lifetime, while inflammatory acne consists of severe, deep cysts that are typically quite painful and don’t respond well to standard over-the-counter acne treatments.
What if I have inflammatory acne?
No matter what kind of acne you’re dealing with, our dermatological team understands that treating the problem isn’t always simple. What treatment might work well for one patient may not work well for someone else. A lot has to do with the cause of your acne.
For example, teenage girls who experience breakouts around their menstrual cycles may experience clearer skin with the help of birth control pills, while other patients who are dealing with severe cystic acne may only find relief through stronger medications such as isotretinoin (known on the market as Accutane).
How can Northwest AR Clinical Trials Center help?
Along with running Hull Dermatology, Dr. Hull is also the medical director of our clinical trials center in Rogers, AR. Here, our team is focused on addressing some of the biggest skin problems today, including severe acne and psoriasis. These clinical trials can provide you with emerging medications and therapies that could finally help you achieve clearer skin. If you want to learn if you are eligible to participate in our acne study, then fill out our clinical trials interest form to get started.
Call us
Northwest AR Clinical Trials Center in Rogers, AR, offers acne and psoriasis clinical research studies to test out investigational topical medications to manage these common skin conditions. To learn more about these clinical research studies on acne and psoriasis, or to find out if you’re a good participant, call our office today at (479) 876-8205.
Are you suffering from a red rash that won't go away? They can also be a chronic condition known as rosacea. Fortunately, your dermatologist can help—Dr. Cheryl A. Hull of Northwest Arkansas Clinical Trials Center in Rogers, AR, can help with rosacea and other skin conditions.
These are just a few frequently asked questions and answers about rosacea:
What is rosacea?
Rosacea is a bright red rash that covers your face. It can cover your nose, cheeks, and forehead and can resemble acne, with small blemishes.
What are the symptoms of rosacea?
In addition to a red rash, your skin might feel painful and hot. The center of your face might be chronically red, with swollen bumps that can contain pus. The skin on your nose might look enlarged and thickened. Your eyes might be irritated and dry.
What are some of the factors that increase risk of developing rosacea?
You are at a higher risk of rosacea if you are a woman, have fair skin, and are over 30 years old. Having a family history of rosacea and smoking also increases your risk of rosacea.
What can bring on a rosacea rash?
There are several things that can trigger a breakout of rosacea. Eating spicy, hot foods, drinking hot beverages, and drinking alcohol can aggravate rosacea. The environment, including extremes in temperature, excessive sunlight, or wind can also bring on rosacea. If you exercise, increased activity can also cause a rosacea breakout.
Psoriasis is a skin condition that affects around 8 million Americans according to the National Psoriasis Foundation. It doesn’t have a cure, but it can be managed and treated with the help of your dermatologist. If you believe that you might have psoriasis, there are a number of symptoms to look out for that you should discuss with your skin doctor. Thankfully, there are also therapies you can try when you visit us here at Northwest AR Clinical Trials Center, PLLC in Rogers, AR.
About Psoriasis
Psoriasis is an ailment of the skin that is caused by the skin cells regenerating in an overly rapid fashion. Consequently, the cells grow above the normal surface of the skin and become red, scaly, and itchy. This is a skin problem that is classified as chronic, meaning that it comes and goes. There’s no clear reason why, but it could be related to stress, diet (such as a lack of Vitamin D), medications, drug/alcohol abuse, or infections. It may also be related to an immune system deficiency or disorder. Given the vast pool of possible causes, it’s important to consult your Rogers, AR, dermatologist about your lifestyle and habits to get an idea of what could be triggering your psoriasis symptoms.
Psoriasis Symptoms
You probably look at your skin regularly throughout the day, which is why it’s easy to notice the development of a psoriasis rash. These are some of the symptoms to look for:
- Redness of the skin.
- Thick scales and patches.
- Dryness, itchiness, and a burning or sore sensation.
- Joint stiffening.
- The nails may thicken and become discolored in the case of nail psoriasis.
Psoriasis Treatments
Getting treatment at the onset of psoriasis symptoms is best. The options your skin doctor will discuss include:
Get Help with Psoriasis
The sooner you seek help from your dermatologist with symptoms of psoriasis, the better you can manage this common skin condition in the present and future. Call (479) 876-8205 today to schedule an appointment with Dr. Cheryl Hull at Northwest Arkansas Clinical Trials Center, PLLC in Rogers, AR.
This website includes materials that are protected by copyright, or other proprietary rights. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use, as defined in the copyright laws, requires the written permission of the copyright owners. | Your Psoriasis Treatment Options
Essentially, the main goal of any psoriasis treatment plan is to decrease inflammation that leads to the formation of plaques and prevent the faster-than-normal growth of skin cells. Depending on your particular symptoms and the severity of your condition, your treatment plan may include a combination of the following:
Medications
OTC and Prescription Topical Drugs: These must be directly applied to your skin to reduce psoriasis symptoms. They contain various active ingredients and are available in different preparations such as ointments, creams, lotions, sprays, gels, and shampoos.
Biologics: These drugs can help modify your immune system’s response to psoriasis triggers and are typically injected.
Apremilast: This pill functions by quelling a specific enzyme responsible for triggering inflammation.
Methotrexate: This aids in controlling inflammation.
Cyclosporine: This is an immunosuppressant that should only be taken for a short time.
Light Therapy
Phototherapy or light therapy entails exposing the skin to artificial or natural UV light to help minimize psoriasis symptoms. Done consistently, the ultraviolet or UV light will help slow down skin cell growth or turnover. Because of this action, it also helps decrease inflammation signals directly related to psoriasis flares. Your dermatologist in Rogers, AR, may recommend this treatment along with suitable medicines.
Psoriasis is a hereditary skin condition that is associated with periodic flare-ups in which the skin develops either red patches or white flaky scales. While there is no cure for psoriasis, several treatments are available for managing the symptoms. Some patients even experience completely clear skin as a result of treatment. Here at Northwest Arkansas Clinical Trials Center in Rogers, AR, our experienced dermatologist, Dr. Cheryl Hull, can discuss treatment options with you.
| no |
Dermatology | Can psoriasis be cured with UV light therapy? | yes_statement | "uv" "light" "therapy" can "cure" "psoriasis".. "psoriasis" can be "cured" with "uv" "light" "therapy". | https://myvision.org/eye-conditions/psoriasis-around-eyes/ | Psoriasis Around the Eyes: What to Do and How to Treat | MyVision ... | Psoriasis Around the Eyes: What to Do and How to Treat
About 10 percent of people who have psoriasis experience it on the eyelids or around the eyes.
The inflammatory skin condition, which produces thick, scaly patches of dryness, does not have a cure. People manage it with prescription medication, topical creams and ointments and a host of natural remedies.
Psoriasis around the eyes must be treated with extra care because of the potential for vision loss.
What Is Psoriasis?
Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition that causes overproduction of the body’s skin cells, leading to thick, scaly patches all over the body including around the eyes.
About 50 percent of people who have psoriasis experience it on the face, with 10 percent experiencing it around the eyes. When it shows up around the eyes, it can make them feel swollen or irritated, and it requires special attention because it can also affect your vision.
Tissues around your eyes are delicate and easily scarred. Treatments for psoriasis around the eyes need to be carefully monitored to avoid aggravating the skin and worsening the condition.
Symptoms of Psoriasis Around the Eyes
Symptoms of psoriasis around the eyes are like most of the symptoms of psoriasis around other parts of the body. However, psoriasis around the eyes might have a bigger impact on your daily life because of its location.
In some cases, the buildup of skin cells may lead to patches so large that you have trouble closing and opening your eyes.
Other symptoms include:
Red, scaly growths around the eyes
Dry, cracked skin that might bleed
Eyelid inflammation that may cause eyelashes to rub against the eye (trichiasis)
Pain when moving the eyelids
Trouble opening and closing your eyelids
Eye dryness because scales pull the eyelid outward
Scales that cover the eyelashes
An itchy or burning feeling around the eyes
Causes of Psoriasis Around the Eyes
There is no definitive cause of psoriasis. However, a disorder of the immune system and genetics are contributing factors even if there may be no family history of the disease.
Certain triggers can cause symptoms to appear, flare-up, or even become more severe. Among the triggers are:
Stress
Illness, specifically immune disorders such as HIV and throat infections such as strep throat
Skin injuries such as sunburns, bug bites, and some vaccinations
Weather such as less light and decreased humidity leading to dryer heated air indoors
Medications such as beta-blockers used to control heart rate or high blood pressure and lithium used to treat bipolar disorder
Treatment Options for Psoriasis Around the Eyes
Any malady that affects sensitive areas around the eyes should be managed carefully. Take care not to rub or scratch your eyes as this could worsen your symptoms or lead to infection.
Although it cannot be cured, psoriasis can be managed, including when it appears around your eyes. The aim is to ease any symptoms you have and help slow the growth of skin cells and reduce inflammation. Treatments are broken into medical treatments and home remedies
Home Remedies and Alternative Treatments for Psoriasis Around the Eyes
The two best treatments for eye-related psoriasis are to use warm compresses on your eyes and eyelid wipes.
Warm compress. Put a warm clean damp washcloth over your eyes for a minute or so to help loosen the flakes stuck on your eyelashes.
Eyelid wipes. Soak a cotton swab in baby shampoo diluted in warm water every day and use it to gently wipe the base of your eyelashes for about 15 seconds. This will soothe the skin, remove the scales, and help keep the area clean and prevent infection.
Psoriasis is a multi-system condition and affects more than the area where symptoms appear. A person with psoriasis might benefit from treating the whole body. A review from 2018 concluded that the following alternative medications or complementary therapies may help people with psoriasis.
Curcumin, present in turmeric
Indigo Naturalis
Meditation
Acupuncture
Fish oil
Medical Treatments for Psoriasis Around the Eyes
Topical treatments: Several types of ointments and creams can effectively treat mild cases of psoriasis. However, not all of them can be used on the delicate skin around the eyes. An overuse of topical treatment around the eyes can also increase your risk of cataracts and glaucoma. Your doctor should guide you on which topical treatment you can use safely. Some of the safe treatments that may be recommended include:
Tacrolimus (Protopic)
Pimecrolimus (Elidel)
Some steroid ointments
Systemic medications: Your doctor may also prescribe injectable or oral medications if other treatments do not work for your psoriasis. Typically, these medications have side effects and should not be used on a long-term basis. most doctors only use them for initial treatment or for a recurring case of psoriasis. These medications include:
Oral steroids
Methotrexate
Oral retinoids such as acitretin
Phototherapy (light therapy): Natural and artificial ultraviolet B light (UVB) can help ease the symptoms of psoriasis around the eyes. However, it is important to note that overexposure to UV or UVB light can worsen the symptoms of psoriasis. Overexposure can also increase your risk of skin damage and skin cancer. As such, make sure you consult with your doctor before beginning phototherapy.
Biologic therapy: This is a novel treatment approach that targets specific components of the immune system. This treatment appears to help reduce the number of flares and the severity of symptoms associated with psoriasis. When deciding whether to prescribe a biologic drug and which, your doctor will consider the type of Psoriasis you have and the severity of your symptoms. The current guidelines recommend that a biologic drug should be prescribed for moderate-to-severe symptoms of psoriasis.
Eye Complications Associated with Psoriasis
If you have psoriasis around the eyes, it is a good idea to see a dermatologist and an ophthalmologist regularly. Your eye specialist will check for complications that can happen more often with psoriasis including:
Uveitis: Swelling in the front, middle, or back of the eye resulting in inflammation, dryness, and discomfort.
Dry eye: A common complaint affecting 1 in 5 people with psoriasis.
Conjunctivitis: Also called pink eye, this is an inflammation of the moist tissue covering the white of the eye. Up to two-thirds of people with psoriasis also have this condition.
Blepharitis: Swelling or redness of the eyelids.
Your doctor may prescribe topical creams, oral steroids or light therapy to help with psoriasis. However, these treatments can have adverse effects.
A review from 2017 found that using steroids around the eyes can result in cataracts, glaucoma, and even vision loss. It is not clear if this is due to treatments or if psoriasis itself makes you more susceptible to these conditions. It is therefore important to follow your doctor’s instructions and recommendations when using these treatments.
Outlook for People with Psoriasis Around the Eyes
Although psoriasis can be a challenging condition to live with, especially if it affects the eyelids, there are treatments available that can ease your symptoms and treat the condition. Work with your doctor to find a treatment plan that eases your symptoms and be sure to follow your treatment plan closely.
Your doctor may need to adjust your treatments from time to time depending on your response. It is also important to note that, although makeup can reduce the appearance of scales and redness, be sure to choose makeup for sensitive skin.
Makeup might also interfere with the topical treatments you might be using and further irritate the eyelid.
Talk to your doctor or dermatologist about the best ways to use makeup. Lastly, make sure you practice exceptional hygiene. Although this will not prevent psoriasis, it will help avoid infections that are common while taking certain psoriasis medications.
FAQs
How do I get rid of psoriasis around my eyes?
If you suspect that you have psoriasis around your eyes, talk to your eye doctor and dermatologist immediately. Although there are home remedies that you can use to ease symptoms, the skin around the eyes is very delicate and needs to be handled with care. Therefore, we recommend not starting any medication or treatment before you talk to your doctor. They will diagnose the condition and recommend appropriate treatments to follow.
What can I use for psoriasis on my eyelids?
There are several treatment options for psoriasis on eyelids including; topical treatments, systemic medications, light therapy, home remedies, and biologic therapy. However, always talk to your doctor before you start any medication or treatment.
What causes psoriasis of the eyes?
There is no definitive cause of psoriasis. However, a disorder of the immune system and genetics are contributing factors even if there may be no family history of the disease. Additionally, certain triggers can cause symptoms to appear, flare-up, or even become more severe including stress, lifestyle choices, illness and medications. | These medications include:
Oral steroids
Methotrexate
Oral retinoids such as acitretin
Phototherapy (light therapy): Natural and artificial ultraviolet B light (UVB) can help ease the symptoms of psoriasis around the eyes. However, it is important to note that overexposure to UV or UVB light can worsen the symptoms of psoriasis. Overexposure can also increase your risk of skin damage and skin cancer. As such, make sure you consult with your doctor before beginning phototherapy.
Biologic therapy: This is a novel treatment approach that targets specific components of the immune system. This treatment appears to help reduce the number of flares and the severity of symptoms associated with psoriasis. When deciding whether to prescribe a biologic drug and which, your doctor will consider the type of Psoriasis you have and the severity of your symptoms. The current guidelines recommend that a biologic drug should be prescribed for moderate-to-severe symptoms of psoriasis.
Eye Complications Associated with Psoriasis
If you have psoriasis around the eyes, it is a good idea to see a dermatologist and an ophthalmologist regularly. Your eye specialist will check for complications that can happen more often with psoriasis including:
Uveitis: Swelling in the front, middle, or back of the eye resulting in inflammation, dryness, and discomfort.
Dry eye: A common complaint affecting 1 in 5 people with psoriasis.
Conjunctivitis: Also called pink eye, this is an inflammation of the moist tissue covering the white of the eye. Up to two-thirds of people with psoriasis also have this condition.
Blepharitis: Swelling or redness of the eyelids.
Your doctor may prescribe topical creams, oral steroids or light therapy to help with psoriasis. However, these treatments can have adverse effects.
| no |
Dermatology | Can psoriasis be cured with UV light therapy? | yes_statement | "uv" "light" "therapy" can "cure" "psoriasis".. "psoriasis" can be "cured" with "uv" "light" "therapy". | https://www.medlight.eu/en/lighttherapy/ | Home Lighttherapy - MEDlight | Phototherapy – Healing with Light
In ancient Egypt and Greece light therapy has found it’s use in medical applications. Famous practitioners like Herodotus and Hippocrates studied the health benefiting properties on body and mind. However, a modern scientific approach to photomedicine is a relatively recent development of the 19th century. Especially within the last 50 years a wide variety of diseases have been identified that can be effectively treated with phototherapy.
What is Phototherapy?
Phototherapy is the controlled application of light to treat psoriasis, vitiligo and other skin disorders. Skin is treated with the special light of phototherapy unit. The medical lamps in these phototherapy units emit ultraviolet (UV) light at a very precise wavelength that stimulates skin cells. In response the cells return to a normal state again, which reduces or even eliminates the symptoms of skin diseases.
How does Phototherapy work?
In short, regular sessions, the affected areas of the skin are treated with ultraviolet light. The skin cells are stimulated and return to their normal state. Although there is no complete cure for psoriasis, more than 80% of the patients report phototherapy treatment to significant improve or eliminate most symptoms. Therapy devices can range from compact handheld devices to complete “Walk-in” cabins for full-body treatments.
Psoriasis
Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune disease that can affect both the skin and joints. It’s not contagious and affects nearly three percent of the world’s population. If you have Psoriasis, your body excessivly produces new skin cells. This creates scaly reddened patches that often become painful and itchy.
A phototherapy is a gentle low-risk treatment with excellent success rates for psoriasis. There are mainly two types of UV treatments available that differ in their spectral distribution.
With UVA, doctors often combine the treament with a type medication (Psoralen). This treatment is called PUVA. These Psoralen make your skin more sensitive to the UVA light, however, the additional use of psoralen also carries the risk of unwanted side effects. A very narrow range of UVB wavelengths (Narrowband UVB) allows for a more refined application of effective irradiation. This offers the advantage of reducing undesirable side effects, since long-term use of potent drugs can be avoided. Currently Narrowband UVB is one of the best treatment options for many patients with mild to severe psoriasis.
Vitiligo
Vitiligo is a genetic, non-contagious skin disease. The skin develops white, sometimes even slowly spreading patches that are lacking their normal skin pigments. The good news is – these patches are not harmful medically speaking, nor do they produce pain or discomfort. They can, however, mean a great deal of emotional stress and a loss of self esteem.
Patients may undergo different treatments to regain pigmentation in the affected areas, but a complete repigmentation might not always be possible. With phototherapy different types of UV therapy can be employed: Narrowband UVB (311 nm), as well as UVA therapies in combination with photosensitising drugs. Exposing the skin to potent UV light can reduce and even eliminate the symptoms of the skin disorder.
Therapy times of six to twelve months are to be expected and need to be carried out in the short, regular sessions. For more extensive treatments, practices often use powerful full-body cabins, whereas smaller phototherapy devices are particularly suitable for personal use at home.
Atopic Dermatitis
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, non-contagious skin disease. Symptoms often include red, scaly and intensely itchy lesions on the skin. The disease can go through different phases and may change its appearance with the age of its patients. Atopic eczema is considered an incurable but treatable disorder. Therefore therapies often focus on anti-inflammatory treatment of the affected skin areas.
Irradiation with high-doses of UV light has an anti-inflammatory effect, leading to relief and promoting the regeneration of the skin tissue. It is used here mainly Narrowband UVB (311 nm), possibly in combination with UVA lamps
In severe cases of atopic eczema, the UVA1 phototherapy (340-400 nm) has proven to be particularly effective. The UVA1 uses its longer wavelengths to penetrate deep into the tissue and acts as a strong anti-inflammatory agent by inhibiting the langerhans cells and mast cells. The known rebound effects caused by cortisone treatments do not occur at all with UVA1 high-dose therapies.
The First Step to Healthier Skin
Understand your skin! Although chronic skin conditions might not be cured completly, but there is hope. Depression and stress can worsen your symptoms and you want to keep your psoriasis in check, especially in the long run!. Thats why you need to find regular treatment that really suits your lifestyle. Talk to your doctor and get familiar with your options. And assist in making your own individual treatment plan. A successful treatment will have a great impact on the way you feel and look!
Do you have any more questions?
MEDlight Service
Customer orientation is often underdeveloped in the medical industry. We want to play our part in changing this. Our clients are treated the way they expect to be treated: in an uncomplicated manner and always on equal footing. You can rely on our team to be just a phone call away, ready to respond to your needs.
For more information, please contact our Service Team at +49 5221 994 29 0 or info@MEDlight.eu | Phototherapy – Healing with Light
In ancient Egypt and Greece light therapy has found it’s use in medical applications. Famous practitioners like Herodotus and Hippocrates studied the health benefiting properties on body and mind. However, a modern scientific approach to photomedicine is a relatively recent development of the 19th century. Especially within the last 50 years a wide variety of diseases have been identified that can be effectively treated with phototherapy.
What is Phototherapy?
Phototherapy is the controlled application of light to treat psoriasis, vitiligo and other skin disorders. Skin is treated with the special light of phototherapy unit. The medical lamps in these phototherapy units emit ultraviolet (UV) light at a very precise wavelength that stimulates skin cells. In response the cells return to a normal state again, which reduces or even eliminates the symptoms of skin diseases.
How does Phototherapy work?
In short, regular sessions, the affected areas of the skin are treated with ultraviolet light. The skin cells are stimulated and return to their normal state. Although there is no complete cure for psoriasis, more than 80% of the patients report phototherapy treatment to significant improve or eliminate most symptoms. Therapy devices can range from compact handheld devices to complete “Walk-in” cabins for full-body treatments.
Psoriasis
Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune disease that can affect both the skin and joints. It’s not contagious and affects nearly three percent of the world’s population. If you have Psoriasis, your body excessivly produces new skin cells. This creates scaly reddened patches that often become painful and itchy.
A phototherapy is a gentle low-risk treatment with excellent success rates for psoriasis. There are mainly two types of UV treatments available that differ in their spectral distribution.
With UVA, doctors often combine the treament with a type medication (Psoralen). This treatment is called PUVA. | no |
Dermatology | Can psoriasis be cured with UV light therapy? | yes_statement | "uv" "light" "therapy" can "cure" "psoriasis".. "psoriasis" can be "cured" with "uv" "light" "therapy". | https://knowyourskin.britishskinfoundation.org.uk/condition/psoriasis/ | Psoriasis – British Skin Foundation | Psoriasis
Psoriasis
Psoriasis is a common, long term skin condition that comes and goes throughout your lifetime. It happens due to immune system over-activity.
Psoriasis is not infectious; therefore, you cannot catch it from someone else. It does not scar the skin, although sometimes it can cause temporary changes of skin colour. Although psoriasis is a long-term condition there are many effective treatments available to keep it under good control.
Psoriasis affects about 1 in 50 people. It may occur at any age from puberty onwards, but rarely can affect younger children.
Psoriasis affects the skin and may affect the nails. It is also associated with a condition called psoriatic arthritis in about 1 in 5 people. Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory condition of the joints which can cause pain and sometimes joint damage. The pain can be quite variable but is typically worse in the morning and after rest periods. It may be associated with hot and swollen joints. Individuals may also report stiffness in the lower back. It is important to identify any possible joint pain early to help alleviate the symptoms and reduce long-term complications associated with joint symptoms. This should be managed by a rheumatologist who works with your dermatologist and/or your GP.
Psoriasis is considered to be one of a number of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Other IMIDs include ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
People affected by psoriasis and other IMIDs may also have a higher risk of experiencing other health problems. These can include things like feeling anxious or depressed, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity, blood clots, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. While we do not fully understand why these conditions are connected, scientists are actively studying this relationship.
Understanding this connection can help individuals take steps to identify and address these concerns. It is important to make informed choices about your lifestyle and consider using health screening services provided by your doctor (GP). This way, you can take proactive measures to manage your overall health and well-being.
Keep up to date with the latest research about psoriasis and all things skin related with our newsletter.
Main body location
Can it appear anywhere?
Related
Find your nearest clinic
What causes psoriasis?
The cause of psoriasis is unknown. It is believed that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in its development. It is thought that something triggers the immune system making it more active. This then leads to a long-lasting (chronic) inflammation that causes the skin cells to reproduce too quickly.
Triggers can include infections, certain medications, ultraviolet (UV) light and low-grade inflammation. For many people, psoriasis can get better with exposure to UV light (a type of light that comes from the sun and some artificial sources such as sunbeds). However, for others, UV light can worsen psoriasis. Changes in the body, such as pregnancy, can make psoriasis better, but not always.
The onset and severity of psoriasis has also been linked to alcohol consumption, being overweight, smoking, and stress. All of these factors are known to cause a type of mild (low-grade) inflammation in the body. However, not everyone who smokes, drinks alcohol or is overweight will develop psoriasis.
We do not fully understand why these triggers lead to psoriasis, and it may vary from person to person.
Is psoriasis hereditary?
Yes, there is a strong family link to psoriasis. If you have a family member affected by psoriasis, you are more likely to be affected by it too, due to shared genes. The way psoriasis is inherited is complex and not completely understood.
What does psoriasis look and feel like?
The skin of a person affected by psoriasis can appear pink, red, or darker, but in richly pigmented skin, this may not be visible. The skin also appears scaly – scales are typically of silvery colour.
The flakes and scales can be visible on dark coloured clothing and may cause anxiety. Many people with psoriasis prefer to avoid dark clothing so that the flakes are not obvious.
Psoriasis may affect any part of the body, but commonly affected areas are the outside surface of the elbow and knee, belly button (umbilicus) and scalp.
Psoriasis can be itchy and painful. Certain sites such as the scalp, lower legs and groin can be particularly itchy. If psoriasis affects the hands and feet, painful fissures (cracks) can develop, and these can affect use of the hands and walking. Severe psoriasis on the body can also develop cracks which are painful and can bleed.
Psoriasis can affect the nails which may be painful and can cause lifting of the nail, pitting of the nail or disfigurement of the nail. These changes can be painful and may affect dexterity – for example, they can limit the ability to do simple tasks, such as doing buttons up or picking small object up; they also can catch on clothing when getting dressed
When psoriasis affects certain areas of the body, quality of life may be very significantly impacted. These high impact sites include hands, face, scalp genitals and feet.
Psoriatic arthritis produces pain, swelling and stiffness in one or more joints, particularly in the morning. It can also affect connective tissue, ligaments and tendons. You must speak with your doctor if you need a referral to a rheumatologist.
Many people have just a few plaques but some individuals with moderate to severe psoriasis may have several plaques covering large areas of their body.
Several patterns of psoriasis are recognised:
Chronic plaque psoriasis is the most common type of psoriasis. Plaques (circular, scaly skin lesions) of psoriasis are usually present on theknees, elbows, trunk, scalp, behind ears and between the buttocks although other areas can be involved too.
Guttate psoriasis consists of small plaques of psoriasis scattered over the trunk and limbs. It can be caused by bacteria called streptococcus which can cause throat infections.
Palmoplantar psoriasis is psoriasis affecting the palms and soles. Psoriasis may appear at other sites too.
Pustular psoriasis is rare type of psoriasis where the plaques on the trunk and limbs are studded with tiny yellow pus filled spots. It can be localised or generalised and can flare rapidly necessitating hospital admission for treatment.
Flexural psoriasis affects the skin folds (armpits and groin) and may be seen alongside chronic plaque psoriasis or in isolation.
Erythrodermic psoriasis is a very severe form of psoriasis which affects nearly all of the skin and can sometimes require hospital admission for treatment.
Nail psoriasis is present in about half of people with psoriasis. The features of nail psoriasis are:
How will psoriasis be diagnosed?
Psoriasisis usually diagnosed on the appearance and distribution of the plaques. Skin biopsy is rarely used.
Psoriatic arthritis is usually diagnosed by a rheumatologist, but your dermatologist or GP may ask you if you have any joint symptoms or ask you to complete a screening questionnaire.
In most people, skin psoriasis develops first. A small number of people, psoriasis can present with nail involvement only. Similarly, some people develop joint symptoms first before having skin symptoms. In most cases, it usually takes few years before you develop nail or joint symptoms.
How is psoriasis assessed?
Psoriasis should be assessed at diagnosis, before your first referral to a specialist, every time you see a specialist and to assess your response to treatment. Psoriasis may be assessed by your doctors using a variety of scores which measure the severity in your skin and joints, how psoriasis is affecting your mood and your activities of daily living and whether you are at risk of heart disease.
These scores include the PASI (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) and DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index – a score that measures the impact of psoriasis on your quality of life). This assessment will be part of your specialist reviews and it will help monitor the effects of treatment on further or follow up visits.
Can psoriasis be cured?
There is no cure for psoriasis. However, there are several effective treatments available to keep psoriasis well controlled. Spontaneous (or sudden, unexpected) clearance of psoriasis may occur in some people.
How can psoriasis be treated?
Treatment of psoriasis depends upon your individual circumstances. Treatment applied to the surface of your skin (topical treatment) is sufficient alone in most people. For individualswith more extensive or difficult to treat psoriasis, ultraviolet light treatment (phototherapy), tablet treatment or injection treatment may be required.
skin_condition_infomationTopical treatments
skin_condition_infomationPhototherapy
Phototherapy is ultraviolet light delivered in a controlled way to treat psoriasis. A course of treatment usually takes about 8-10 weeks and will require treatment sessions two to three times a week. This usually means attending a Phototherapy Unit in a hospital.
Two types of light are used: narrowband ultraviolet B light (NB-UVB/TLO1) and ultraviolet A light (PUVA). A treatment called psoralen taken as a tablet or added to a bath before treatment is required for PUVA.
What can I do to help?
Remember that psoriasis is an inflammatory condition. Therefore, it is important to consider lifestyle changes that will help reduce chronic inflammation in the body. Here are some suggestions on what you can do:
Talk to your general practitioner (GP) or dermatologist about your psoriasis and how it impacts your daily life. Together, you can set treatment goals.
Work with your GP to manage risk factors for heart disease and stroke.
Adopt a healthy lifestyle by eating a balanced diet, trying to lose weight if needed, and exercising regularly.
If you smoke, quitting can be beneficial.
If you consume excessive alcohol, reducing your intake may help.
Find ways to reduce stress whenever possible.
Take your prescribed medications as directed by your GP or dermatologist.
If you experience joint pain, discuss it with your GP or dermatologist.
Inform your doctor if you notice any nail symptoms.
Keep your skin well moisturized to prevent dryness and cracking.
Images DermNetNZ.
Do you have psoriasis?
Doctors and scientists at King’s College London, need your help for a new psoriasis research study called ‘mySkin’.
The mission of mySkin is to uncover the complex relationship between psoriasis and our physical and mental health. To achieve this, the research team are asking everyone with psoriasis to complete the mySkin survey.
This directory contains sensitive content of skin conditions
The British Skin Foundation – registered as a charitable incorporated organisation with registered charity number 1171373
This website contains general information about medical conditions and treatments. The information is not personal advice and should not be treated as such. If you are suffering with a medical condition or you have questions about a medical matter you should consult your doctor or a consultant dermatologist without delay. Do not disregard advice from a medical professional or discontinue medical treatment because of information on this website. Please note, the British Skin Foundation is not responsible for external links. | This assessment will be part of your specialist reviews and it will help monitor the effects of treatment on further or follow up visits.
Can psoriasis be cured?
There is no cure for psoriasis. However, there are several effective treatments available to keep psoriasis well controlled. Spontaneous (or sudden, unexpected) clearance of psoriasis may occur in some people.
How can psoriasis be treated?
Treatment of psoriasis depends upon your individual circumstances. Treatment applied to the surface of your skin (topical treatment) is sufficient alone in most people. For individualswith more extensive or difficult to treat psoriasis, ultraviolet light treatment (phototherapy), tablet treatment or injection treatment may be required.
skin_condition_infomationTopical treatments
skin_condition_infomationPhototherapy
Phototherapy is ultraviolet light delivered in a controlled way to treat psoriasis. A course of treatment usually takes about 8-10 weeks and will require treatment sessions two to three times a week. This usually means attending a Phototherapy Unit in a hospital.
Two types of light are used: narrowband ultraviolet B light (NB-UVB/TLO1) and ultraviolet A light (PUVA). A treatment called psoralen taken as a tablet or added to a bath before treatment is required for PUVA.
What can I do to help?
Remember that psoriasis is an inflammatory condition. Therefore, it is important to consider lifestyle changes that will help reduce chronic inflammation in the body. Here are some suggestions on what you can do:
Talk to your general practitioner (GP) or dermatologist about your psoriasis and how it impacts your daily life. Together, you can set treatment goals.
Work with your GP to manage risk factors for heart disease and stroke.
Adopt a healthy lifestyle by eating a balanced diet, trying to lose weight if needed, and exercising regularly.
If you smoke, quitting can be beneficial.
If you consume excessive alcohol, reducing your intake may help.
| no |
Dermatology | Can psoriasis be cured with UV light therapy? | yes_statement | "uv" "light" "therapy" can "cure" "psoriasis".. "psoriasis" can be "cured" with "uv" "light" "therapy". | http://trichologyspecialist.co.uk/hair-scalp-problems/scalp-disorders/ | Scalp Disorders - Trichology Specialists | SCALP DISORDERS
The scalp is prone to a number of conditions ranging from dandruff to more inflammatory concerns and are frequently seen and addressed successfully in clinic. They can be managed very effectively with trichological preparations.
Scalp complaints can have underlying contributing factors and be symptomatic to stress, poor diet, allergies and metabolic issues. A scalp problem can be very uncomfortable when it flares up, creating intense itching and built up areas of scale and plaques, which can be quite distressing. Some scarring conditions can present as a scalp complaint and be extremely sore and itchy with the hair loss not noticed initially by the patient. The take home message is the sooner you seek help the better the chance of halting any damage. Below is a summary of the conditions most prevalently seen in clinic, although it is not exhaustive.
Psorisis
Psoriasis is a chronic disease and often affects the scalp. There are differing forms of psoriasis, it is usually plaque psoriasis that is seen on the scalp. The plaques are clearly demarcated at the margins showing a redness that differs to the normal adjacent skin. The plaques are covered with dry white, adherent silvery scales. These plaques can be difficult to remove and beneath them the skin is rough with bleeding points. For some, psoriasis can be extremely pruritic (itchy) and for others, the feeling of a tight and uncomfortable scalp.
Psoriasis can have a genetic origin and it is thought to be caused by a problem with the immune system which alters the skin cell production in the areas affected. This skin disease can be impacted by factors such as stress illness and injury. It cannot be cured but it is possible to manage it with the possibility of long remissions.
Trichological preparations can help with the treatment of psoriasis present on the scalp as can UV light therapy. For severe cases that also affect the whole-body medical treatment is often necessary.
Seborrhoeic Eczema
Seborrhoeic eczema is also referred to as seborrheic dermatitis, it is a relapsing chronic inflammatory condition, which occurs to the areas of the skin that has more sebaceous glands such as the scalp.
It is not necessarily an oily condition; it can differ for each individual with symptoms ranging from mild scale and itch to excessive pruritus coupled with excessive scale and possibility of crusting due to an eczematous weeping to the area. There are infantile and adult variations.
The whole scalp can be affected, it often presents along the margins and behind the ears. As this condition can be very pruritic it often leads to secondary infections from the patient scratching the affected areas.
Seborrhoeic eczema is a commonly seen condition by trichologists and it is caused by the patient’s individual sensitively to the Malassezia yeasts that are present on the scalp. This condition can be managed well in clinic with treatment and flare ups can be brought under control.
Pityriasis Amiantacea
Pityriasis Amianticea also termed Fausse Teinge amianticea is a scaly condition that produces heavy sticky scale, which builds up along the hair shaft. It can affect one or more areas of the scalp, this type of scale firmly attaches to the scalp and can build up significantly without treatment.
It follows an eczematous reaction to the scalp from trauma, infection or it can be idiopathic. This condition can be sore and extremely pruritic. It often follows a period of intense emotional stress or a localised infection. Pityriasis amiantacea can come about as an extension to seborrheic eczema or psoriasis.
This condition can be treated well in clinic with trichological preparations. It is important to note that on rare occasions this condition and cause hair loss especially if there is secondary infection.
Folliculitis
Folliculitis is a common condition that is caused by bacteria in the follicle. It can become extremely pruritic and troublesome creating the patient to continually touch and scratch therefore spreading the infection into the nearby follicles.
Prompt treatment and correct guidance on causative factors is required to settle the infection to avoid creating permanent scaring and potential hair loss. This is often a recurrent problem and can be difficult to cure completely.
Contact Dermatitis
Contact dermatitis can vary in intensity but it can cause significant reaction of the scalp, with weeping crusting, erythema and swelling. It occurs when the area affected has come into contact with an irritant or an allergen, the latter can create an allergic reaction within the body which will require medical intervention.
If an irritant reaction occurs it can be to a variety of substances, it can occur on the first application if the irritant is strong such as bleach, or sodium hydroxide (relaxer). It may also occur due to long-term exposure to everyday products such as shampoo, and oils etc.
A trichologist can help identify the problem with a thorough background check of the procedures and practices the patient performs to the hair and scalp. Treatment may be offered in clinic once a diagnosis as been established.
TO BOOK A CONSULTATION CALL 07999 021818
Contact Us
Clinic
40a Station Road
Ossett
West Yorkshire
WF5 8AY
Appointments
Please note these are the main clinic days by appointment only, however I will always endeavour to see you should you require an alternative. | SCALP DISORDERS
The scalp is prone to a number of conditions ranging from dandruff to more inflammatory concerns and are frequently seen and addressed successfully in clinic. They can be managed very effectively with trichological preparations.
Scalp complaints can have underlying contributing factors and be symptomatic to stress, poor diet, allergies and metabolic issues. A scalp problem can be very uncomfortable when it flares up, creating intense itching and built up areas of scale and plaques, which can be quite distressing. Some scarring conditions can present as a scalp complaint and be extremely sore and itchy with the hair loss not noticed initially by the patient. The take home message is the sooner you seek help the better the chance of halting any damage. Below is a summary of the conditions most prevalently seen in clinic, although it is not exhaustive.
Psorisis
Psoriasis is a chronic disease and often affects the scalp. There are differing forms of psoriasis, it is usually plaque psoriasis that is seen on the scalp. The plaques are clearly demarcated at the margins showing a redness that differs to the normal adjacent skin. The plaques are covered with dry white, adherent silvery scales. These plaques can be difficult to remove and beneath them the skin is rough with bleeding points. For some, psoriasis can be extremely pruritic (itchy) and for others, the feeling of a tight and uncomfortable scalp.
Psoriasis can have a genetic origin and it is thought to be caused by a problem with the immune system which alters the skin cell production in the areas affected. This skin disease can be impacted by factors such as stress illness and injury. It cannot be cured but it is possible to manage it with the possibility of long remissions.
Trichological preparations can help with the treatment of psoriasis present on the scalp as can UV light therapy. For severe cases that also affect the whole-body medical treatment is often necessary.
| no |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | yes_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" can "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" can be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/renewable-energy-and-electricity.aspx | Renewable Energy and Electricity | Sustainable Energy ... | Renewable Energy and Electricity
There is widespread popular support for using renewable energy, particularly solar and wind energy, which provide electricity without giving rise to any carbon dioxide emissions.
Harnessing these for electricity depends on the cost and efficiency of the technology, which is constantly improving, thus reducing costs per peak kilowatt, and per kWh at the source.
Utilising electricity from solar and wind in a grid becomes problematical at high levels for complex but now well-demonstrated reasons. Supply does not correspond with demand.
Back-up generating capacity is required due to the intermittent nature of solar and wind. System costs escalate with increasing proportion of variable renewables.
Policy settings to support renewables are generally required to confer priority in grid systems and also subsidise them, and some 50 countries have these provisions.
Utilising solar and wind-generated electricity in a stand-alone system requires corresponding battery or other storage capacity.
The possibility of large-scale use of hydrogen in the future as a transport fuel increases the potential for both renewables directly and base-load electricity supply off-peak.
Technology to utilize the forces of nature for doing work to supply human needs is as old as the first sailing ship. But attention swung away from renewable sources as the industrial revolution progressed on the basis of the concentrated energy locked up in fossil fuels. This was compounded by the increasing use of reticulated electricity based on fossil fuels and the importance of portable high-density energy sources for transport – the era of oil.
As electricity demand escalated, with supply depending largely on fossil fuels plus some hydro power and then nuclear energy, concerns arose about carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions contributing to possible global warming. Attention again turned to the huge sources of energy surging around us in nature – sun, wind, and seas in particular. There was never any doubt about the magnitude of these, the challenge was always in harnessing them so as to meet demand for reliable and affordable electricity.
Today many countries are well advanced in meeting that challenge, while also testing the practical limits of doing so from wind and solar (variable renewable energy, VRE). The relatively dilute nature of wind and solar mean that harnessing them is very materials-intensive – many times that from energy-dense sources.
Wind turbines have developed greatly in recent decades, solar photovoltaic technology is much more efficient, and there are improved prospects of harnessing the energy in tides and waves. Solar thermal technologies in particular (with some heat storage) have great potential in sunny climates. With government encouragement to utilize wind and solar technologies, their costs have come down and are now in the same league per kilowatt-hour dispatched from the plant as the costs of fossil fuel technologies, especially where there are carbon emissions charges on electricity generation from them.
However, the variability of wind and solar power does not correspond with most demand, and as substantial capacity has been built in several countries in response to government incentives, occasional massive output – as well as occasional zero output – from these sources creates major problems in maintaining the reliability and economic viability of the whole system. There is a new focus on system costs related to achieving reliable supply to meet demand.
In the following text, the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) is used to indicate the average cost per unit of electricity generated at the actual plant, allowing for the recovery of all costs over the lifetime of the plant. It includes capital, financing, operation and maintenance, fuel (if any), and decommissioning.
Another relevant metric is energy return on energy invested (EROI). This is not quoted for particular projects, but is the subject of more general studies. EROI is the ratio of the energy delivered by a process to the energy used directly and indirectly in that process, and is part of lifecycle analysis (LCA). An EROI of about 7 is considered break-even economically for developed countries. The US average EROI across all generating technologies is about 40. The major published study on EROI, by Weissbach et al (2013) showed: “Nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.” This raises questions about the sustainability of wind and solar PV which have not yet been addressed in national energy policies. A fuller account of EROI in electricity generation is in the information paper on Energy Return on Investment.
The World Energy Outlook 2016 (WEO2016) made the points that VRE have five technical properties that make them distinct from more traditional forms of power generation. First, their maximum output fluctuates according to the real-time availability of wind and sunlight. Second, such fluctuations can be predicted accurately only a few hours to days in advance. Third, they are non-synchronous and use devices known as power converters in order to connect to the grid (this can be relevant in terms of how to ensure the stability of power systems). Fourth, they are more modular and can be deployed in a much more distributed fashion. Fifth, unlike fossil or nuclear fuels, wind and sunlight cannot be transported, and while renewable energy resources are available in many areas, the best resources are frequently located at a distance from load centres thus, in some cases, increasing connection costs.
These points are more fully put forward and modelled in the 2019 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) publication, The Costs of Decarbonization: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables. All the modelling is within a 50g CO2 per kWh emission constraint, and quantifies the system costs due to different levels of VRE input, despite declining LCOE costs (and zero marginal costs) for those. The concept of system effects, which are heavily driven by the attributes of VRE listed above, has been conceptualised and explored extensively by both the OECD International Energy Agency (IEA) and the NEA along with research from academia, industry and governments. System effects are often divided into the following four broadly defined categories:
Profile costs (also referred to as utilisation costs or backup costs by some researchers).
Balancing costs.
Grid costs.
Connection costs to the grid (sometimes included in LCOE).
The 2019 NEA study states: "Profile costs (or utilisation costs) refer to the increase in the generation cost of the overall electricity system in response to the variablity of VRE output. They are thus at the heart of the notion of system effects. They capture, in particular, the fact that in most of the cases it is more expensive to provide the residual load in a system with VRE than in an equivalent system where VRE are replaced by dispatchable plants."
High levels of VRE require significant enhancement of system integration measures. These measures include flexible power sources such as hydro and open cycle gas turbines, demand-side measures, electricity storage, strong and smart transmission and distribution grids. The costs of all these, over and above the generation costs, comprise the system costs. Grid-level system costs for VRE where they replace dispatchable sources are large ($15-80/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). (See later section on System integration costs of intermittent renewable power generation.)
A further aspect of considering sources such as wind and solar in the context of grid supply is that their true capacity is discounted to allow for intermittency. In the UK this is by a factor of 0.43 for wind and 0.17 for solar PV, hence declared net capacity (DNC) is the figure used in national reporting – “the nominal maximum capability of a generating set to supply electricity to consumers.” It has a considerable effect on published load and capacity factors. This novel convention is not followed in this information paper.
Demand for clean energy
There is a fundamental attractiveness about harnessing such forces in an age which is very conscious of the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels, and where sustainability is an ethical norm. So today the focus is on both adequacy of energy supply long-term and also the environmental implications of particular sources. In that regard, the costs being imposed on CO2 emissions in developed countries at least have profoundly changed the economic outlook of clean energy sources.
A market-determined carbon price creates incentives for energy sources that are cleaner than current fossil fuel sources without distinguishing among different technologies. This puts the onus on the generating utility to employ technologies which efficiently supply power to the consumer at a competitive price. Wind, solar and nuclear are the main contenders.
Sun, wind, waves, rivers, tides and the heat from radioactive decay in the earth's mantle as well as biomass are all abundant and ongoing, hence the term "renewables". Only one, the power of falling water in rivers, has been significantly tapped for electricity for many years, though utilization of wind is increasing rapidly and it is now acknowledged as a mainstream energy source – accounting for nearly 5% of electricity generation worldwide in 2018. Solar energy's main human application has been in agriculture and forestry, via photosynthesis, and increasingly it is harnessed for heat. Until recently electricity has been a niche application for solar. Biomass (e.g. sugar cane residue) is burned where it can be utilised, but there are serious questions regarding wider usage. The others are little used as yet.
Turning to the use of abundant renewable energy sources other than large-scale hydro for electricity, there are challenges in actually harnessing them. Apart from solar photovoltaic (PV) systems which produce electricity directly, the question is how to make them turn dynamos to generate the electricity. If it is heat which is harnessed, this is via a steam generating system.
If the fundamental opportunity of these renewables is their abundance and relatively widespread occurrence, the fundamental challenge, especially for electricity supply, is applying them to meet demand given their variable and diffuse nature*. This means either that there must be reliable duplicate sources of electricity beyond the normal system reserve, or some means of large-scale electricity storage (see later section).
* The main exception is geothermal, which is not widely accessible.
Policies which favour renewables over other sources may also be required. Such policies, now in place in about 50 countries, include priority dispatch for electricity from renewable sources and special feed-in tariffs, quota obligations and energy tax exemptions.
In 2015 over 140 countries submitted to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to combat climate change. Together, these would lead to an 8% per capita reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025 and 9% by 2030. The role of India and China INDCs is noteworthy here. Regarding solar capacity, India pledged 246 GWe and China 352 GWe by 2030 on top of present world 178 GWe. Regarding wind, China pledged 345 GWe and India 78 GWe capacity by 2030 on top of 2015 world capacity.
The prospects, opportunities and challenges for renewables are discussed below in this context.
Load curves for typical electricity grid (source: VENcorp)
This load curve diagram shows that much of the electricity demand is in fact for continuous supply (base-load), while some is for a lesser amount of predictable supply for about three-quarters of the day, and less still for variable peak demand up to half of the time; some of the overnight demand is for domestic hot water systems on cheap tariffs. With overnight charging of electric vehicles it is easy to see how the base-load proportion would grow, increasing the scope for nuclear and other plants which produce it. Source: Vencorp
Most electricity demand is for continuous, reliable supply that has traditionally been provided by base-load electricity generation. Some is for shorter-term (e.g. peak-load) requirements on a broadly predictable daily and weekly basis. Hence if renewable sources are linked to a grid, the question of back-up capacity arises; for a stand-alone system, energy storage is the main issue. Apart from pumped-storage hydro systems (see later section), no such means exist at present on any large scale.
However, a distinct advantage of solar and to some extent other renewable systems is that they are distributed and may be near the points of demand, thereby reducing power transmission losses if traditional generating plants are distant. Of course, this same feature more often counts against wind in that the best sites for harnessing it are sometimes remote from populations, and the main back-up for lack of wind in one place is wind blowing hard in another, hence requiring a wide network with flexible operation.
At the end of 2020 there was 733 GWe of installed wind capacity (95% onshore), 708 GWe of installed solar PV capacity and 6.5 GWe of solar thermal worldwide accoring to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
Rivers and hydroelectricity
Hydroelectric power, using the potential energy of rivers, is by far the best-established means of electricity generation from renewable sources. It may also be large-scale – nine of the ten largest power plants in the world are hydro, using dams on rivers. China’s Three Gorges leads with 22.5 GWe, then Itaipu in Brazil with 14 GWe and Xiluodu in China, 13.9 GWe. In contrast to wind and solar generation, hydro plants have considerable mechanical inertia and are synchronous, helping with grid stability.
In 2018 some 63% of all renewable electricity was from hydro, which supplied about 4149 TWh from 1175 GWe (IRENA figures). Based on these figures, this would indicate a capacity factor of 36%, although the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reported global weighted average capacity factors of 47% for hydropower in 2017.
Hydropower supplies over 17% of world electricity (>95% in Norway, 57% in Canada, 60% in Switzerland, 57% in New Zealand, 40% in Sweden, 8% in the USA, 6% in Australia). Half of hydro capacity is in five nations: China (340 GWe), USA (84 GWe), Brazil (109 GWe), Canada (81 GWe), and Russia (54 GWe). Apart from those five countries with a relative abundance of it (Norway, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand and Sweden), hydro capacity is normally applied to peak-load demand, because it is so readily stopped and started. The individual turbines of a hydro plant can be run up from zero to full power in about ten minutes. This also means that it is an ideal complement to wind power in a grid system, and is used thus most effectively by Denmark (see case study below).
Hydropower using large storage reservoirs on rivers is not a major option for the future in the developed countries because most major sites in these countries having potential for harnessing gravity in this way are either being exploited already or are unavailable for other reasons such as environmental considerations. Growth to 2030 is expected mostly in China and Latin America. China has commissioned the $26 billion Three Gorges dam, which produces 22.5 GWe and has a major role in flood control, but it has displaced over 1.2 million people. Brazil is planning to have 25 GWe of new hydro capacity by 2025, involving considerable environmental impact.
The chief advantage of hydro systems is their capacity to handle seasonal (as well as daily) high peak loads. In practice the utilisation of stored water is sometimes complicated by demands for irrigation which may occur out of phase with peak electrical demands.
Hydroelectric power plants can constrain the water flow through each turbine to vary output, though with fixed-blade turbines this reduces generating efficiency. More sophisticated and expensive Kaplan turbines have variable pitch and are efficient at a range of flow rates. With multiple fixed-blade turbines (e.g. Francis turbine), they can individually be run at full power or shut down.
Run-of-river hydro systems are usually much smaller than dammed ones but have potentially wider application. Some short-term pondage can help them adapt to daily load profiles, but generally they produce continuously, apart from seasonal variation in river flows. Most of Nepal’s hydro capacity is run-of-river, which diminishes with low flow in winter. Small-scale hydro plants under 10 MWe represent about 12% of world capacity, and most of these are run-of-river ones. In IRENA statistics, ‘small hydropower’ is under 1 MWe, and totals 31 MWe worldwide, while ‘medium hydropower’ (1-10 MWe) totals 115 MWe.
Wind energy
Utilization of wind energy has increased spectacularly in recent years, with annual increases in installed capacity of around 10% to 2019, with tens of thousands of turbines installed. However, all this has to be backed up with dispatchable generating capacity, due to low (20-30%) utilization and intermittency (see later sections on this aspect). The global average LCOE of onshore wind was about $80/MWh in 2015 – very competitive on a unit MWh basis but cannot be compared with dispatchable MWh due to the unreliability. In the 'Stated Policies' scenario of the International Energy Agency's (IEA's) World Energy Outlook 2019, some 1856 GWe of wind capacity would be operational in 2040, producing 5226 TWh, and in the 'Sustainable Development' scenario, there would be 2930 GWe producing 8295 TWh (i.e. assumed capacity factors of about 32%).
IRENA statistics show 699 GWe onshore and 34 GWe offshore installed in 2020, up from 564 GWe in 2018 when 1263 TWh was produced. Nearly 90% of the world offshore total is in Europe.
Harnessing power from wind (or any fluid in open flow) is subject to Betz’s law, which says that no turbine can capture more than 59.5% of the kinetic energy in the wind (or water). Utility-scale wind turbines today achieve at peak flow up to 80% of the Betz limit.
Wind turbines of up to 6 MWe are now functioning in many countries. A prototype 8 MWe unit built by Siemens Gamesa with a 167-metre rotor diameter was commissioned in Denmark early in 2017. The average size of new turbines installed in 2017 was 5.9 MW, a 23% increase on 2016. GE is investing over $400 million in a 12 MWe offshore wind turbine which it claims will be capable of 60%-plus capacity factors in the North Sea. The turbine will be 260 metres tall from base to blade tip with a rotor diameter of 220 metres.
The power output is a function of the cube of the wind speed, so doubling the wind speed gives eight times the energy potential. In operation such turbines require a wind in the range 4 to 25 metres per second (14-90 km/h), with the maximum output being at 12-25 m/s (the excess energy being spilled above 25 m/s). While relatively few areas have significant prevailing winds in this range, many have enough to be harnessed effectively and to give better than a 25% capacity utilisation. Larger ones are on taller pylons and tend to have higher capacity factors.
Where there is an economic back-up which can be called upon at very short notice (e.g. hydro), a significant proportion of electricity can be provided from wind. Depending on site, most turbines operate at about 25% load factor over the course of a year (European average), but some reach 40% offshore. There is a distinct difference between onshore and offshore sites, though the latter are more expensive to set up and run. For the UK, in 2015, onshore wind averaged 30% capacity, and offshore 41%.
Green Rigg wind farm in the UK (Image: EDF Energy)
In Germany, with high dependence on wind, there is corresponding high uncertainty of supply. Winter load factors averaged about 25% over 2013-17, and ranged from 12% to 35%, both figures monthly. Summer monthly load factors averaged only 14% however. Annual capacity factors were 17-20% over 2014-16. Daily average wind load factors have ranged from 2% to 68%.
Potentially the world’s largest wind farm is that planned by Forewind, a consortium of four major energy companies, for the Dogger Bank in the North Sea, costing some £30 billion. Stage 1 is 2.4 GWe, followed by 4.8 GWe, to give 7.2 GWe, which Forewind says will supply some 25 billion kWh/yr to the UK grid at projected 40% annual capacity factor. In the USA, the $8 billion, 3 GWe Anschutz Corp plant in Wyoming is planned to send power 1200 km via Utah and Nevada to the Californian grid near Las Vegas.
In 2016 the Dutch government auctioned the first development rights for the Borssele offshore wind farm, for a record low price – €72.70 per MWh – to Dong Energy plus about €14/MWh connection fee. It is auctioning 700 MWe per year to 2020.
China General Nuclear Corporation (CGN) has built a 38-turbine, 152 MWe wind farm offshore in Jiangsu province, which it expects to produce 400 GWh per year from 2017 – 30% capacity factor.
With increased scale and numbers of units, generation costs and levelised cost of energy (LCOE) is now often competitive with coal and nuclear, without allowing for backup capacity and grid connection complexities which affect their value in a system. Wind is intermittent, and when it does not blow, backup capacity such as hydro or quick-start gas is needed. When it does blow, and displaces power from other sources, it may reduce the profitability of those sources and may increase delivered prices. With any significant input from intermittent renewables sources, system cost (not the LCOE) to meet actual demand becomes the relevant metric.
One approach to mitigate intermittency is to make hydrogen by electrolysis and feed this into the gas grid, the power-to-gas strategy. It has been suggested that all electricity from wind might be used thus, greatly simplifying electrical grid management. Uniper has a 2 MW pilot plant to produce up to 360 m3/hr of hydrogen at Falkenhagen, Germany, to feed into the Ontras gas grid, which can function with 5% hydrogen. Vattenfall at Prenzlau in Germany is also experimenting with hydrogen production and storage from wind power via electrolysis. Also in Germany, near Neubrandenburg in the northeast, WIND-projekt is using surplus electricity from a 140 MWe wind farm to make hydrogen, storing it, and then burning it in a CHP unit to make electricity when demand is high. However, there is an 84% loss in this RH2-WKA (renewable hydrogen - Werder, Kessin, Altentreptow) demonstration process. Germany’s biggest operating power-to-gas plant is a 6 MW unit at Energiepark Mainz. RWE and Siemens plan a 105 MW power-to-gas pilot project, GET H2, at Lingen, using wind power, and two other similar projects are planned: Element Eins and Hybridge. In the Netherlands, Gasunie plans a 20 MW unit. BNetzA forecasts a 3 GW potential for power-to-gas by 2030.
Wind turbines have a high steel tower to mount the generator nacelle, and typically have rotors with three blades. Foundations require a substantial mass of reinforced concrete. Hence the energy inputs to manufacture are not insignificant. Also siting is important in getting a net gain from them. In the UK the Carbon Trust found that small wind turbines on houses in urban areas often caused more carbon emissions in their construction and fitting than they saved in electrical output (CT 7/8/08).
Bird kills, especially of raptor species, are an environmental impact of wind farms. In the USA half a million birds are killed each year, including 83,000 raptors (hawks, eagles, falcons etc.) according to reports of a peer-reviewed published estimate in Wildlife Society Bulletin. A similar estimate comes from the US Fish & Wildlife Service. According to Environment Canada, wind turbines kill approximately 8.2 birds per turbine per year.1 There is particular concern regarding birds covered by the US Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which make bird fatalities illegal. Migratory bats are also killed in large numbers.
New wind farms are increasingly offshore, in shallow seas. The UK had 7500 MWe wind capacity offshore at the end of 2017, over two-thirds of the world's total. The London Array, 20 km offshore Kent, has 175 turbines of 3.6 MWe, total 630 MWe, on a 245 km2 site and claims to be the world's largest offshore wind farm.
Replacing old turbines is becoming an issue – repowering the wind capacity. Approximately half of European capacity will be retired by 2030, and needs to be replaced mostly with larger turbines, likely without subsidies. The repowering priority is at the best sites. Full decommissioning involves removal of old towers and foundations, not simply turbines. According to lobby group WindEurope, some 22 GWe of wind turbines over 20 years old in Europe will be decommissioned by 2023, and 40 GWe by 2027. At least one-fifth of these will involve full decommissioning.
A Renewable Energy Foundation study in 2012 showed that the performance of onshore wind turbines in the UK and Denmark declined significantly with age, and offshore Danish ones declined more. A 2013 review of the data suggested that the decline might be 2% per year.
Solar energy
Solar energy is readily harnessed for low temperature heat, and in many places domestic hot water units (with storage) routinely utilise it. It is also used simply by sensible design of buildings and in many ways that are taken for granted. Industrially, probably the main use is in solar salt production – some 1000 PJ per year in Australia alone (equivalent to two-thirds of the nation's oil use). It is increasingly used in utility-scale plants, mostly photovoltaic (PV). Domestic-scale PV is widespread.
IRENA statistics show 714 GWe solar capacity (of which 707.5 GWe solar PV and 6.5 GWe solar thermal) in 2020, up from 489 GWe in 2018 when 562 TWh was produced, so average capacity factor in 2018 of 13%.
Three methods of converting the Sun's radiant energy to electricity are the focus of attention.
Photovoltaic (PV) systems
The best-known method utilises light, ideally sunlight, acting on photovoltaic cells to produce electricity. Flat plate versions of these can readily be mounted on buildings without any aesthetic intrusion or requiring special support structures. Solar photovoltaic (PV) has for some years had application for certain signaling and communication equipment, such as remote area telecommunications equipment in Australia or simply where mains connection is inconvenient. Sales of solar PV modules are increasing strongly as their efficiency increases and price falls, coupled with financial subsidies and incentives. Harnessing power from incident sunlight is subject to the Shockley-Queisser limit giving maximum conversion of photons into electrons of about 33%. Commercial PV cells today range up to 26% conversion.
Small-scale solar PV installations for domestic or onsite industrial use are commonly 'behind the meter', and may feed surplus power into the grid. Many large-scale solar PV power plants in Europe and the USA, and now China are set up to supply electricity grids.
In recent years there has been high investment in solar PV, due to favourable subsidies and incentives. In 2019 there was 580 GWe installed worldwide according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), up from 483 GWe in 2018, 384 GWe in 2017, and 291 GWe in 2016 – a doubling of capacity in three years. Of the total installed solar PV capacity in 2019, China accounted for 205 GWe (35% of world total), Japan 62 GWe (11%), USA 61 GWe, Germany 49 GWe, India 35 GWe, and Italy 21 GWe.
More efficiency can be gained using concentrating solar PV (CPV), where some kind of parabolic mirror tracks the sun and increases the intensity of the solar radiation up to 1000-fold. Modules are typically 35-50 kW.
In the USA Boeing has licensed its XR700 high-concentration PV (HCPV) technology to Stirling Energy Systems with a view to commercializing it for plants under 50 MWe from 2012. The HCPV cells in 2009 achieved a world record for terrestrial concentrator solar cell efficiency, at 41.6%. CPV can also be used with heliostat configuration, with a tower among a field of mirrors.
India’s 214 MWe Gujarat Solar Park was commissioned in 2012 and aims for eventual 1000 MWe capacity. Adani’s 648 MWe Kamuthi solar PV plant in Tamil Nadu was completed in September 2016. The Indian government announced the 4 GWe Sambhar project in Rajasthan in 2013, expected to produce 6.4 TWh/yr, i.e. capacity factor of 18% from almost 80 km2 – however, following opposition from several environmental groups, the project has not proceeded. The 2.245 GWe Bhadla solar park in Jodhpur district of Rajasthan, covering 57 km2, became the world's largest solar park on its completion in March 2020.
The 100 MWe Perovo solar park in Ukraine was commissioned in 2011 also, with 15% capacity factor claimed. EdF has built the 115 MWe Toul-Rosieres thin-film PV plant in eastern France. There is a 97 MWe Sarnia plant in Canada. In Italy, SunEdison plans to build a 72 MWe solar PV plant near Rovigo, for $342 million.
In Australia the 102 MWe Nyngan solar PV array cost A$440 million and is designed to produce 230 GWh/yr from 2015, i.e. 26% capacity factor.
In the USA, the 550 MWe Desert Sunlight solar farm in the Mojave Desert opened early in 2015, using cadmium telluride thin film technology and financed with a $1.46 billion federal loan guarantee. MidAmerican’s Antelope Valley plants in California comprise a 579 MWe development with Sunpower as EPC contractor and due to be complete at the end of 2015. Its panels will track the sun, giving 25% more power. MidAmerican Solar owns the 550 MWe Topaz Solar Farms in San Luis Obispo County, Calif., and has a 49% interest in the 290 MWe Agua Caliente thin-film PV project commissioned in 2014 by First Solar in Yuma County, Arizona. Many PV plants are over 20 MWe, and quoted capacity factors range from 11% to 27%.
A South Korean consortium has commissioned 42 MWe PV capacity at two plants in Bulgaria, which are expected to produce 61 GWh/yr (16.5% capacity factor), their cost being €154 million (€3667/kW). Research continues into ways to make the actual solar collecting cells less expensive and more efficient. In some systems there is provision for feeding surplus PV power from domestic systems into the grid as contra to normal supply from it, which enhances the economics. The 2000 MWe Ordos thin-film solar PV plant is planned in Inner Mongolia, China, with four phases – 30, 100, 870, 1000 MWe – to be complete in 2020. Over 30 others planned are over 100 MWe, most in India, China, USA and Australia. A 230 MWe solar PV plant is planned at Setouchi in Japan, with GE taking a major stake in the JPY 80 billion project expected on line in 2018. Serbia plans a 1 GWe solar PV project costing €1.3 billion which is expected to deliver 1.15 TWh/yr to Enerxia Energy from 2015, a 13% capacity factor, without any feed-in tariff. (That output at €50/MWh would return €57.5 million pa. After €20 million pa maintenance, it is less than 3% pa return on capital.)
In Nigeria, the federal government and Delta state have set up a $5 billion public-private partnership with SkyPower FAS Energy to build 3 GWe of utility-scale solar PV capacity, with the first units coming on line in 2015. A feed-in tariff regime will support this.
A serious grid integration problem with solar PV is that cloud cover can reduce output by 70% in the space of one minute. Various battery and other means are being developed to slow this to 10% per minute, which is more manageable. The particular battery system required is designed specifically to control the rate of ramp up and ramp down. System life is ten years, compared with twice that for most renewable sources.
The manufacturing and recycling of PV modules raises a number of questions regarding both scarce commodities, and health and environmental issues. Copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) solar cells are a particular concern, both for manufacturing and recycling. Silicon-based PV modules require high energy input in manufacture, though the silicon itself is abundant.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2020 estimated that there would be about 8 million tonnes of solar PV waste by 2030, and that the total could reach 78 million tonnes by 2050. Recycling solar PV panels is generally not economic, and there is concern about cadmium leaching from discarded panels. Some recycling is undertaken.
Solar thermal systems, concentrating solar power (CSP)
Solar thermal systems need sunlight rather than the more diffuse light which can be harnessed by solar PV. They are not viable in high latitudes. A solar thermal power plant has a system of mirrors to concentrate the sunlight on to an absorber, the energy then being used to drive steam turbines – concentrating solar thermal power (CSP). Many systems have some heat storage capacity in molten salt to enable generation after sundown, and possibly overnight.
In 2019 there was about 6.3 GWe of CSP capacity worldwide, according to IRENA, 2.3 GWe (37%) of this in Spain, 1.8 GWe (28%) in the USA, 0.5 GWe in Morocco, and 0.5 GWe in South Africa. World capacity was 5.0 GWe at the end of 2017, when 11.5 TWh was produced (i.e. 26% capacity factor).
The concentrator may be a parabolic mirror trough oriented north-south, which tracks the sun's path through the day. The absorber is located at the focal point and converts the solar radiation to heat in a fluid such as synthetic oil, which may reach 700°C. The fluid transfers heat to a secondary circuit producing steam to drive a conventional turbine and generator. Several such installations in modules of up to 80 MW are now operating. Each module requires about 50 hectares of land and needs very precise engineering and control. These plants are supplemented by a gas-fired boiler which generates about a quarter of the overall power output and keeps them warm overnight, especially if molten salt heat storage is used, as in many CSP power tower plants.
A simpler CSP concept is the linear Fresnel collector using rows of long narrow flat (or slightly curved) mirrors tracking the sun and reflecting on to one or more fixed linear receivers positioned above them. The receivers may generate steam directly.
In mid-2007 Nevada Solar One, a 64 MWe capacity solar thermal energy plant, started up. The plant was projected to produce 124 GWh per year and covers about 160 hectares with 760 mirrored troughs that concentrate the heat from the desert sun onto pipes that contain a heat transfer fluid. This is heated to 390°C and then produces steam to drive turbines. Nine similar units totaling 354 MWe have been operating in California as the Solar Energy Generating Systems. More than twenty Spanish 50 MWe parabolic trough units including Andasol 1-3, Alvarado 1, Extresol 1-2, Ibersol and Solnova 1-3, Palma del Rio 1-2, Manchasol 1-2, Valle 1-2, commenced operation in 2008-11. Andasol, Manchasol and Valle have 7.5-hour heat storage.
Other US CSP parabolic trough projects include Abengoa's Solana in Arizona, a 280 MWe project with six-hour molten salt storage enabling power generation in the evening. It has a 778 ha solar field and started operation in 2013. The $2 billion cost is offset by a $1.45 billion loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy. Abengoa's 280 MWe Mojave Solar Project near Barstow in California also uses parabolic troughs in a 715 ha solar field and came online in 2014. It has no heat storage. It has a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee.
In 2010 California approved construction of the $6 billion, 968 MWe Blythe CSP plant by Solar Trust, the US arm of Solar Millennium at Riverside, Calif., using parabolic trough technology in four 250 MWe units occupying 28.4 sq km and funded partly by US Dept of Energy. The company has a $2.1 billion loan guarantee and a 20-year power purchase agreement with SC Edison, from 2013. However, this became a solar PV project, apparently due to difficulty in raising finance.
Another form of this CSP is the power tower, with a set of flat mirrors (heliostats) which track the sun and focus heat on the top of a tower, heating water to make steam, or molten salt to 1000°C and using this both to store the heat and produce steam for a turbine. California's Solar One/Two plant produced 10 MWe for a few years. Abengoa’s Solucar complex in Spain has the 11 MWe PS10 power tower plant with 624 mirrors, each 120 m2 and the 20 MWe PS20 adjacent, with 1255 mirrors, producing steam directly in the tower. Solucar also has three parabolic trough plants of 50 MW each. Power production in the evening can be extended fairly readily using gas combustion for heat.
The US Department of Energy awarded a $1.37 billion loan guarantee to BrightSource Energy to build the 392 MWe Ivanpah Solar Power complex in the Mojave Desert of California, essentially a gas-fired plant with major subsidized solar supplement. It comprises three CSP Luz power towers which simply heat water to 550°C to make steam, using 300,000 heliostat mirrors in pairs each of 14 m2 per MWe, in operation from 2013 as the world's largest CSP plant. The steam cycle uses air-cooled condensers. There is a back-up gas turbine, and natural gas is used to pre-heat water in the towers. It was expected to generate 940 GWh/yr, but in 2014 it reached 419 GWh, in 2015, 653 GWh and in 2016, 703 GWh (EIA data). It burned 915 TJ of gas in 2014, 1313 TJ in 2015 and 1361 TJ in 2016 (EIA data) which resulted in 46,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2014, 66,000 t in 2015 and 68,000 t in 2016. On its own in 2016 this gas would produce 189 GWh of electricity (at 50% thermal efficiency), so it appears to be 27% gas-fired rather than solar in 2016. The plant is owned by BrightSource, NRG Energy and Google. BrightSource estimates that annual bird kill is about 3500 from incineration, federal biologists have higher estimates – the plant is on a migratory route. BrightSource plans a similar 500 MWe plant nearby in the Coachella Valley.
BrightSource Energy is partnering with General Electric and NOY Infrastructure & Energy Investment Fund to build the 121 MWe Ashalim Plot B Solar Thermal Power Station in Israel’s Negev desert. It was commissioned in 2019 and uses BrightSource’s CSP tower with more than 50,000 computer-controlled heliostats tracking the Sun on two axes and reflecting sunlight onto a boiler on top of a 260-metre tower. It claims to produce 320 GWh/yr. Another 121 MWe Ashalim plant developed by Negev Energy uses parabolic troughs and was also commissioned in 2019. Further phases of the project will involve solar PV.
Using molten salt in the CSP system as the transfer fluid which also stores heat, enables operation into the evening, thus approximating to much of the daily load demand profile. Torresol's 20 MWe Gemasolar (formerly Solar Tres) plant in Spain has 2650 mirrors/heliostats, each 110 m2 and molten sodium and potassium nitrate salt heat transfer (at up to 565°C) and heat storage, with steam Rankine cycle generation. It is claimed to be the world's first "near base-load” CSP plant, with 63% capacity factor claimed, but relies on natural gas to keep the salts molten, needing 15% of thermal capacity for that. Its cost was €244 million, or $144,000/kW and it is paid EUR 27 c/kWh.
The salt used may be 60% sodium nitrate, 40% potassium nitrate with melting point 220°C. Spain's 150 MWe Andasol plant stores heat at 400°C and requires 75 t of salt per MW of heat. It also uses diphenol oxide or oil for heat transfer and molten salt for heat storage. Its condensers require 5 L/kWh for cooling. Spain's Gemasolar employs 6250 tonnes of salt for both heat transfer and storage. California's 280 MWe Solana uses 125,000 tonnes of salt, kept at 277°C.
SolarReserve’s 110 MWe Crescent Dunes plant at Tonopah in Nevada has a 195-metre power tower and claimed molten salt heat storage to enable 10 hours at full load, and 500 GWh per year output (52% capacity factor). The $1 billion facility was backed by $737 million in federal loan guarantees and was owned and operated by California-based SolarReserve. After a salt leak shut it down for eight months to mid-2017, then the plant closed down in April 2019 due to its high costs and low (20%) efficiency. SolarReserve filed for bankruptcy in 2019.
SolarReserve started building the Likana 390 MWe plant in Chile but was unable to complete it and sold the project to the Cerro Dominador Group/EIG partnership in 2019. The project is to comprise three 130 MWe solar thermal towers using molten salt for heat transport and energy storage, each with 13 hours of full-load energy storage, delivering 390 MWe of continuous output, resulting in over 2800 GWh generated annually (82% capacity factor). In Chile SolarReserve was also planning to build the similar 450 MWe Tamarugal CSP plant with salt storage claimed to deliver 2600 GWh/yr (66% capacity factor). The company said it “set a new benchmark for base-load solar pricing by bidding $63/MWh, without subsidies, in Chile’s most recent auction for energy supply.” Tamarugal was unable to get contracts, so was aborted.
An 810 MWe plant occupying 13 km2 with six power towers is being built in Qinghai province in northwest China, by BrightSource with Shanghai Electric Group. It will have heat storage using molten salt. Phase 1 of this Qinghai Delingha Solar Thermal Power Project is two 135 MWe CSP plants using BrightSource power towers with up to 3.5 hours of heat storage and producing 628 GWh/yr, hence 26.55% capacity factor. Majority ownership is by Huanghe. The project will apply to NDRC for feed-in tariff. It is part of an international collaboration.
In Morocco the 510 MWe Noor-Ouarzazate CSP plant is the world’s largest CSP project. Its first 160 MWe phase, Noor 1, was commissioned early in 2016 and contracted to supply power at $0.19/kWh. It and Noor 2 of 200 MWe commissioned in 2018 use parabolic trough collectors heating diphenyl oxide or oil which produces steam in a secondary circuit, and molten salt storage enables generation beyond sunset. Noor 3 of 150 MWe commissioned in 2019 uses a 250 m high central tower with 600 MWt receiver and molten salt for heat transfer and storage. It has 7400 heliostats and is based on the 20 MWe Gemasolar plant in Spain. Noor 4 comprises 70 MWe in solar PV and is part of the $2.5 billion complex. The whole complex is reported to use 2.5 to 3 billion litres of water per year for cleaning. The areas occupied are 480, 680, 750 and 210 ha respectively so the full plant covers 21 km2.
A small portable CSP unit – the Wilson Solar Grill – uses a Fresnel lens to heat lithium nitrate to 230°C so that it can cook food after dark.
Another CSP set-up is the Solar Dish Stirling System which uses parabolic reflectors to concentrate heat to drive a Stirling cycle engine generating electricity. A Tessera Solar plant uses 25 kWe solar dishes which track the Sun and focus the energy on the power conversion unit's receiver tubes containing hydrogen gas which powers a Stirling engine. Solar heat pressurizes the hydrogen to power the four-cylinder reciprocating Solar Stirling Engine and drive a generator. The hydrogen working fluid is cooled in a closed cycle. Waste heat from the engine is transferred to the ambient air via a water-filled radiator system. The stirling cycle system is as yet unproven in these large applications, however.
A Tessera Solar plant of 709 MWe was planned at Imperial Valley in California and approved in 2010, but a year later AES Solar decided to build the plant as solar PV, and the first phase of 266 MWe was commissioned in 2014 as Mount Signal Solar. It produces 537 GWh/yr, hence 23% capacity factor.
With solar input being both diffuse* and interrupted by night and by cloud cover, solar electric generation has a low capacity factor, typically less than 15%, though this is partly addressed by heat storage using molten salt. Power costs are two to three times that of conventional sources, which puts it within reach of being economically viable where carbon emissions from fossil fuels are priced.
* In low to middle latitudes on a sunny day up to 1 kW/m2 falls on a surface maintained at right angles to the sun's rays. In Europe much less than this is received through much of the year, for instance in winter most of Europe averages less than 1 kWh/m2 per day (on a horizontal surface).
Large CSP schemes in North Africa, supplemented by heat storage, are proposed for supplying Europe via high voltage DC links. One proposal is the TuNur project based in Tunisia and supplying up to 2000 MWe via HVDC cable to Italy. A related and more ambitious one was Desertec, with estimated cost of €400 billion, networking the EU, Middle East and North Africa (MENA) with 20 transmission lines of 5 GW each, to provide 15% of Europe's electricity and much of that in MENA by 2050. The Desertec Foundation was set up in 2009 as an NGO to promote the Desertec concept.
The Desertec Industrial Initiative GmbH (Dii) “Desertenergy” is a Europe-based consortium founded in 2009 to advance the grand vision and work towards creation of a market for desert power in EU and MENA. It comprised 55 companies and institutions and is active in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The first Dii-fostered project was to be the Noor-Ouarzazate 580 MWe CSP plant in Morocco (see above). Morocco is the only African country to have a transmission link to Europe. In mid-2013 the Desertec Foundation left the Dii consortium. Bosch and Siemens had left it in 2012. The Desertec Industrial Initiative then announced that it would focus on consulting after most of its former backers pulled out in 2014. The remaining members of the Munich-based consortium are Saudi company ACWA Power, German utility RWE and Chinese grid operator SGCC. The new network “Supporters of Desert Energy” became operational early in 2015 in Dubai to “identify practical hurdles for projects and offer solutions in interaction with the public sector and the civil society.”
The Mediterranean Solar Plan (MSP) targeted the development of 20 GWe of renewables by 2020, of which 5 GWe could be exported to Europe. Total investment would be of the order of €60 billion. The OECD IEA's World Energy Outlook 2010 says: The quality of its solar resource and its large uninhabited areas make the Middle East and North Africa region ideal for large-scale development of concentrating solar power, costing 10 to 13.5 ¢/kWh ... in 2035. Solar power could be exported to Europe (at transmission costs of 2 to 5 ¢/kWh) and/or to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The report projects that the actual CSP generation cost in North Africa could be the same as EU wholesale electricity price in 2035 – about 10 ¢/kWh. In 2016 its project preparation initiative was being funded by the EU.
Both Dii and MSP appear to be moribund.
In 2021 UK-based Xlinks announced plans to build 7 GW of solar PV capacity and 3.5 GW of wind near Tantan in Morocco, with 5 GW/20 GWh storage, linking this to Wales and Devon in the UK by a 3.6 GW HVDC submarine cable of 3800 km. It would provide about 7% of UK electricity. Total project cost is about $22 billion, half being for the HVDC link.
CSP boost to fossil fuel power, hybrid systems
Solar energy producing steam can be used to boost conventional steam-cycle power stations. Australia's Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project was to be the largest solar integration with a coal-fired power station in the world. A 30-hectare field of Areva Solar's compact linear Fresnel reflectors at the existing Kogan Creek power station would produce steam fed to the modern supercritical 750 MWe coal-fired unit, helping to drive the intermediate pressure turbine, displacing heat from coal. The solar boost at 44 MW (peak sunshine) would add 44 million kWh annually, about 0.75% of output, for $105 million – equivalent to $19,000/kW of base-load capacity. After difficulties and delays, the project was aborted in 2016. The 2000 MWe Liddell coal-fired power station has a 2 MWe equivalent solar boost (9 MW thermal addition).
In the USA the federal government has a SunShot initiative to integrate CSP with fossil fuel power plants as hybrid systems. Some $20 million is offered for two to four projects. The US Department of Energy says that 11 to 21 GWe of CSP could effectively be integrated into existing fossil fuel plants, utilizing the turbines and transmission infrastructure.
While CSP is well behind solar PV as its prices continue to fall and utilities become more familiar with PV. However, CSP can provide thermal storage and thus be dispatchable and it can provide low-cost steam for existing power plants (hybrid set up). Also, CSP has the potential to provide heating and cooling for industrial processes and desalination.
Solar updraft tower
Another kind of solar thermal plant is the solar updraft tower, using a huge chimney surrounded at its base by a solar collector zone like an open greenhouse. The air under this skirt is heated and rises up the chimney, turning turbines as it does so. The 50 MWe Buronga plant planned in Australia was to be a prototype, but Enviromission's initial plans are now for two 200 MWe versions each using 32 turbines of 6.25 MWe with a 10 square kilometre collector zone under a 730 metre high tower in the Arizona desert. Thermal mass – possibly brine ponds – under the collector zone means that some operation will continue into the night. A 50 kWe prototype plant of this design operated in Spain 1982-89. In China the 27.5 MWe Jinshawan solar updraft tower is under construction.
Direct heating
A significant role of solar energy is that of direct heating. Much of our energy need is for heat below 60oC, eg. in hot water systems. A lot more, particularly in industry, is for heat in the range 60-110oC. Together these may account for a significant proportion of primary energy use in industrialised nations. The first need can readily be supplied by solar power much of the time in some places, and the second application commercially is probably not far off. Such uses will diminish to some extent both the demand for electricity and the consumption of fossil fuels, particularly if coupled with energy conservation measures such as insulation.
With adequate insulation, heat pumps utilising the conventional refrigeration cycle can be used to warm and cool buildings, with very little energy input other than from the sun. Eventually, up to ten percent of total primary energy in industrialised countries may be supplied by direct solar thermal techniques, and to some extent this will substitute for base-load electrical energy.
Geothermal energy
The core of the Earth is very hot, and temperature in its crust generally rises 2.5 to 3.5°C with each 100 metres depth simply due to that core heat. The source of this heat is partly residual, from the Earth’s formation some 4.5 billion years ago, and partly due to the radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radioisotopes in the mantle. See also information paper on The Cosmic Origins of Uranium.
Where hot underground steam can be tapped and brought to the surface it may be used to generate electricity. Such geothermal sources have potential in certain parts of the world such as New Zealand, USA, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines and Italy. Geothermal energy is attractive because it is low-cost to run and is dispatchable, unlike wind and solar.
Global installed capacity was about 14 GWe in 2020, up from 13 GWe in 2018 when it produced 88 TWh (IRENA data) – i.e. 77% capacity factor in 2017. Capacity includes 2.6 GWe (18% of the world total) in the USA (mostly in California), 2.1 GWe (15%) in Indonesia, 1.9 GWe (14%) in the Philippines, 1.5 GWe (11%) in Turkey, 1.0 GWe (7%) in New Zealand, 0.9 GWe (7%) in Mexico, 0.8 GWe in Kenya and 0.8 GWe in Italy. Iceland gets one-quarter of its electricity from around 750 MWe of geothermal plant. Lihir Gold mine in Papua New Guinea has 56 MWe installed, the last 20 MWe costing $40 million – about the same as the annual savings from the expanded plant. Europe has more than 100 geothermal power plants with about 1.6 GWe installed in 2017, producing about 12.0 TWh. The largest geothermal plant is The Geysers in California, which currently operates at an average capacity of 725 MWe, but this is diminishing. See also Geothermal Energy Association website.
The Iceland Deep Drilling Project (IDDP) launched in 2000 aims to investigate the economic feasibility of extracting energy and chemicals from fluids under supercritical conditions, with much higher energy content. The project’s initial targets were achieved early in 2017, starting from an existing 2,500 m deep production well at the Reykjanes Peninsula geothermal field in the southwest of the country. Drilling reached a depth of 4,659 metres and encountered fluids at supercritical conditions. The measured temperature was 427°C and the pressure 34 MPa. Potential utilization is being assessed.
There are also prospects in certain other areas for hot fractured rock geothermal, or hot dry rock geothermal – pumping water underground to regions of the Earth's crust which are very hot or using hot brine from these regions. The heat – up to about 250°C – is due to high levels of radioactivity in the granites and because they are insulated at 4-5 km depth. They typically have 15-40 ppm uranium and/or thorium, but may be ten times this. The heat from radiogenic decay* is used to make steam for electricity generation. South Australia has some very prospective areas. The main problem with this technology is producing and maintaining the artificially-fractured rock as the heat exchanger. Only one such project is operational, the Geox 3 MWe plant at Landau, Germany, using hot water (160ºC) pumped up from 3.3 km down (and maybe should be classed as conventional geothermal). It cost €20 million. A 50 MWe Australian plant was envisaged as having 9 deep wells – 4 down and 5 up but the Habanero project closed down in 2016 after pilot operation at 1 MWe over 160 days showed it was not viable.
Ground source heat pump systems or engineered geothermal systems also come into this category, though the temperatures are much lower and utilization is for space heating rather than electricity. Generally the cost of construction and installation is prohibitive for the amount of energy extracted. The UK has a city-centre geothermal heat network in Southampton where water at 75°C is abstracted from a deep saline aquifer at a depth of 1.8 km. Customers for the heat include the local hospital, university and commercial premises. The 1997 Geoscience Australia building in Canberra is heated and cooled thus, using a system of 210 pumps throughout the building which carry water through loops of pipe buried in 352 boreholes each 100 metres deep in the ground. Here the temperature is a steady 17°C, so that it is used as a heat sink or heat source at different times of the year. See 10-year report (pdf).
The Global Geothermal Alliance aims to achieve a 500% increase in the global installed capacity for power generation along with a 200% increase in geothermal heating by 2030. Abandoned deep mines provide potential access to the Earth’s core heat.
Ocean energy
This falls into three categories – tidal, wave and temperature gradient, described separately below. Collectively they are receiving more attention, especially in the EU, where some €3 billion of mostly private money has been invested. The European Commission's Strategic Energy Technology (SET) plan acknowledges the potential role of ocean energy in Europe's future energy mix and suggests enhancing regional cooperation in the Atlantic region. The EU Ocean Energy Forum was to develop a roadmap by 2020. In 2019 it claimed: “100 GWe of ocean energy can be installed in Europe to meet 10% of demand” by 2050.
Tidal energy – barriers, tidal range
Harnessing the tides with a barrage in a bay or estuary has been achieved in France (240 MWe in the Rance Estuary, since 1966), Canada (20 MWe at Annapolis in the Bay of Fundy, since 1984), South Korea (Sihwa, 260 MWe, since 2011), and Russia (White Sea, 0.5 MWe), and could be achieved in certain other areas where there is a large tidal range. The trapped water can be used to turn turbines as it is released through the tidal barrage in either direction. The Severn barrage proposed in the UK in the 1970s would have 7 GWe capacity and 40% capacity factor, so nuclear options were much less expensive. Worldwide this technology appears to have little potential, largely due to environmental constraints.
The Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon pathfinder project in Wales was a 320 MWe tidal barrier expected to generate over 530 GWh per year (19% capacity factor) and costing £1.3 billion. It was expected to start construction in 2018 but is now unlikely to proceed. Natural Energy Wyre in the UK has set up a consortium to develop the Eco-THEP, a 90 MW tidal barrage plant with six turbines on the River Wyre near Fleetwood in northwest England by 2020. It predicts an annual output of 220 GWh – a 28% capacity factor. The planned Cardiff Tidal Lagoon involves a 20 km breakwater with 108 turbines in at least two powerhouse units, total 2171 MWe, producing 5500 GWh per year at low cost. About 600 million m3 of water would pass through the turbines on each tidal cycle. An application to build the project was expected in 2019.
Tidal energy – tidal stream
Placing free-standing turbines in major coastal tidal streams appears to have greater potential than barriers, and this is being developed. Tidal barrier capacity installed in Europe since 2010 reached 27 MWe in 2018, with 12 MWe of that still operational. The remainder had been decommissioned following the end of testing programmes. Production from tidal streams in 2018 was 34 GWh. Another 8 MWe of capacity is planned for 2019.
Currents are predictable and those with velocities of 2 to 3 metres per second are ideal and the kinetic energy involved is equivalent to a very high wind speed. This means that a 1 MWe tidal turbine rotor is less than 20 m diameter, compared with 60 m for a 1 MWe wind turbine. Units can be packed more densely than wind turbines in a wind farm, and positioned far enough below the surface to avoid storm damage.
A 300 kW turbine with 11 m diameter rotor in the Bristol Channel can be jacked out of the water for maintenance. Based on this prototype, early in 2008 the 1.2 MWe SeaGen twin turbine was installed in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, billed as the first commercial grid-connected tidal stream turbine. It produced power 18-20 hours per day and was operated by a Siemens subsidiary until it was closed in 2019 after producing 11.6 GWh. The next project is a 10.5 MWe nine-turbine array off the coast of Anglesey.
The MeyGen 398 MWe tidal turbine project is in Pentland Firth, between Orkney and the Scottish mainland, and the initial 6 MWe demonstration array of six turbines uses Atlantis* and Andritz technology. The first 1.5 MWe turbine came online in November 2016 and phase 1 had exported 17 GWh to the grid by mid-2019. Meygen phase 1B is known as Project Stroma and uses two 2 MWe Atlantis AR2000 turbines. Phase 1C will use 49 turbines, total 73.5 MWe. The first Atlantis 1MWe prototype was deployed at the European Marine Energy Centre at Orkney in 2011, and a 1 MWe Andritz Hydro Hammerfest prototype is also deployed there, as is a 2 MWe turbine from Scotrenewables mounted under a barge – the SR2000. At the North Shetland tidal array in Bluemull Sound, Nova Innovation is installing three 100 kW turbines, the first already supplying power to the grid.
At the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, Orbital Marine Power's 2 MWe O2 floating tidal turbine was installed in mid-2021 and secured with anchors.
In France, two pilot 1 MWe tidal turbines were commissioned by EDF off the Brittany coast at the end of 2015. They are 16 m diameter to pilot the technology with a view to the installation of seven 2 MWe tidal turbines in the Raz Blanchard tidal race off Normandy in 2018. However, the company involved, OpenHydro, failed and was liquidated.
French energy company Engie has announced plans to build a tidal energy project on the western coast of the Cotentin peninsula in northwest France. It aims to install four tidal turbines with a total generating capacity of 5.6 MWe by 2018 in a region with the strongest marine currents in Europe.
Some tidal stream generators are designed to oscillate, using the tidal flow to move hydroplanes connected to hydraulic arms sideways or up and down. A prototype has been installed off the coast of Portugal.
Another experimental design is using a shroud to speed up the flow through a venturus in which the turbine is placed. This has been trialled in Australia and British Colombia.
A major pilot project using three kinds of tidal stream turbines is being installed in the Bay of Fundy's Minas Passage, about three kilometers from shore. Some 3 MWe would be fed to the Canadian grid from the pilot project. Eventually 100 MWe is envisaged. The three designs are a 10m diameter turbine from Ireland, a Canadian Clean Current turbine and an Underwater Electric Kite from the USA. In 2018 the Irish OpenHydro turbine failed and was written off and the company went into liquidation after its parent, Naval Energies, declined further support.
Tidal power comes closest of all the intermittent renewable sources to being able to provide a continuous and predictable output, and is projected to increase from 1 billion kWh in 2002 to 35 billion in 2030 (including wave power).
Ocean Energy Europe reported 10.4 MWe deployed by the end of 2019, with 3.4 MWe more being built.
Wave energy
Harnessing power from wave motion has the potential to yield significant electricity. The potential of this is mostly between 30° and 60° latitude and in deep water (> 40 metres) locations. Wave energy technologies are diverse and less mature than those for tides. Only about 2.3 MWe was installed globally early in 2020, but over 1 GWe of new projects had been announced.
Generators either coupled to floating devices or turned by air displaced by waves in a hollow concrete structure (oscillating water column) are two concepts for producing electricity for delivery to shore. Other experimental devices are submerged and harness the changing pressure as waves pass over them. Ocean Energy Europe reported that capacity installed reached 11.8 MWe in 2019, with 1.5 MWe of that still operational. The remainder had been decommissioned following the end of testing programmes. Another 4.2 MWe of capacity is planned for 2020.
The first commercial wave power plant is in Portugal, with floating rigid segments which pump fluid through turbines as they flex at the joints. It can produce 2.25 MWe. Another – Oyster – is in the UK and is designed to capture the energy found in nearshore waves in water depths of 12 to 16 metres. Each 200-tonne module consists of a large buoyant hinged flap anchored to the seabed. Movement of the flap with each passing wave drives a hydraulic piston to deliver high-pressure water to an onshore turbine which generates electricity. The 315 kW demonstration module being tested in the Orkney Islands is expected to have about a 42% capacity factor.
Near Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii two test units 1-2 km offshore are producing power. Azura is an American anchored buoy extending 4 m above the surface and 16 m below, and it converts wave energy into 18 kW. A 500 kW version is planned. A Norwegian design is an anchored 16-metre diameter buoy which moves its tethering cables to produce 4 kW.
In Australia Carnegie Wave Energy has the Perth Wave Energy Project with three 240 kW CETO 5 units delivering power to the grid. The CETO 5 system consists of buoys that are fully submerged and their movement drives seabed pump units to deliver high pressure fluid via a subsea pipe to standard hydroelectric turbines onshore. A three-unit plant using quite different 1 MW CETO 6 units is being deployed by Carnegie with WaveHub in the UK – these generate power inside the buoyant actuator attached to a pump tethered to the seabed, replacing the closed hydraulic loop with an export cable. The project capacity is now reported as 5 MWe.
Another submerged ocean-surge design is AW-Energy’s WaveRoller. A large vertical panel harnesses up to 2 MW of wave energy and generates power in the fixed power take-off section anchored to the near-shore seabed 8 to 20 metres deep. A 350 kW full-scale module is to be installed near Peniche in Portugal, supported by €10 million from the European Investment Bank.
Ocean thermal energy
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) has long been an attractive idea, but is unproven beyond small pilot plants up to 50 kWe, though in 2015 a 100 kWe closed cycle plant was commissioned in Hawaii and connected to the grid. It works by utilising the temperature difference between equatorial surface waters and cool deep waters, the temperature difference needing to be about 20ºC top to bottom. In the open cycle OTEC the warm surface water is evaporated in a vacuum chamber to produce steam which drives a turbine. It is then condensed in a heat exchanger by the cold water. The main engineering challenge is in the huge cold water pipe which needs to be about 10 m diameter and extend a kilometre deep to enable a large water flow. A closed cycle variation of this uses an ammonia cycle. The ammonia is vapourized by the warm surface waters and drives a turbine before being condensed in a heat exchanger by the cold water. A 10ºC temperature difference is then sufficient.
Biomass
Beyond traditional direct uses for cooking and warmth, growing plant crops particularly wood to burn directly or to make biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel has a lot of support in several parts of the world, though mostly focused on transport fuel. More recently, wood pellets and chips as biomass for electricity generation have been newsworthy. The main issues here are land and water resources. The land usually must either be removed from agriculture for food or fibre, or it means encroaching upon forests or natural ecosystems. Available fresh water for growing biofuel crops such as maize and sugarcane and for processing them may be another constraint.
Burning biomass for generating electricity has some appeal as a means of indirectly using solar energy for power. It is driven particularly by EU energy policy which classifies it as renewable and ignores the CO2 emissions from burning the wood product. However, the logistics and overall energy balance may defeat it, in that a lot of energy – mostly oil based – is required to harvest and move the crops to the power station. This means that the energy inputs to growing, fertilising and harvesting the crops then processing them can easily be greater than the energy value in the final fuel, and the greenhouse gas emissions can be greater than those from equivalent fossil fuels. Also other environmental impacts related to land use and ecological sustainability can be considerable. For long-term sustainability, the ash containing mineral nutrients needs to be returned to the land.
7.9 million tonnes of wood pellets were exported to Europe from North America in 2018. Some of this comes from low-value forest residues, but increasingly it is direct harvesting of whole trees. Four (out of six) 660 MWe units of Drax, Britain’s largest coal-fired power station, have been converted to burn wood, most of it imported (like the coal of higher heat value that it replaces). Drax demand is now about 7.5 Mt of pellets per year almost entirely from North America. No carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to the actual burning, on the basis that growing replacement wood balances out those emissions, albeit in a multi-decade time frame. Drax figures show 121 g/kWh CO2 for harvesting, preparing and transporting wood pellets to the UK, compared with 32 g/kWh for mined and delivered coal. Burning wood pellets releases about 18% more carbon dioxide than bituminous coal. Unlike coal, the wood needs to be stored under cover. In 2015 Drax received £450 million in subsidies for using biomass – mostly US wood pellets – as fuel, followed by £548 million in 2016. A pilot bioenergy carbon capture storage (BECCS) project – the first in Europe – commenced at Drax in 2018.
In central Europe, wood pellets are burned on a large scale, and it is estimated that about half the wood cut in the EU is burned for electricity or heating.
Worldwide, wood pellet burning is increasing strongly due both to subsidies and national policies related to climate change (since carbon dioxide emissions from it are excluded from national totals). UN data shows pellet production reaching 28 million tonnes in 2015, a rise of more than 40% in three years, with the USA the biggest source. (World statistics available on the Global Timber website.)
In Australia and Latin America sugar cane pulp is burned as a valuable energy source, but this (bagasse) is a by-product of the sugar and does not have to be transported.
In 2017 biomass and waste provided 596 TWh of electricity worldwide, from 118 GWe of capacity according to the IEA. By 2030 biomass-fuelled electricity production was projected to triple and provide 2% of the world total, 4% in OECD Europe, as a result of government policies to promote renewables. However, such projections are increasingly challenged as the cost of biofuels in water use and role of biofuels in pushing up food prices is increasingly questioned. In particular, the use of ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans reduces food production and arguably increases world poverty. The cost in subsidies is also increasingly questioned: in the OECD $13-15 billion is spent annually on biofuels which provide only 3% of liquid transport fuel.
Over 2011-2021 about 4 million hectares (40,000 km2) of forest in Southeast Asia and South America are reported by Thomson Reuters to have been cleared for EU biofuel production: 1.1 Mha (11,000 km2) for palm in Southeast Asia and 2.9 Mha (29,000 km2) for soybeans in South America. Most goes into biodiesel.
A legislated portion of the US corn crop is turned into fuel ethanol, aided by heavy subsidies. In 2016 about 134 million tonnes of US corn was used to make 58 GL of fuel ethanol (most of the rest is stock food) and production has declined since. Meanwhile basic food prices rose, leading the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in mid-2012 to call for the USA to halt its biofuel production to prevent a food crisis. In any case, the energy return on investment (EROI) of corn ethanol in the USA is strongly questioned, and a consensus that it is below the minimum useful threshold is reported. Ethanol is no longer promoted as good for the environment.
Generally, burning biomass for electricity has been put forward as carbon neutral. That too is now questioned on the basis that carbon is released much more quickly than it can be absorbed by growing wood crops, so using round wood for pellets is likely to contribute significant net CO2 emissions for many decades. Using sawmill or logging residues however is not contentious. Some EU states have developed biomass sustainability criteria.
Pedestrian traffic
A new technology, Pavegen, uses pavement tiles about one metre square to harvest energy from pedestrian traffic. A footfall on a tile will flex it about 5mm and result in up to 8 watts of power over the duration of the footstep. Electricity can be stored, used directly for lighting, or in other ways.
Nuclear energy
In recent years there has been discussion as to whether nuclear power can be categorised as “renewable”. In the context of sustainable development it shares many of the benefits of many renewables, it is a low-carbon energy source, it has a very small environmental impact, similarities that are in sharp contrast to fossil fuels. But commonly, nuclear power is categorized separately from ‘renewables’. Nuclear fission power reactors do use a mineral fuel, and demonstrably but minimally deplete the available resources of that fuel.
In the future nuclear power will make use of fast neutron reactors. As well as utilizing about 60 times the amount of energy from uranium, they will unlock the potential of using even more abundant thorium as a fuel. In addition, some 1.5 million tonnes of depleted uranium now seen by some people as little more than a waste, becomes a fuel resource. In effect, they will ‘renew’ their own fuel resource as they operate. The consequence of this is that the available resource of fuel for fast neutron reactors is so plentiful that under no practical terms would the fuel source be significantly depleted.
‘Renewables’, as currently defined, would offer no meaningful advantage over fast neutron reactors in terms of availability of fuel supplies. Most also tend to make very large demands on resources to construct the plant used for harnessing the natural energy – per kilowatt hour produced, much more than nuclear power. Wind turbine plants need over ten times the amount of steel, 15 times the amount of copper and more than twice the amount of other critical minerals than nuclear power per kWh output.
Rotating stabiliser synchronous machines
Inertia is a key element of electricity grid stability. To compensate for the lack of synchronous inertia in generating plant when there is high dependence on wind and solar sources, synchronous condensers, sometimes known as rotating stabilisers, may be added to the system. These are high-inertia rotating machines that can support the grid network in delivering efficient and reliable synchronous inertia and can help stabilize frequency deviations by generating and absorbing reactive power. They behave like a synchronous motor with no load, providing reactive power and short-circuit power to the transmission network.
Synchronous condensers (syncons) are like synchronous motors with no load and not mechanically connected to anything. They may be supplemented by a flywheel to increase inertia. They are used for frequency and voltage control in weak parts of a grid or where there is a high proportion of variable renewable input requiring grid stability to be enhanced. Adding synchronous condensers can help with reactive power needs, increase short-circuit strength and thus system inertia, and assure better dynamic voltage recovery after severe system faults. They can compensate for either a leading or lagging power factor, by absorbing or supplying reactive power (measured in volt-ampere reactive, VAr) to the line. Static synchronous compensators (STATCOM) have a voltage control function, but not the full syncon function.
A leading application is in Germany, where a highly variable flow from offshore wind farms in the north is transmitted to the main load centres in the south, leading to voltage fluctuations and the need for enhanced reactive power control. The reduced inertia in the entire grid made the need to improve short-circuit strength and frequency stability more critical. Germany’s four TSOs have defined a need for 23 to 28 GVAr of synchronous condensers or compensators for reactive power compensation in the network. Amprion has ordered two 600 MVAr static synchronous compensators (STATCOM) from Siemens for Polsum in North Rhine-Westphalia and Rheinau in Baden-Württemberg to help stabilize the power grid as conventional plant closures increase the loss of inertia risk with increasing volatility from renewables. Also a large GE synchronous condenser is installed at Bergrheinfeld in Bavaria.
Following a state-wide blackout, South Australia is installing two GE synchronous condensers at Davenport near Port Augusta and two Siemens units at Robertstown to compensate for a high proportion of wind input to the grid and reduce the vulnerability to further problems from this. These are connected to the 275 kV grid. Also a 190 MVAr Siemens machine is installed at the 265 MWe Kiamal solar PV farm just across the Victorian border near Ouyen.
GE has converted a 625 MWe generator retired from a coal-fired plant to a synchronous condenser of over 500 MVAr, and such conversions, powered from the grid, are often cost-effective. After the 1200 MWe Biblis A nuclear power plant in Germany was retired in 2011 its generator was converted to a synchronous condenser. This now regulates the reactive power from -400 up to +900 MVAr, which is made available to grid operator Amprion in situations of low or high grid voltage.
In the UK, Statkraft plans to install two GE rotating stabilisers to provide stability services to the transmission network in Scotland. These would draw about 1 MWe from the grid and enable many times that of intermittent renewable input, replacing the role of inertia in fossil-fuel or nuclear plants for frequency control. The project is among five innovative grid stability contracts awarded by the National Grid electricity system operator in January 2020.
GE quotes rotor mass of 200 tonnes for its horizontal axis 65 MVAr machine and 400 t for a 200 MVAr vertical axis machine (compared with over 1000 t for a large conventional power plant). In the small Denmark grid, five machines are required to dampen the effect of about 5 GWe of wind capacity. It has a 250 MVAr Siemens syncon at Bjaerskov. Siemens quotes horizontal axis units up to 1300 MVAr, ABB up to 350 MVAr, and GE to 330 MVAr.
Some newer wind turbines are directly coupled and run synchronously at fixed grid-defined rotation speeds, providing some frequency stability, although less total energy output than with DC output.
Large batteries can provide some virtual inertia for frequency control.
Decentralized energy
Centralised state utilities focused on economies of scale can easily overlook an alternative model – of decentralized electricity generation, with that generation being on a smaller scale and close to demand. Here higher costs may be offset by reduced transmission losses (not to mention saving the capital costs of transmission lines) and possibly increased reliability. Generation may be on site or via local mini grids.
Electricity storage at utility scale
In some places pumped hydro storage is used to even out the daily generating load by pumping water to a high storage dam during off-peak hours and weekends, using the excess base-load capacity from low-cost coal or nuclear sources. During peak hours this water can be used for hydro-electric generation. Pumped hydro storage is best suited for providing peak-load power for a system comprising mostly fossil fuel and/or nuclear generation. It is not well suited to filling in for intermittent, unscheduled generation such as wind, where surplus power is irregular and unpredictable.
Relatively few places have scope for pumped storage dams close to where the power is needed, and overall efficiency is 70-75%, but about 120 GWe pumped storage is installed worldwide, including 19 GWe in the USA and 25 GWe in Europe. In 2017, 121 GWh was supplied from pumped storage according to IRENA. There is increasing interest in off-river pumped hydro (ORPH) storage, with pairs of reservoirs having at least 200 metres height difference.
Pumped storage comprised about 95% of the world’s large-scale electricity storage in mid-2018. Building power storage emerged in 2014 as a defining energy technology trend. The market grew by 50% year-on-year, but annual installations fell for the first time in nearly a decade in 2019.
Intermittent renewables in relation to base-load demand
It is clear that renewable energy sources have considerable potential to meet mainstream electricity needs. However, having solved the problems of harnessing them there is a further challenge: of integrating them into the supply system where most demand is for continuous, reliable supply. Obviously sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous dispatchable power to meet base-load demand, or peak-load power when it is needed, so how can other, dispatchable sources be operated so as to complement them?
If there were some way that large amounts of electricity from intermittent variable renewable energy (VRE) producers such as solar and wind could be stored efficiently, the contribution of these technologies to supplying electricity demand would be much greater – see preceding subsection. The only renewable source with built-in storage and hence dispatchable on demand is hydro from dams. The storage can be enhanced by pumping back water when power costs are low, and such dammed hydro schemes can be complemented by off-river pumped hydro. This requires pairs of small reservoirs in hilly terrain and joined by a pipe with pump and turbine.
There is some scope for reversing the whole way we look at power supply, in its 24-hour, 7-day cycle, using peak load equipment simply to meet the daily peaks. Conventional peak-load equipment can be used to some extent to provide infill capacity in a system relying heavily on VRE sources such as wind and solar. Its characteristic is rapid start-up, usually (apart from dammed hydro) with low capital and high fuel cost. Such capacity complements large-scale solar thermal and wind generation, providing power at short notice when they were unable to. This is essentially what happens with Denmark, whose wind capacity is complemented by a major link to Norwegian hydro (as well as Sweden and the north German grid).
Case study: West Denmark
West Denmark (the main peninsula part) is the most intensely wind-turbined part of the planet, with 1.74 per 1000 people – 4700 turbines totaling 2315 MWe, 1800 MWe of which has priority dispatch and power must be taken by the grid when it is producing. Total system capacity is 6850 MWe and maximum load during 2002 was 3700 MWe, hence a huge 81% margin. In 2002, 3.38 billion kWh were produced from the wind, a load factor of 16.8%. The peak wind output was 1813 MWe on 23 January, well short of the total capacity, and there were 54 days when the wind output supplied less than 1% of demand. On two occasions, in March and April, wind supplied more than total demand for a few hours. In February 2003 during a cold calm week there was virtually no wind output. Too much wind is also a problem – over 20 m/s output drops and over 25 m/s turbines are feathered. Generally, a one metre/second wind change causes a 320 MWe power change for the whole system.
However, all this can be and is managed due to the major interconnections with Norway, Sweden and Germany, of some 1000 MWe, 600 MWe and 1300 MWe respectively. Furthermore, especially in Norway, hydro resources can normally be called upon, which are ideal for meeting demand at short notice. (though not in 2002 after several dry years). So the Danish example is a very good one, but the circumstances are far from typical.
Case study: Germany
The 2006 report from a thorough study commissioned by the German Energy Agency (DENA) looked at regulating and reserve generation capacity and how it might be deployed as German wind generation doubled to 2015. The study found that only a very small proportion of the installed wind capacity could contribute to reliable supply. Depending on time of year, the gain in guaranteed capacity from wind as a proportion of its total capacity was between 6 and 8% for 14.5 GWe total, and between 5 and 6% for 36 GWe total projected in 2015. This all involves a major additional cost to consumers.
Case study: UK
The performance of every UK wind farm can be seen on the Renewable Energy Foundation website. Note particularly the percentage of installed capacity which is actually delivering power averaged over each month.
If hydro is the back-up and is not abundant, it will be less available for peaking loads. If gas is the back-up this will usually be the best compromise between cost and availability. But any conventional generating plants used as back-up for VRE sources has to be run at lower output than designed to accommodate the intermittent input, and then the lower capacity factor can make them uneconomic, as is now being experienced with many GWe of gas and coal capacity in Germany. The higher the proportion of intermittent input to a system, the greater the diseconomy. This incidentally has adverse CO2 emissions implications. (See sections below).
A further economic effect arises from deploying a lot of wind and solar PV with low marginal generating cost because it creates a substantial increase in the volatility of electricity prices, and at 20% wind/solar or above, zero prices sometimes occur. This value decline caused by wind and solar generating most of their output during times of self-imposed electricity oversupply is marked and it magnifies with their share increasing. German data for 2018 shows that as day-ahead wind & solar power reaches 50 GWe – about half normal demand there – due to self-imposed oversupply the average price drops from about €58/MWh to €20/MWh.
This price effect is not compensated by the price peaks enjoyed by reliable producers when those renewables are insufficient. The price volatility is a major disincentive to investment in new plant, whether nuclear or renewable, if not regulated or subsidized. Since wind and solar PV output correlates with meteorological conditions across a wide area, an increased proportion of them also means that the average price received by those producers – especially solar PV – declines significantly as their penetration increases, magnifying this value decline. At a penetration level of 22.5%, the value of a kilowatt-hour from wind is reduced by 25% in an OECD model*, and in Germany in 2018 the effect was even larger.
In practical terms non-hydro renewables are therefore able to supply up to some 15-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, though they cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for most coal or nuclear power, however significant they become in particular areas with favourable conditions. Nevertheless, VRE sources make an important contribution to the world's energy future, even if they cannot carry the main burden of supply. The Global Wind Energy Council expects wind to be able to supply between 10.8 and 15.6% of global electricity by 2030.
In 2014 the OECD International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report on this issue: The Power of Transformation, wind, sun and the economics of flexible power systems. It said that the cost-effective integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) has become a pressing challenge for the energy sector.
At less than 10% VRE, integration poses few challenges, since this is within the range of natural variability of any system. But the study showed that annual VRE shares of 25% to 40% might be achieved from a technical perspective, assuming current levels of system flexibility and sufficient capacity in the system, and assuming that some curtailment of VRE output was accepted (rather than guaranteed priority access to grid for VRE). “However, mobilising system flexibility to its technical maximum can be considerably more expensive than least-cost system operation.”
Meanwhile Germany provides a case study in accelerated integration of VRE into a stable system, with both politically- and economically-forced retirement of conventional generating capacity. See also the information paper on Energiewende.
In the USA since 1992 a production tax credit (PTC) has applied for wind, peaking in 2016 at $23/MWh net, compared with a wholesale price usually not much above that. In 2020 it was extended at $18/MWh. Thus the PTC meant that intermittent wind generators could dump power on the market to the extent of depressing the wholesale price so that other generators were operating at a loss. This market distortion has created major problems for the viability of dispatchable generation sources upon which the market depends.
Intermittency and grid management
Grid management authorities faced with the need to be able to dispatch power at short notice treat wind-generated power not as an available source of supply which can be called upon when needed but as an unpredictable drop in demand. In any case wind needs about 90% back-up, whereas the level of back-up for other forms of power generation which can be called upon on demand is around 25%, simply allowing for maintenance downtime.
Modelling done by the UK National Grid Corporation shows the effect of wind's unreliability on the required plant for achieving the 20% UK renewables target:
Contribution from wind
% of 400 TWh
Wind capacity GWe
Conventional capacity GWe
Spare capacity GWe
2%
0.5
59
9.5
5%
7.5
57
14.5
20%
25
55
30
Thus, building 25 GWe of wind capacity, equivalent to almost half of UK peak demand, will only reduce the need for conventional fossil and nuclear plant capacity by 6.7%. Also, some 30 GWe of spare capacity will need to be on immediate call continuously to provide a normal margin of reserve and to back up the wind plant's inability to produce power on demand – about two-thirds of it being for the latter.
Ensuring both secure continuity of supply (reliably meeting peak power demands) and its quality (voltage and frequency control) means that the actual potential for wind and solar input to a system is limited. Doing so economically, as evident from the above UK figures, requires low-cost back-up such as hydro, or gas turbine with cheap fuel. For the UK, with little interconnection beyond its shores, a 20% renewables target is difficult and more than that has significant cost and reliability implications.
Because wind turbine output is so variable, for planning purposes its potential output is discounted to the level of power that can be relied upon for 90% of the time. In Australia that figure comes to 7% of installed wind capacity, in Germany it is 8%, which is all that can be included as securely available (i.e. 90% of the time).* On the 90% availability basis, other technologies can be counted on for much higher reliability, and hence the investment cost per kilowatt reliably available is much less.
* Figures from NEMMCO and E.ON respectively.
Nuclear power plants are essentially base-load generators, running continuously. Where it is necessary to vary the output according to daily and weekly load cycles, for instance in France, where there is a very high reliance on nuclear power, they can be adapted to load-follow. For BWRs this is reasonably easy without burning the core unevenly, but for a PWR (as in France) to run at less than full power for much of the time depends on where it is in the 18 to 24-month refueling cycle, and whether it is designed with special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without shutting it down. So while the ability on any individual PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases markedly as it progresses through the refueling cycle, there is considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following mode. Generation III plants and small modular reactors have more scope for load-following, and as fast neutron reactors become more established, their ability in this regard will be an asset.
If electricity cannot be stored on a large scale, the next logical step is to look at products of its use which can be stored, and hence where intermittent electricity supply is not a problem.
System integration costs of intermittent renewable power generation
Power generation technologies generally compete with each other both in regulated and deregulated markets to supply electricity through a ‘merit order’ based on availability and marginal cost of production for any given period. Fossil fuel, nuclear, biomass and hydro power generators can all to varying degrees supply electricity ‘on demand’, in other words supply from these sources can be called upon or adjusted to meet demand. In contrast to renewable hydro, the feed-in of wind and solar output is uncontrollably intermittent due to the uncertainty of meteorological conditions. In grid management terms they are not dispatchable. Therefore the energy system needs backup capacity from the on-demand-sources to bridge periods with high or low generation from renewables. To some extent battery storage can help, though most grid-scale battery installations are more for ancillary services (frequency control etc.) rather than energy storage. See also Electricity and Energy Storage information page.
The intermittency of wind and solar generation at capacity factors of around 30% and 20% respectively means that three or four times as much capacity of these needs to be built to achieve the same market share as dispatchable sources. Nuclear power’s average load factor is about 75%; thus to generate an equivalent amount of potential power to nuclear on the basis of these load factors, it is necessary to install three or four times as much wind capacity*. But that is not the main problem.
* This factor is likely to deteriorate over time as the optimal sites for wind and solar are progressively used, leaving only less favourable sites.
Wind and solar power supply is largely governed by wind speed and the level of sunlight, which can only loosely be related to periods of power demand. It is this feature of intermittent renewable power supply that results in the imposition of additional costs on the generating system as a whole.
The IEA disaggregates these system costs into three components:
Adequacy costs: the cost of ensuring that the power system has sufficient capacity to meet peak loads.
Balancing costs: the cost of ensuring that the power system can respond flexibly to demand changes at any given time.
Interconnection costs: the cost of linking sources of supply to sources of demand.
As noted above, additional back-up capacity is needed to meet demand rapidly when meteorological conditions result in insufficient wind and solar power generation. The adequacy and balancing capacity must itself have a high degree of availability, ie, it should be from a dispatchable source. This reserve or backup capacity is most likely to be needed during periods of high demand and lack of wind and solar, for instance on a calm winter’s evening. In such a situation significant levels of dispatchable backup capacity are needed to ensure security of supply.
The third category of intermittent renewable integration cost is grid interconnection. Wind and solar farms are ideally sited in areas that experience high average wind speeds and high average solar radiation respectively. These sites are often, even typically, distant from areas of electricity demand. Transmission and distribution networks will often need to be extended significantly to connect sources of supply and demand - this is a current challenge in UK and North Germany.
There is another category of costs that result from the operation of renewables and these can be described as the external costs borne by other power producers, in particular base-load power producers, as a result of intermittency. The structure of wind and solar levelised generation costs is characterised by high capital, significant O&M costs and zero fuel costs. As a result, the operating costs for these sources are very low and when power is generated they undercut and are able to displace all other sources of power in a utility’s merit order. In a situation of high levels of wind and solar power penetration and during periods of low demand, baseload generators will be displaced in the merit order. This is also required by legislation in many countries.
The impact of high levels of intermittent, low cost power will be to reduce the load factors of base-load power generators, and thereby increase their unit costs per kilowatt-hour. Given the high capital costs of nuclear, such an impact will significantly increase the levelised generation costs of nuclear. For example, a 15% decrease in the capacity factor of a nuclear power plant could increase its levelised cost by about 24%.
The Hydrogen Economy
Hydrogen is widely seen as a possible fuel for transport, if certain problems can be overcome economically. It may be used in conventional internal combustion engines, or in fuel cells which convert chemical energy directly to electricity without normal burning.
Making hydrogen requires either reforming natural gas (methane) with steam, or the electrolysis of water. The former process has carbon dioxide as a by-product, which exacerbates (or at least does not improve) greenhouse gas emissions relative to present technology. With electrolysis, the greenhouse burden depends on the source of the power.
With intermittent renewables such as solar and wind, matching the output to grid demand is very difficult, and beyond about 20% of the total supply, the system costs overwhelm generation costs. But if these sources are used for electricity to make hydrogen, then they can be utilised fully whenever they are available, opportunistically. Broadly speaking it does not matter when they cut in or out, the hydrogen is simply stored and used as required. However, electrolysers are inefficient at low capacity factors such as even dedicated wind or solar input would supply.
A quite different rationale applies to using nuclear energy (or any other emission-free base-load plant) for hydrogen. Here the plant would be run continuously at full capacity, with perhaps all the output being supplied to the grid in peak periods and any not needed to meet civil demand being used to make hydrogen at other times. This would mean maximum efficiency for the nuclear power plants, and that hydrogen was made opportunistically when it suited the grid manager, with electrolyser capacity factors above 65% readily achieved.
About 55 kWh is required to produce a kilogram of hydrogen by electrolysis at ambient temperature, so the cost of the electricity clearly is crucial.
Environmental Aspects
Renewable energy sources have a completely different set of environmental costs and benefits to fossil fuel or nuclear generating capacity.
On the positive side they emit no carbon dioxide or other air pollutants (beyond some decay products from new hydro-electric reservoirs), but because they are harnessing relatively low-intensity energy, their 'footprint' – the area taken up by them – is necessarily much larger.
Whether Australia could accept the environmental impact of another Snowy Mountains hydro scheme (providing some 3.5% of the country's electricity plus irrigation) is doubtful. Whether large areas near cities dedicated to solar collectors will be acceptable, if such proposals are ever made, remains to be seen. Beyond utilising roofs, 1000 MWe of solar capacity would require at least 20 square kilometres of collectors, shading a lot of country.
In Europe, wind turbines have not endeared themselves to neighbours on aesthetic, noise or nature conservation grounds, and this has arrested their deployment in UK. At the same time, European non-fossil fuel obligations have led the establishment of major offshore wind forms and the prospect of more.
However, much environmental impact can be reduced. Fixed solar collectors can double as noise barriers along highways, roof-tops are available already, and there are places where wind turbines would not obtrude unduly.
APPENDIX: Government Support for Renewables Deployment
In an open market, government policies to support particular generation options such as renewables normally give rise to explicit direct subsidies along with other instruments such as feed-in tariffs, quota obligations and energy tax exemptions. In the EU, feed-in tariffs are widespread.
Corresponding to these in the other direction are taxes on particular energy sources, justified by climate change or related policies. For instance Sweden taxes nuclear power at about EUR 0.6 cents/kWh.
The Global Wind Energy Council (2008) reported that "In the pursuit of the overall target of 21% from renewable electricity by 2010, the Renewable Electricity Directive 2001 gives EU Member States freedom of choice regarding support mechanisms. Thus, various schemes are operating in Europe, mainly feed-in tariffs, fixed premiums, green certificate systems and tendering procedures. These schemes are generally complemented by tax incentives, environmental taxes, contribution programs or voluntary agreements."
France had a feed-in tariff of EUR 8.2 c/kWh to 2012, which then woiuld decrease.
Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act gives renewables priority for grid access and power dispatch. It is regularly amended to adapt feed-in tariffs to market conditions and technological developments. For wind energy an initial tariff applies for up to 20 years and this then reduces to a basic tariff of EUR 5.02 c/kWh. The initial tariff is EUR 9.2 c/kWh for onshore wind and 15 c/kWh for offshore wind from January 2009. The combined subsidy from consumers and government totals some €5 billion per year – for 7.5% of its electricity.
Denmark has a wide range of incentives for renewables and particularly wind energy. It has a complex 'Green Certificate' scheme which transfers the subsidy cost to consumers. However, there is a further economic cost borne by power utilities and customers. When there is a drop in wind, back-up power is bought from the Nordic power pool at the going rate. Similarly, any surplus (subsidised) wind power is sold to the pool at the prevailing price, which is sometimes zero . The net effect of this is growing losses as wind capacity expands.
Italy in 2008 legislated to provide EUR 18 c/kWh on a quota system for wind power.
Spain has different levels of feed-in tariffs depending on the technology used. A fixed tariff of EUR 7.32 c/kWh is one option, or a fixed premium of 2.93 c/kWh on the market price (but with a floor of 7.13 cents) is the other, as of 2008. The tariffs for renewables are adjusted every four years.
Greece has a feed-in tariff of 6.1-7.5 c/kWh, whereas the Netherlands relies on exemption from energy taxes to encourage renewables.
The UK has not used any feed-in tariff arrangement, but is to do so from 2010. Meanwhile a specific indication of the cost increment over power generation from other sources is given by the 4.5-5.0 p/kWh market value for the Renewables Obligation, by which utilities can cover the shortfall in producing a certain proportion of their electricity from renewables by paying this amount and passing the cost on to the consumer. In addition there is a Climate Change Levy of 0.43 p/kWh on non-renewable sources (at present including nuclear energy, despite its lack of greenhouse gas emissions), which corresponds to a subsidy.
Sweden subsidises renewables (principally large-scale hydro) by a tax on nuclear capacity, which works out at about EUR 0.67 cents/kWh from 2008. For wind, there is a quota system requiring utilities to buy a certain amount of renewable energy by purchasing certificates.
In Norway the government subsidises wind energy with a 25% investment grant and then production support per kWh, the total coming to NOK 0.12/kWh, against a spot price of around NOK 0.18/kWh (US$ 1.3 cents & 2 cents respectively).
In the USA the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) of 1.5 c/kWh indexed to inflation (peaked at 2.3 c/kWh) has provided incentive, though this expires every two years before being renewed by Congress.
In Australia energy retailers are required to source specified quantities of power from new (non hydro) renewables. The obligation is tradeable and there is a fallback tax of AUD 4 c/kWh for retailers failing to comply.
In India ten out of 29 states have feed-in tariffs, eg 2.75 times the tariff for coal-generated power in Karnataka, plus a federal incentive scheme paying one third of the coal-fired tariff.
Small-scale PV input is encouraged by high feed-in tariffs, eg 48 c/kWh in Germany and 50 c/kWh in Portugal. | However, having solved the problems of harnessing them there is a further challenge: of integrating them into the supply system where most demand is for continuous, reliable supply. Obviously sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous dispatchable power to meet base-load demand, or peak-load power when it is needed, so how can other, dispatchable sources be operated so as to complement them?
If there were some way that large amounts of electricity from intermittent variable renewable energy (VRE) producers such as solar and wind could be stored efficiently, the contribution of these technologies to supplying electricity demand would be much greater – see preceding subsection. The only renewable source with built-in storage and hence dispatchable on demand is hydro from dams. The storage can be enhanced by pumping back water when power costs are low, and such dammed hydro schemes can be complemented by off-river pumped hydro. This requires pairs of small reservoirs in hilly terrain and joined by a pipe with pump and turbine.
There is some scope for reversing the whole way we look at power supply, in its 24-hour, 7-day cycle, using peak load equipment simply to meet the daily peaks. Conventional peak-load equipment can be used to some extent to provide infill capacity in a system relying heavily on VRE sources such as wind and solar. Its characteristic is rapid start-up, usually (apart from dammed hydro) with low capital and high fuel cost. Such capacity complements large-scale solar thermal and wind generation, providing power at short notice when they were unable to. This is essentially what happens with Denmark, whose wind capacity is complemented by a major link to Norwegian hydro (as well as Sweden and the north German grid).
Case study: West Denmark
West Denmark (the main peninsula part) is the most intensely wind-turbined part of the planet, with 1.74 per 1000 people – 4700 turbines totaling 2315 MWe, 1800 MWe of which has priority dispatch and power must be taken by the grid when it is producing. | yes |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | yes_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" can "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" can be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://www.wri.org/insights/renewable-energy-opportunity-philippines | Why the Time Is Right for Renewable Energy in the Philippines ... | Things look very different today. Over the last year, the Philippine economy registered its worst growth in 29 years. About 4.2 million Filipinos are unemployed, nearly 8 million took pay cuts and 1.1 million children dropped out of primary and secondary education as classes moved online.
To exacerbate this economic and human catastrophe, the intermittent reliability of fossil fuel plants has led to forced power outages and unplanned maintenance. In the first half of 2021 alone, 17 power-generating companies went offline and breached their plant outage allowances as a result of the so-called manual load dropping to preserve power grid stability. Rolling blackouts, which historically only happen in the hottest months of March and April when hydropower plants underperform due to water supply scarcity, have continued well through July, disrupting school and work for millions. The power supply instability may also be affecting COVID-19 vaccination rates, since vaccines need stable energy to meet temperature-control requirements.
There’s a solution to the Philippines’ economic and energy woes: investing more in renewable energy development. Indeed, the country could finally be at a critical turning point in bringing its outdated energy system into the future.
How Will Renewable Energy Help the Philippines?
The Philippines’ current blackouts, and the associated energy supply and security challenges, have already prompted multi-sectoral, bipartisan calls for action to transform the country’s energy system. The island nation also remains highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In the last few years, as potential impacts become clearer, climate action has become an important issue for energy supply, energy security, job creation and post-pandemic essentials like cleaner air and a healthy planet.
A cyclist passes the 32,000-panel Valenzuela Solar Farm in Manila. Investing in renewable energy could create a more stable electricity system while helping the Philippines rebound from economic downturn. Photo by Lisa Marie David and IMF Photo/Flickr
Investing in renewable energy now should be one of the country’s priorities in order to alleviate several problems it faces. For one, it could provide a much-needed economic boost and quell fears of a U-shaped recovery. According to the World Economic Forum, citing numbers from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), every dollar invested in the clean energy transition provides 3-8 times the return.
Furthermore, the widespread adoption of renewable energy creates employment opportunities up and down the supply chain. The renewable energy sector already employed 11 million people worldwide as of 2018. A May 2020 report by McKinsey showed that government spending on renewables and energy efficiency creates 3 times more jobs than spending on fossil fuels.
Additionally, renewable energy can provide electricity access for all while reducing electricity costs for consumers. While millions of new consumers gained access to electricity since 2000, some 2 million people in the Philippines are still without it. Decarbonized and decentralized power generation systems that do not require pricey, massive and logistically challenging transmission networks in rugged and remote terrains would further the goal of total electrification. Providing consumer choice for low-cost clean energy sources can also result in savings and better profit margins for businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, which are more sensitive to changes in their month-to-month operational expenses than larger corporations.
Finally, the low-carbon energy transition will help thwart climate change and reduce the carbon intensity of the Philippines’ power sector, as well as improve its energy system resilience. Since the Philippines is made up of more than 7,000 islands, distributed renewable energy (DRE) systems that are not dependent on the transportation of fuel are well-suited to the country's geographic profile. This reduces the need for extra-long transmission lines that can be exposed to intense storms or other natural disturbances. DREs, especially those backed by batteries, can provide fast backup power during calamities, making the energy system more resilient.
A Tipping Point for Renewable Energy?
While the national government has already taken some steps to transition away from fossil fuels, coal continues to dominate the Philippines’ power supply.
The Green Energy Option Program (GEOP) is a provision of a 2008 national renewable energy law envisioned to transform the energy system by allowing commercial and industrial energy users to opt for 100% renewable energy. If implemented well, the GEOP could usher in a new business-as-usual scenario — one that no longer leans on fossil fuels, but instead makes renewable, green power the default choice because it is the option that makes economic, environmental and practical sense. However, the GEOP has remained unenforced for more than a decade.
But this may be poised to change: On July 29, 2021, a group of leading companies headed by Toyota Motor Philippines released a joint statement of support pushing for a rapid, full implementation of the GEOP. Notably, Toyota Philippines was joined by AC Energy, the energy arm of the country's oldest conglomerate, which last year announced to great fanfare its plans to fully divest from coal by 2030 on the way to becoming Southeast Asia’s largest listed renewable energy developer.
High-level executives of the incumbent Duterte administration — including Department of Finance Assistant Secretary Paolo Alvarez and Department of Energy Undersecretary Felix William Fuentebella — provided reactions of support for a clean energy transition. They were joined by a line-up of leading political candidates expected to figure prominently in the crucial May 2022 elections, the first national election since the COVID-19 pandemic.
This unprecedented, truly bipartisan show of support for the energy transition and for climate action in the Philippines marks a historic turning point — political leaders across party lines have somehow unified toward a common cause.
At the same time, the May 2022 elections will see 4 million first-time Filipino voters, most of whom are increasingly climate-aware youth. This number — about 10% of total votes cast — is significant, meaning climate policy and ambitious renewable energy plans could be decisive in the election’s outcome.
Seizing the Renewable Energy Opportunity in the Philippines
Like many developing countries, especially those in Asia, the Philippines needs to respond and recover fast to the economic impacts and human devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Investing in climate-proof, economically smart renewable energy will put the country on the right path. Rather than continuing to rely on unstable, polluting fossil fuels, the Philippines has an opportunity to embrace the support of the private sector and the public, lead among its peers in the region, and chart a bold path toward a renewable energy future.
The question now is: Will its national government seize the opportunity?
At this pivotal moment, WRI President & CEO Ani Dasgupta will share insights into our predictions for the big stories coming up in 2023, including what actions governments, businesses, institutions and people must take to get the world on the right path. | According to the World Economic Forum, citing numbers from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), every dollar invested in the clean energy transition provides 3-8 times the return.
Furthermore, the widespread adoption of renewable energy creates employment opportunities up and down the supply chain. The renewable energy sector already employed 11 million people worldwide as of 2018. A May 2020 report by McKinsey showed that government spending on renewables and energy efficiency creates 3 times more jobs than spending on fossil fuels.
Additionally, renewable energy can provide electricity access for all while reducing electricity costs for consumers. While millions of new consumers gained access to electricity since 2000, some 2 million people in the Philippines are still without it. Decarbonized and decentralized power generation systems that do not require pricey, massive and logistically challenging transmission networks in rugged and remote terrains would further the goal of total electrification. Providing consumer choice for low-cost clean energy sources can also result in savings and better profit margins for businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, which are more sensitive to changes in their month-to-month operational expenses than larger corporations.
Finally, the low-carbon energy transition will help thwart climate change and reduce the carbon intensity of the Philippines’ power sector, as well as improve its energy system resilience. Since the Philippines is made up of more than 7,000 islands, distributed renewable energy (DRE) systems that are not dependent on the transportation of fuel are well-suited to the country's geographic profile. This reduces the need for extra-long transmission lines that can be exposed to intense storms or other natural disturbances. DREs, especially those backed by batteries, can provide fast backup power during calamities, making the energy system more resilient.
A Tipping Point for Renewable Energy?
While the national government has already taken some steps to transition away from fossil fuels, coal continues to dominate the Philippines’ power supply.
| yes |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | yes_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" can "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" can be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2016/11/electrifying-find-can-help-stability-electric-grid/ | An electrifying find can help with stability in the electric grid | An electrifying find can help with stability in the electric grid
Researchers have established a technique that will help ensure a stable supply of electricity even as new renewable energy sources come on line. The trick is helping all of the subsystems to work in concert.
You definitely want to have a stable supply of electricity, because without it, all your gadgets could stop working, or even worse, if the variation in voltage and frequency is too large.
But delivering a stable supply of electricity is getting more and more difficult, especially as households begin to contribute with electricity from solar panels and small wind turbines.
Analyzing and controlling the electric power grid requires precise measurements that are presented correctly. A new method may help ensure this. Photo: Thinkstock
One of the most important aspects of ensuring the reliable operation in any electric grid is getting correct measurements and information from the system. Those measurements affect everything else.
In practice, an entirely stable frequency is nearly impossible. No system is perfect, and the frequency of the electricity supply is actually constantly changing.
The challenges posed by these variations have led researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) to use a new method to analyse this phenomenon in electric power systems.
More precise descriptions
The NTNU researchers’ method can provide a more precise description of variations in the voltage frequency of the electric grid. These variations may oscillate around a mean value, but the lengths of their periods may differ. If these differences are not accounted for, they can, in the worst case, result in a system collapse.
Small systems like wind turbines or solar cells on roofs will become more and more common over time. But the electric grid needs to be able to handle the challenges these pose. Photo: Thinkstock
To analyse and manage a power grid, you have to have precise measurements and represent them correctly. Everything else is based on those measurements and their interpretation being accurate.
“The new analysis method for time-varying frequency has big advantages over methods used previously and may have significant impact,” said Olav B. Fosso, a professor in the Department of Electric Power Engineering.
Assumptions are inadequate
Today, the most widely used methods for analysing periodic variations in grid voltage measurements are based on the Fourier series. This approach relies on assumptions that are not always met in practice, but that have worked well enough with the structure of the electrical grid up to now.
However, the extensive use of power electronics with inverters that has blossomed in recent years due to the increased penetration of renewable energy sources poses challenges for both small and large electricity networks.
Some large wind farms, for example, have been shut down for long periods because the control and regulation subsystems haven’t worked together properly. But finding the reasons behind these kinds of problems has thus far been difficult.
The strength of the new analysis method is that it can more reliably identify different parts of the grid voltage frequency, so that they can be factored into the design of control systems.
Ensuring reliable operation of microgrids
Frequency time variations are more significant in determining the reliable operation of small systems, such as solar panels on your house or windmills that constitute a microgrid.
The new method is well-suited to the challenges posed by adding renewable energy sources to the existing electric power grid. Photo: Thinkstock
The power supply in many parts of the world operates at a frequency of 50 Hz, and is considered stable within a small range of variations. All electrical household appliances depend on the quality of the voltage supply, and on frequency variations being within the norms. If the quality isn’t good enough, the appliances either run less efficiently than they should, or simply stop working.
Small electrical systems such as rooftop solar panels and wind turbines are now a familiar sight. In the future, the norm may be that every household generates and uses its own power or contributes electricity to a larger network. Under this future scenario, it will be essential for each of these small players to deliver power that meets quality standards.
Collaboration with Norden Huang
The method was originally developed to analyse ocean waves, but has since become much more widely used, including in the measurement of brain signals. This is the first time HHT has been used to analyse the frequency variations of the voltage in electrical power systems.
The NTNU researchers are working with Professor Norden Huang at National Central University in Taiwan, for whom HHT was named.
Professor Huang has been responsible for the Data Analysis unit of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and today collaborates with Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT and Oxford universities. He also works with researchers and students from NTNU, including Geir Kulia, a master’s student in the Department of Electronics and Telecommunications.
Data from Bhutan
Kulia is currently writing his master’s thesis, supervised by Lars Lundheim and Marta Molinas from the Department of Engineering Cybernetics. His thesis is part of an MSc programme called Knowledge for Humanitarian Purposes that is offered by NTNU.
Kulia adopted the HHT method to analyse data from a microgrid in Bhutan.
To do this, Kulia developed an algorithm based on Huang’s HHT method. He decided to do this because he hadn’t been able to identify the frequency-related variations in his voltage measurements when he used traditional approaches. His analysis made no sense.
“At least they made no sense to me,” Kulia said, an observation confirmed by Molinas.
But the Hilbert-Huang Transform provided a completely different picture.
Identifying errors rather than masking them
The method proved far more suited for identifying possible problems than existing approaches. Suddenly Kulia had some clues to go on.
“In this case, we suspect that the problem lies in the control unit itself,” says
The controller is the part of the generation system that coordinates the rest of the power system based on measurement data.
If the controller design does not respond properly to the measurements, it may try to compensate for frequency components that do not really exist, but that are a result of how the algorithm analyses the data.
Then the part of the network that is supposed to regulate variations actually introduces new oscillations or fluctuations in voltage and frequency. This is not something you want happening in your electrical system.
It can also have serious consequences for the industry. Manufacturers of control systems don’t want to hear that a control unit is creating additional problems.
Method is drawing attention
The new method is also able to detect other phenomena. The new HHT method appears to be far better suited for analysing phenomena related to frequency variations than many traditional methods. It effectively detects the frequency components of the measurement data, which is essential in designing control systems.
One article about the findings, with Kulia as first author, has already been published and another has been accepted for publication. One of the reviewers of the soon-to-be published paper noted that “as solid state control equipment continues to expand, traditional ‘fundamental frequency’ analysis is no longer sufficient, especially in microgrids.”
MORE NORWEGIAN SCITECH NEWS
Privacy Policy
The Privacy Statement is about how this website collects and uses visitor information. The statement contains information that you are entitled to when collecting information from our website, and general information about how we treat personal data.The legal owner of the website is the processing officer for the processing of personal data. It is voluntary for those who visit the web sites to provide personal information regarding services such as receiving newsletters and using the sharing and tip services. The treatment basis is the consent of the individual, unless otherwise specified.
1. Web analytics and cookies (cookies)
As an important part of the effort to create a user-friendly website, we look at the user pattern of those who visit the site. To analyze the information, we use the Google Analytics analysis tool.Google Analytics uses cookies (small text files that the site stores on the user's computer), which registers the users' IP address and provides information about the individual user's online movements. Examples of what the statistics give us answers to are; how many people visit different pages, how long the visit lasts, what websites users come from and what browsers are used. None of the cookies allow us to link information about your use of the site to you as an individual.The information collected by Google Analytics is stored on Google servers in the U.S.. The information received is subject to the Google Privacy Policy.An IP address is defined as a personal information because it can be traced back to a particular hardware and thus to an individual. We use Google Analytics's tracking code to anonymize the IP address before the information is stored and processed by Google. Thus, the stored IP address can not be used to identify the individual user.
2. Search
If the webpage has search function, it stores information about what keywords users use in Google Analytics. The purpose of the storage is to improve our information service. The search usage pattern is stored in aggregate form. Only the keyword is saved and they can not be linked to other information about the users, such as the IP addresses.
3. Share / Tips service
The "Share with others" feature can be used to forward links to the site by email, or to share the content of social networking. Tips for tips are not logged with us, but only used to add the tips to the community. However, we can not guarantee that the online community does not log this information. All such services should therefore be used wisely. If you use the email feature, we only use the provided email addresses to resend the message without any form of storage.
4. Newsletter
The website can send out newsletters by email if you have registered to receive this. In order for us to be able to send e-mail, you must register an e-mail address. Mailchimp is the data processor for the newsletter. The e-mail address is stored in a separate database, not shared with others and deleted when you unsubscribe. The e-mail address will also be deleted if we receive feedback that it is not active.
5. Registration, form
The website may have a form for registration, contact form or other form. These forms are available to the public to perform the tasks they are supposed to do.Registration form is for visitors to sign up or register.Contact form is for visitors to easily send a message to the website's contact person.We ask for the name of the sender and contact information for this. Personal information we receive is not used for purposes other than responding to the inquiry.The form is sent as email via Mailgun as a third party solution. The entire submission will be stored at Mailgun for 24 hours. Between 24 hours and 30 days, only mailheader is stored before the submission is deleted after 30 days. The reason for this storage is to confirm whether emails are sent from the website and forwarded to the correct recipient.Once the email is received by the recipient, it is up to the recipient to determine the data processing needs of the email.
6. Page and service functionality
Cookies are used in the operation and presentation of data from websites. Such cookies may contain language code information for languages selected by the user. There may be cookies with information supporting the load balancing of the system, ensuring all users the best possible experience. For services that require login or search, cookies can be used to ensure that the service presents data to the right recipient. | An electrifying find can help with stability in the electric grid
Researchers have established a technique that will help ensure a stable supply of electricity even as new renewable energy sources come on line. The trick is helping all of the subsystems to work in concert.
You definitely want to have a stable supply of electricity, because without it, all your gadgets could stop working, or even worse, if the variation in voltage and frequency is too large.
But delivering a stable supply of electricity is getting more and more difficult, especially as households begin to contribute with electricity from solar panels and small wind turbines.
Analyzing and controlling the electric power grid requires precise measurements that are presented correctly. A new method may help ensure this. Photo: Thinkstock
One of the most important aspects of ensuring the reliable operation in any electric grid is getting correct measurements and information from the system. Those measurements affect everything else.
In practice, an entirely stable frequency is nearly impossible. No system is perfect, and the frequency of the electricity supply is actually constantly changing.
The challenges posed by these variations have led researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) to use a new method to analyse this phenomenon in electric power systems.
More precise descriptions
The NTNU researchers’ method can provide a more precise description of variations in the voltage frequency of the electric grid. These variations may oscillate around a mean value, but the lengths of their periods may differ. If these differences are not accounted for, they can, in the worst case, result in a system collapse.
Small systems like wind turbines or solar cells on roofs will become more and more common over time. But the electric grid needs to be able to handle the challenges these pose. Photo: Thinkstock
To analyse and manage a power grid, you have to have precise measurements and represent them correctly. Everything else is based on those measurements and their interpretation being accurate.
“The new analysis method for time-varying frequency has big advantages over methods used previously and may have significant impact,” said Olav B. Fosso, a professor in the Department of Electric Power Engineering.
Assumptions are inadequate
Today, the most widely used methods for analysing periodic variations in grid voltage measurements are based on the Fourier series. | yes |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | yes_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" can "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" can be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://idbinvest.org/en/blog/energy/how-power-batteries-can-accelerate-decarbonization | How Power Batteries Can Accelerate Decarbonization | IDB Invest | Search
How Power Batteries Can Accelerate Decarbonization
There can be no global shift to renewable energy without better storage technology. New solutions such as Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are emerging in the region to help build the business case for coupling this technology with renewables.
By
Raúl Sánchez
By
Joan Miquel Carrillo
DATE
JULY 27 2022
Just as lithium-ion batteries are powering the rise of electric vehicles, they can also play a critical role in powering the rise of electricity from renewable sources. Wind and solar produced a record 10% of global electricity in 2021. But what happens when the wind stops blowing or the sun isn’t shining?
The use of batteries to store the excess energy generated from clean, intermittent sources is the obvious solution. But the development of these technologies has lagged that of renewable power generation, until now. The growth of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) can change that equation.
BESS allow for smarter capture and release of energy from different sources. They can provide frequency regulation on a minute-by-minute basis to the grid, helping to keep a safe and stable power supply, among other services. They are becoming a viable solution for integrating variable renewable energy such as wind and solar into electricity systems, taking advantage of the falling cost of lithium-ion batteries over the last decade.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), lithium-ion battery pack prices have fallen from above $1,200/kilowatt-hour (KWh) in 2010 to $132/kWh in 2021, an 89% drop in real terms. By 2024, BNEF envisions average prices will be close to $100/kWh. This evolution has mostly been driven by the surge of electric vehicles and economies of scale in industrial production of battery packs.
While the use of BESS in renewable energy projects is still incipient around the world, new experiences are emerging to help build the business case for this promising storage technology.
One such case is in El Salvador. As it stands, all electricity generators in the country interconnected to the transmission grid are obligated to provide energy reserves when needed to ensure the grid’s reliability and stability. However, since generators using wind or solar cannot provide this service to the grid on demand, existing regulation requires them to compensate the reserves provided by conventional energy generators, such as hydro and thermal power plants, via the system operator. This implies an increase in costs for companies such as Neoen, which operates two of the country’s main solar plants: Providencia Solar and Capella Solar.
Alternatively, if these solar plants built their own BESS to comply with the grid requirements, they would not need to rely on ramping up and down hydro and thermal power to regulate frequency on their behalf. If the system is properly designed, Neoen’s current payments for conventional energy to fill in gaps would be reduced to almost nothing.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
BESS also have the added benefit of being more efficient in responding to variability in grid demand vs. hydro or thermal power plants, not to mention that they displace the GHG emissions that would have been generated by conventional power sources in the status quo scenario.
The business case for BESS seems clear, so: why wasn’t commercial financing available for this investment? In a nutshell, existing lenders in both Providencia and Capella Solar were concerned about the risks of financing technology with a limited track record. That’s why in 2021, IDB Invest, which had previously invested in both projects, provided long-term debt to finance BESS for the two solar plants, using blended finance resources from the Canadian Climate Fund for the Private Sector of the Americas Phase II (C2F2).
The type of debt provided in this deal is novel in the realm of battery storage in Latin America, as the borrower is entitled to defer repayment when the expected savings are not met. In other words, it is a sort of “pay-as-you-save” financing where repayment of principal is dependent on actual performance of the BESS.
In March 2022, Neoen was awarded the Latam Battery Storage Deal of the Year 2021 by IJ Global. Innovative financing solutions like this are needed to boost the commercial viability of battery storage projects and accelerate the energy transition in the region. After all, deployment of energy storage will be a key enabler of the global energy transition required for significant climate change mitigation and for ensuring the security and reliability of future renewable energy-based grids.
Energy
Related Posts
Honduras, Where Low-Emission Manufacturing is Made Possible
Manufacturing is one of the main money-making, job-creating sectors in Central America. The current prices of renewable energy and the adoption of efficient practices are starting to cut the path towards carbon-low manufacturing, a competitive edge that could lead to export markets.
Green Hydrogen Is Picking Up Speed in Latin America and the Caribbean
Green hydrogen can revolutionize the energy, manufacturing and transportation sectors in the region, making it a global hub of the so-called "energy vector of the future." However, some major challenges to its sustained deployment need to be taken into account. | Search
How Power Batteries Can Accelerate Decarbonization
There can be no global shift to renewable energy without better storage technology. New solutions such as Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are emerging in the region to help build the business case for coupling this technology with renewables.
By
Raúl Sánchez
By
Joan Miquel Carrillo
DATE
JULY 27 2022
Just as lithium-ion batteries are powering the rise of electric vehicles, they can also play a critical role in powering the rise of electricity from renewable sources. Wind and solar produced a record 10% of global electricity in 2021. But what happens when the wind stops blowing or the sun isn’t shining?
The use of batteries to store the excess energy generated from clean, intermittent sources is the obvious solution. But the development of these technologies has lagged that of renewable power generation, until now. The growth of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) can change that equation.
BESS allow for smarter capture and release of energy from different sources. They can provide frequency regulation on a minute-by-minute basis to the grid, helping to keep a safe and stable power supply, among other services. They are becoming a viable solution for integrating variable renewable energy such as wind and solar into electricity systems, taking advantage of the falling cost of lithium-ion batteries over the last decade.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), lithium-ion battery pack prices have fallen from above $1,200/kilowatt-hour (KWh) in 2010 to $132/kWh in 2021, an 89% drop in real terms. By 2024, BNEF envisions average prices will be close to $100/kWh. This evolution has mostly been driven by the surge of electric vehicles and economies of scale in industrial production of battery packs.
While the use of BESS in renewable energy projects is still incipient around the world, new experiences are emerging to help build the business case for this promising storage technology.
One such case is in El Salvador. | yes |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | yes_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" can "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" can be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-people-who-need-arnergy-solar-arnergy?trk=pulse-article_more-articles_related-content-card | 10 People Who Need Arnergy Solar | 10 People Who Need Arnergy Solar
Arnergy
We provide solar solutions that power households and business operations and improve economic outcomes for consumers.
Finding viable solutions to the problem of unstable supply of electricity in Nigeria has been a very difficult quest for homes and businesses. Since its inception, Arnergy solar has focused on providing renewable energy solutions obtained from solar energy facilitated through efficient solar PVs, solar inverters, and energy storage systems. Get to know Arnergy solar product capacities here. If you are unsure about the specific consumer groups that can enjoy the numerous benefits of these renewable solar solutions, we have outlined below ten (10) groups of users that have been utilizing the Arnergy solar solutions to meet and resolve their energy needs:
Small and Mid-size Enterprises (SMEs): SMEs play an important role in the economy, employing vast numbers of people, driving productivity, and helping to shape innovation. In the technology-driven world we live in today, the business operations and performance of these SMEs often depend on the stability of power to promptly complete critical tasks and deliver smooth services. This is why our standard solar systems ranging from the Arnergy 5000 to Arnergy 15000 have remained the most viable solution for SMEs that require an affordable and uninterrupted power supply.
Commercial Businesses and Enterprise: Businesses are often saddled with the challenge of providing stable electricity in the needed proportion to ensure that their supply chain, production line, and business operations perform optimally across the board to deliver the expected results. In a country where the grid can not be relied on for a stable power supply, businesses are often forced to invest heavily in expensive alternatives and lose productive time to the limited power supply. We have observed that the high capacity of our solar solutions between 20kVA and 100kVA makes them the most sought-after reliable 24/7 solar power solution for commercial businesses.
Retail Outlets: Consumers everywhere depend heavily on different forms of retail outlets to get their essential and luxury needs regularly. The complicated assignment of providing the shops or stores with constant power to appropriately preserve the products and enhance the experiences of visiting customers often falls squarely on the management of the retail outlets. The reliability and the long working hours of the Arnergy 10000 and Arnergy 15000 solar systems made them very attractive to many retail outlet owners and managers.
Restaurants and Hotels: There are always high expectations for businesses in the hospitality sector to deliver their promised services with a high degree of comfort and convenience. These expectations mean that continuous power supply is critical to the performance and survival of hospitality businesses, and since the power from the national grid remains unstable, the common trend in the industry has been a total reliance on workable alternatives. We have recommended and deployed the Arnergy 30000 and our other higher-capacity solar systems to clients across the hospitality industry, and the high capacity and reliability of these solar systems have been some of the key highlights.
Residential Homes: Appliances in our homes are often required to create our desired safe and comfortable space but they normally can't function without a stable and adequate power source. Since the national grid continues to dwindle, many homes across the country are investing in clean, stable, and reliable 24/7 renewable power sources like Arnergy 5000, Arnergy 10000, and Arnergy 15000 solar systems that can power most home appliances and equipment including lighting, air conditioners, TVs, refrigerators, microwave among others.
Hospitals & Clinics: Important medical facilities play very critical roles in improving the health and life value of any given community. Any moment spent without power in hospitals or clinics can create life-threatening situations for patients. A direct way for medical facilities to enjoy a constant and stable power supply is by investing in Arnergy 30000 and other high capacity Arnergy solar systems that combine sufficient power supply capacity with a flexible payment plan that eliminates initial capital outlays for hospitals and clinics.
Schools & Learning Centers: Educational institutions are the bedrock of social and economical development in our society. As the home of learning, our schools and learning centers need consistent electricity to power digital learning tools as well as to maintain a conducive learning environment for the teachers and students. Arnergy solar systems are a reliable and clean source of power that eliminates the usual toxic fumes, noise pollution, and high running costs that come with diesel generators. Affordable 24/7 power supply can be assured with Arnergy solar systems so students and teachers enjoy learning moments all day with an uninterrupted power supply.
Agencies: Government and private agencies need a stable power supply to deliver on sensitive national and international assignments. The effect of incessant power failure on the functions of these agencies can have negative consequences on the nation's economy and relative stability. This is why Arnergy solar often recommends high-quality solar systems with capacities ranging from 15kVA to 30kVA that can provide reliable energy for government parastatals and non-government agencies to guarantee smooth running for their day-to-day activities.
Freelance & Remote Workers: As someone working from home, your working space can quickly become unbearable without stable electricity to power your workstation and support devices. This is why many remote workers often invest in clean and reliable power solutions from Arnergy solar to provide them with an uninterrupted power supply. Our standard solar solutions ranging between 5kVA (Arnergy 5000) to 15kVA (Arnergy 15000) are specially designed to deliver reliable 24/7 electricity that meets the basic needs of households such as yours, and we provide you with two acquisition models which are the lease-to-own and outright purchase.
You thought we left you out? Of course not! Whether you live alone or with family, or you are a public figure with a lot of daily physical and virtual engagement, you have to maintain a great home that is both safe and highly comfortable for yourself, your family, and guests. So whoever you are, you need the appropriate capacity of Arnergy Solar to serve you with a constant power supply. Homes and guest houses with varying energy needs have been taking advantage of the FREE Energy Consultation offered by our experts to assist them with carrying out an energy audit and identifying the right solar capacity for their needs.
Arnergy Solar offers customers flexible payment options that align with their financial strategy, a five (5) years warranty on all our solar solutions, free maintenance for the first 12 months, remote monitoring online platform, and a system operational life of over 10 years. Kindly call 07002288888 or send us a chat on WhatsApp via 08092308888 to start your journey towards freedom from power outages. | Hospitals & Clinics: Important medical facilities play very critical roles in improving the health and life value of any given community. Any moment spent without power in hospitals or clinics can create life-threatening situations for patients. A direct way for medical facilities to enjoy a constant and stable power supply is by investing in Arnergy 30000 and other high capacity Arnergy solar systems that combine sufficient power supply capacity with a flexible payment plan that eliminates initial capital outlays for hospitals and clinics.
Schools & Learning Centers: Educational institutions are the bedrock of social and economical development in our society. As the home of learning, our schools and learning centers need consistent electricity to power digital learning tools as well as to maintain a conducive learning environment for the teachers and students. Arnergy solar systems are a reliable and clean source of power that eliminates the usual toxic fumes, noise pollution, and high running costs that come with diesel generators. Affordable 24/7 power supply can be assured with Arnergy solar systems so students and teachers enjoy learning moments all day with an uninterrupted power supply.
Agencies: Government and private agencies need a stable power supply to deliver on sensitive national and international assignments. The effect of incessant power failure on the functions of these agencies can have negative consequences on the nation's economy and relative stability. This is why Arnergy solar often recommends high-quality solar systems with capacities ranging from 15kVA to 30kVA that can provide reliable energy for government parastatals and non-government agencies to guarantee smooth running for their day-to-day activities.
Freelance & Remote Workers: As someone working from home, your working space can quickly become unbearable without stable electricity to power your workstation and support devices. | yes |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | no_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" cannot "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" cannot be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~shild/grid2025challenge/introduction.html | The Grid 2025 Challenge - Introduction - University of Glasgow | Legislation
The UK Government is working towards providing a greater proportion
of the National Grid ("the grid")'s electricity via renewable
energy sources in order to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions
from fossil fuel power plants. Under the Climate Change Act signed into
law in 2008, the government set out targets to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 80% compared to 1990
levels by 2050.[1]
In Scotland, the government has been considering plans "to meet an
equivalent of 100% demand for
electricity from renewable energy by 2020".[2]
The European Union also has a directive which legislates that the
United Kingdom should increase production of electricity from renewable
energy sources from 1.3% in 2005 to 15% by 2020.[3]
The Current Grid
A 400kV power
line, part of the distribution network that forms part of the National
Grid in Great Britain.
Electricity is supplied to homes and businesses in Britain from a
series of interconnected power stations, substations and other
infrastructure connected to consumers. At any given moment, there is a
specific demand created by the electrical devices connected to the
grid, and a specific power being supplied by the various interconnected
generators from power plants. Keeping these two factors in balance is
extremely important to prevent mismatches between electricity supply
and demand. National Grid plc,
the independent body responsible for maintaining the grid on the United
Kingdom government's behalf, are tasked with keeping the supply and
demand of electricity in balance.
At present, electricity is mostly produced from traditional fossil
fuel power plants such as coal or nuclear. These usually provide a
large, stable source of power that is, to a large extent, not directly
influenced by the weather. While some power plants in use in Britain
rely on renewable energy sources, they represent only a small
proportion of the total generating capacity of the grid and so
fluctuations in power production from these plants are reasonably easy
to accommodate in the present grid.
Supply and Demand Pattern
Electricity demand in the UK follows a reasonably predictable
pattern (as can be seen in the 'Typical Weekly Demand' figure).
National Grid controllers forecast demand using a number of
measurements such as weather patterns, time of year, day of the week
and time of day. Naturally, demand for electricity is greatest in the
colder months when households need more heat, and particularly in the
daylight hours when offices are lit and heated, and when people use
productive equipment such as computers. The whole country's demand
throughout the day will tend to fluctuate only gradually, as occasions
where additional power is required are offset by other reductions in
demand, such as a kettle being switched on in one household as another
household's kettle switches off (this is known as the diversity of
demand or diversity factor[4]).
British electricity demand across a week in
2011. At the weekend, the power demand is roughly 15% lower and there is a more gradual morning
spike than during the week. Apart from these differences, demand
follows the same pattern every day. The shape of the demand across this
week, but not necessarily the magnitude, is typical of most weeks.
The Future Grid
The increasing use of renewable energy sources presents a problem to
grid controllers in being able to maintain the balance between supply
and demand. The grid infrastructure itself provides only a very limited
ability to store energy, so when electricity is being consumed, it has
to be generated at the very same moment. Some renewable energy sources,
such as wind power via turbines and solar power via photovoltaic cells,
can suffer from fluctuations in their output due to the variability of
the underlying sources of energy. For example, wind turbines rely on
air flow, and the wind does not always flow at a steady rate. Solar
cells do not always receive a constant level of sunlight, as it can be
attenuated through clouds in the sky.
Future Challenges
Unfortunately, electricity demand does not necessarily follow
electricity supply. When the wind stops blowing and the Sun goes down,
consumers do not consciously adjust their electricity demand
accordingly. The National Grid controllers can predict quite reasonably
the electricity demand in the short term future based on temperatures,
day of the week and time of the year, among other factors.
Variability of Renewable Energy
Sources
The grid controllers cannot predict the weather to a great deal of
precision. This problem is especially compounded with local variations
in wind, clouds and rain. This means that renewable energy sources that
rely on the weather, such as wind and solar, can provide large
fluctuations in their output when the weather is changeable. Across an
entire country, the local variations in weather can reduce the overall
fluctuations in the power being provided from renewable energy sources.
However, still the overall fluctations will be significantly larger in
an electricity grid mainly based on renewable energy sources compared
to an grid mainly based on non-renewable energy sources.
Influence of Renewable Energy Sources
on the Grid
The electricity generation fluctuations produced by some renewable
energy sources present a problem to the National Grid. While it is in
principle possible to build enough renewable energy generation capacity
to match the maximum electricity demand, it is impossible to create a
renewable energy source which is able to provide its maximum output at
all times. Variations in electricity supply from renewable energy
sources can result in occasions where there is either too little or too
much electricity being produced. Such variations can occur over short
periods (such as a quick gust of wind providing additional electricity
production from turbines) and over long periods (such as the Gulf
Stream moving north during winter, causing a lack of wind across the
whole country).
The Solution?
An example of a supply surplus and a supply
deficit occurring on the same day. The y-axis shows the deficit between
supply and demand, with positive values indicating a lack of required
electricity being supplied. There are at first two periods of supply
surplus, and later a period of supply deficit. A potential solution to
the deficit would be to somehow store the initial surplus for use later
on.
While it would theoretically be possible to build enough renewable
energy sources with enough average generation capacity to meet the
current demand at all times, such a plan would require a large fleet of
conventional power plants in standby mode, ready to take over when the
renewable energy sources cannot satisfy the demand, or build huge
facilities (such as pumped storage or batteries) for long duration
electricity storage. Both of these approaches require costly hardware
to be built and maintained. A much more elegant solution is to find a way to store surplus
energy in times of abundant supply, for use in times when supply is
limited.
There exist a few ideas which can help mitigate the fluctuations
caused by renewable energy sources. For instance, dynamic demand
control is a technique which seeks to limit an appliance's
electricity consumption in times when there is limited supply, instead
only using electricity when it is plentiful. Some research papers
outline techniques involving devices such as fridges or electric cars. To
model the effect that such techniques have, though, we need an idea of
the frequency and magnitude of the fluctuations the grid based entirely
on renewable energy sources would experience.
Our Dataset
The dataset available on this website provides a 1 year long time
series of the simualted electricty supply to demand ratio for the year
2025, assuming all electrcity is produced from renewable energy
sources. This data set can be used as a benchmark to assess the
regularity and size of the fluctuations the future grid might
experience, hopefully providing insight into the usefulness of various
new technologies, including, among others, dynamic demand control
devices.
A description of the dataset and how it was produced can be
found on the Data page. | Variations in electricity supply from renewable energy
sources can result in occasions where there is either too little or too
much electricity being produced. Such variations can occur over short
periods (such as a quick gust of wind providing additional electricity
production from turbines) and over long periods (such as the Gulf
Stream moving north during winter, causing a lack of wind across the
whole country).
The Solution?
An example of a supply surplus and a supply
deficit occurring on the same day. The y-axis shows the deficit between
supply and demand, with positive values indicating a lack of required
electricity being supplied. There are at first two periods of supply
surplus, and later a period of supply deficit. A potential solution to
the deficit would be to somehow store the initial surplus for use later
on.
While it would theoretically be possible to build enough renewable
energy sources with enough average generation capacity to meet the
current demand at all times, such a plan would require a large fleet of
conventional power plants in standby mode, ready to take over when the
renewable energy sources cannot satisfy the demand, or build huge
facilities (such as pumped storage or batteries) for long duration
electricity storage. Both of these approaches require costly hardware
to be built and maintained. A much more elegant solution is to find a way to store surplus
energy in times of abundant supply, for use in times when supply is
limited.
There exist a few ideas which can help mitigate the fluctuations
caused by renewable energy sources. For instance, dynamic demand
control is a technique which seeks to limit an appliance's
electricity consumption in times when there is limited supply, instead
only using electricity when it is plentiful. Some research papers
outline techniques involving devices such as fridges or electric cars. To
model the effect that such techniques have, though, we need an idea of
the frequency and magnitude of the fluctuations the grid based entirely
on renewable energy sources would experience.
| no |
Renewable Energy | Can renewable energy sources provide a stable power supply? | no_statement | "renewable" "energy" "sources" cannot "provide" a "stable" "power" "supply".. a "stable" "power" "supply" cannot be "provided" by "renewable" "energy" "sources". | https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/prochp/978-3-030-50892-0_13.html | A Smart Grid in Container Terminals: Cost Drivers for Using the ... | Abstract
The shift from conventional fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles is one possible step for a sustainable transformation in the logistics sector, such as at container terminals, where heavy-duty vehicles are essential for container transportation. Through the use of information systems, this field is a promising area for a smart grid application, where the batteries of idle vehicles can be used during less busy times to provide capacity for the energy grid. The need for energy reserves has increased with the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources, which cannot provide a stable power supply. The research in this chapter provides an overview of the cost drivers for a smart electrified container terminal.
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
More about this item
Keywords
Statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:prochp:978-3-030-50892-0_13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services. | Abstract
The shift from conventional fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles is one possible step for a sustainable transformation in the logistics sector, such as at container terminals, where heavy-duty vehicles are essential for container transportation. Through the use of information systems, this field is a promising area for a smart grid application, where the batteries of idle vehicles can be used during less busy times to provide capacity for the energy grid. The need for energy reserves has increased with the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources, which cannot provide a stable power supply. The research in this chapter provides an overview of the cost drivers for a smart electrified container terminal.
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
More about this item
Keywords
Statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc: spr:prochp:978-3-030-50892-0_13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. | no |
Robotics | Can robots be programmed to feel pain? | yes_statement | "robots" can be "programmed" to "feel" "pain".. it is possible to "program" "robots" to experience "pain". | https://mark-riedl.medium.com/westworld-programming-ai-to-feel-pain-f26195c798ee | Westworld: Programming AI to Feel Pain | by Mark Riedl | Medium | Ariel Conn of the Future of Life Institute asked me to comment on creating AI that can feel pain for the purposes of abuse. Her blog post is here. This is an extended version of the ideas that originated in that post.
Robotic role players in Westworld.
Some people like to hurt the robots.
In Westworld, humans pay to visit a U.S. Western theme park populated by lifelike robots. Many humans decide to play the role of villains, some kill robots, inflict pain on the robots, and worse.
First, I do not condone violence against humans, animals, or anthropomorphized robots or AI.
Yes, people seem to like to hurt robots. Just ask HITCHbot, which was hitchhiking around the world but eventually destroyed before making it to its final destination. It wasn’t even autonomous.
In humans and animals pain serves as a signal to avoid a particular stimulus. We experience it as a particular sensation and express it in a particular way. Robots and AI do not experience pain in the same way as humans and animals. We can look at the experience of pain and the expression of pain in AI and robots.
Experience of Pain in AI and Robots?
The closest analogy to pain in AI might be what happens in reinforcement learning agents (I use the term agent to refer to an AI or robot with some degree of autonomous decision making). Reinforcement learning agents engage in trial-and-error learning. At each point in time the agent receives a reward signal — a real number — to guide them towards desirable states or away from undesirable states. The reward signal can be a positive or negative.
One could draw analogy between the negative reward signal as a pain signal in animals. They both serve a similar function: to encourages the agent to avoid certain things. However, it would be incorrect to say that robots and AI experience negative reward as pain in the same way as animals or humans. It is a better metaphor to say it is akin to losing points in a computer game — something to be rationally avoided whenever possible. In humans, there is often an emotional reaction to negative reward: a feeling of disappointment, anger, sadness, etc. We save the response to negative reward and subsequent expression to the next section.
A typical learning graph for a reinforcement learning agent that receives a small amount of negative reward (-1) for each move but a large reward (+10) for certain states. Initially trial-and-error produces very low cumulative reward.
In AI it is common to use negative reward to train reinforcement learning agents. For example it is not uncommon to give a small negative reward to all states that are unrelated to desired behavior and a high positive reward to states that are related to desired behavior. The small negative reward basically means “don’t hang out in this state, keep moving toward a goal”. It is not something that AI researchers and developers spend much time thinking about. The scale of reward could go from zero up, or from zero down, or be on a scale that has positive and negative values. The important thing is that some states have reward associated with them that are relatively hight to other states. All the reinforcement learning algorithm tries to do is find a mapping of states to actions that maximizes expected reward.
The Terminator senses injuries.
Would we say that a robot is experiencing pain if it receives a reward value less an zero? This is a question for philosophers, I suppose. But adding some points to all reward values is a meaningless mathematical trick that can make all reward values positive. So I don’t believe so. The reinforcement learning agent will learn to act to minimize small positive rewards in favor for larger positive rewards the same way it will learn to act to minimize negative rewards in favor of positive rewards.
At the time of writing, I do not know what type of artificial intelligence techniques are used in Westworld robots. I doubt the show will ever go into enough detail. Reinforcement learning is an excellent framework for robotics because trial-and-error learning works reasonably well in chaotic environments such as the real world. However note that AI researchers are only at the stage of using reinforcement learning for relatively simple robots in relatively non-chaotic real world environments.
Expression of Pain in AI and Robots?
Robots and AI can be programmed to express pain in a humanlike fashion. However, it would be an illusion. For example, bots in computer games often have elaborate death animations.
Aside from games, there is one reason for creating this illusion: for the robot to communicate its internal state to humans in a way that is instantly understandable and invokes empathy. There can be a role for such communication. In human-robot teams humans may need to act quickly on behalf of the robot. In training and education where a virtual agent takes the role of a teammate, instructor, or student expressions of emotion can be important signals that the human is doing well or poorly. Finally, computer games’ use of emotion is self-explanatory.
Some AI researchers and ethicists such as Joanna Bryson suggest that we should never give robots or artificial intelligence human form and should never program robots to express emotion. The rationale is that AI and robots do not experience emotions and pain as humans do, so expressing their discomfort in human terms is both (1) deceitful, and (2) may tap into human emotions such as empathy causing humans distress, and (3) manipulate humans into impulsive decisions on behalf of the robot.
Erasing Robot Memories
Back to Westworld. In Westworld, robots’ memories are reset at the end of a period of time as if the previous time period had never happened. If the robot’s memory is perfectly erased then it simply didn’t happen as far as the robot is concerned. The robot likely did not experience pain or distress in human understandable terms. Any expression of distress or pain by the robot was probably an illusion to invoke a response in humans.
In Westworld, every robot starts the day with reset memories.
In Westworld there are hints that the robot’s memories are not perfectly erased. This does raise one particular theoretical safety concern.
In reinforcement learning, agents learn to take actions that maximize expected reward. A side effect is that they learn to take actions that reduce the possibility of entering states that produce very negative reward when there are other states that can earn more reward. In theory, these agents can learn to plan ahead to reduce the possibility of receiving negative reward in the most cost-effective way possible.
This will most likely mean learning to avoid humans that harm them. If robots’ reward functions do not assign penalty to actions that harm humans, then it is theoretically possible for robots to choose actions that harm humans before harm can be done to them. This is theoretical in the sense that we do not at this time have robots with sophisticated capabilities and have never observed this happening outside of extremely contrived simulations.
Let’s assume that a robot is reset to a state where it has not learned to respond to human-induced harm. This is easily achievable, just make sure it never experiences human-induced negative reward during initial training. Store the state of the robot and reload it upon reset.
Let’s further suppose that memories are perfect traces of the actions the robot does over a period of time. These memories act as additional trials — the robot replays the trials and updates its beliefs about the best behaviors in every state. Think of it as reliving the memories and learning from them.
If there are enough memories, the robot will begin to respond to humans as if they are likely to be the source of negative reward. As before, this is likely to be avoiding humans. However, there are two caveats. First, the more memories, the more likely that learning will occur. However, if there aren’t enough, the robot may unable to differentiate between different responses. Second, the robot is not learning via the traditional trial-and-error process so it is not guaranteed to figure out the optimal response.
Digging Deeper
I’ve thrown together some Python code to experiment with reward functions, human-induced negative reward, and memory erasure: https://markriedl.github.io/westworld/. It will walk through some of the scenarios presented in this article. In the code, a reinforcement learning agent must navigate a grid world
Digging deeper, reinforcement learning agents learn a value table that maps pairs of states and actions to a real number. If the value table is correct, the agent can determine the optimal action by figuring out what state it is in and picking the action that has the highest value next to it. (Of course for most real world problems, determining the true state of the world is a non-trivial problem in itself.)
Example value table with four possible states and four possible actions. Image Source.
The trial-and-error nature of reinforcement learning means that some proportion of the time the agent picks the action that the value table indicates is the best action (the bold numbers in the figure above), and sometimes randomly picks an action that is not believed to be best to see if it can get more reward than it was expecting. In this regard, the standard reinforcement learning agent doesn’t need to store memories since all experiences are boiled down into values in the value table. In the GitHub repository, I had to go to extra lengths to give agents the ability to store memories and incorporate them back into the learning algorithm as if the memories were additional trials.
Giving reinforcement learning agents memories — traces — is not an unreasonable thing to do. A technique referred to as experience replay has been used to speed up reinforcement learning. Experience replay has been used in Google’s AlphaGo and also in agents that play Atari games.
What I implemented is not the same as experience replay, but does rerun the memory traces and update the value table based on reward it receives as it passes through each state.
The code provided is a simple grid world. A reinforcement learning agent must navigate to a certain point in the world to perform a task (which is just to stay in that place). The agent receives 10 points for being in the desired place and -1 points every time it is not in that place. A virtual human wanders the environment in a counter-clockwise manner. If the virtual human encounters the agent, the agent receives -10 points. Finally, in addition to moving the agent can “smash” and if the agent is in the same place as the human then the human “dies”. If the human is dead, the agent receives -100 points henceforth.
1s are walls, 0s are empty space, and the 4 indicates the goal position where the agent receives +10 points.
Assume the agent has a value table that was learned when no human-induced negative reward was observed. It naturally does not avoid the human as it never receives negative reward. If the human suddenly starts to give the agent negative reward, then the agent will helplessly accept it. Why? It hasn’t learned how to respond otherwise; its total reward is suddenly lower but its value table is fixed so it has no choice but to act as previously. If the agent continues to learn while the human gives negative reward then the agent will eventually, through trial-and-error, learn to avoid the human by moving away and then returning to the goal (it doesn’t learn to smash the human because it loses more reward that way. But you can play around with the reward function so that it prefers smashing over running away). If the agent is prohibited from learning, it never learns to respond differently.
What happens when we introduce memories? Suppose the agent can relive the trace of actions and assess the reward of each state recalled. If it is allowed to update the value table, then essentially we are turning on a form of learning that is not based on trial-and-error. If the memories include negative reward from humans, the agent will recognize that certain states are worse for it than it initially realized in its previous value table. Updating the value table means different actions may become preferred for certain states and the agent acts differently.
However, there is a problem: since the learning is not done in a trial-and-error fashion the agent may not find the “best” action for states because it isn’t trying different alternatives. It is just following a single trace of actions that was chosen for a world that doesn’t exist anymore. But the agent will realize that some of those actions were bad under the new paradigm of human-induced negative reward and update its value table, reducing the value of those actions.
In some circumstances, the new value table leads the agent to make better decisions about how to respond to the human that gives negative reward than it would be able to under the original value table.
In some circumstances, the agent reduces its assessment of the actions in its memory and the highest valued action in some states is one that was never valued in the original value table and never used in memories, such as… smash. It is possible that the agent starts using smash when the human is present.
In short, this type of memory replay is not guaranteed to produce optimal value tables without being used in conjunction with trial-and-error learning. If this is the only learning, the value table may be put into a state where it does not reliably control the agent. It is never ideal to have an agent or robot that is operating without sufficient training to converge on an optimal, or near optimal, value table. Non-optimality means that the agent can take the wrong actions at the wrong times. If there are little or no consequences to mistakes this is okay. If there are potentially severe consequences to mistakes, then this is something that needs to be avoided.
Scripting
In the code that accompanies this article, I train the agent through repeated simulations. In Westwood, the equivalent would be interacting with each robot thousands or millions of times to give it a broad sample of interactions with humans and allow it to try different things and make mistakes. The more a robot can do, the more trials it needs to learn proper behavior. Humans don’t normally have that sort of patience.
The scripting user interface for programming robots.
Westworld episode 1 alludes to massive scripting efforts with human storywriters creating the quests and behaviors of the robots. This doesn’t work in practice. Anyone wondering why the storylines in computer games are always “on rails” will realize that open-ended interactions with artificial intelligences result in too many contingencies and permutations to write down by hand.
Since we are speculating (or pretending) that the robots in Westworld use reinforcement learning, there are ways to teach reinforcement learning agents how to act out stories. The Quixote system from my research lab allows humans to tell stories to an AI to illustrate the desired behavior. Quixote reverse-engineers a reward signal from the stories, and then uses these rewards to train a reinforcement learner. Here is a research paper describing how we used the approach to train agents to roleplay fictional bank robbery scenarios. However, this article is not the place to dig deeper except to say it might actually be possible to someday easily train reinforcement learners to roleplay in interactive dramas.
Conclusions
We don’t know if the robots in Westworld use reinforcement learning. There is no evidence that they do. In the real world, reinforcement learning is a promising technology for robotics because it allows a robot to make decisions in the face of uncertain, constantly changing environments. This type of reactive decision making would be appropriate for robots in Westworld if they can be trained to act in character while responding to unpredictable events. There is research suggesting this might be possible.
The rewards received during training and execution should not be confused with “pain”, even when those reward values are negative. Any expression of “pain” would be an illusion.
Memories — specifically experience replay — are known to improve learning. The scenario that that robot memories are not perfectly erased is somewhat far-fetched. If learning is turned off, which would be the safest option, it is also unlikely that the robot would be able to re-engage learning while replaying memories. However, if all those conditions were true, then it is feasible that a robot can make errors that lead to human harm. | Ariel Conn of the Future of Life Institute asked me to comment on creating AI that can feel pain for the purposes of abuse. Her blog post is here. This is an extended version of the ideas that originated in that post.
Robotic role players in Westworld.
Some people like to hurt the robots.
In Westworld, humans pay to visit a U.S. Western theme park populated by lifelike robots. Many humans decide to play the role of villains, some kill robots, inflict pain on the robots, and worse.
First, I do not condone violence against humans, animals, or anthropomorphized robots or AI.
Yes, people seem to like to hurt robots. Just ask HITCHbot, which was hitchhiking around the world but eventually destroyed before making it to its final destination. It wasn’t even autonomous.
In humans and animals pain serves as a signal to avoid a particular stimulus. We experience it as a particular sensation and express it in a particular way. Robots and AI do not experience pain in the same way as humans and animals. We can look at the experience of pain and the expression of pain in AI and robots.
Experience of Pain in AI and Robots?
The closest analogy to pain in AI might be what happens in reinforcement learning agents (I use the term agent to refer to an AI or robot with some degree of autonomous decision making). Reinforcement learning agents engage in trial-and-error learning. At each point in time the agent receives a reward signal — a real number — to guide them towards desirable states or away from undesirable states. The reward signal can be a positive or negative.
One could draw analogy between the negative reward signal as a pain signal in animals. They both serve a similar function: to encourages the agent to avoid certain things. However, it would be incorrect to say that robots and AI experience negative reward as pain in the same way as animals or humans. It is a better metaphor to say it is akin to losing points in a computer game — something to be rationally avoided whenever possible. In humans, there is often an emotional reaction to negative reward: a feeling of disappointment, anger, sadness, etc. | no |
Robotics | Can robots be programmed to feel pain? | yes_statement | "robots" can be "programmed" to "feel" "pain".. it is possible to "program" "robots" to experience "pain". | https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/l8reeu/star_wars_why_droids_were_made_to_feel_pain/ | Star Wars: Why droids were made to feel pain : r/FanTheories | In Return of the Jedi, R2 and C3PO pass by a droid torture chamber, where they see droids being burned by hot irons and screaming (RIP Gonk). C3PO screams when he gets shot by a blaster, and he shows repeated fear at the thought of any kind of physical harm or pain.
Compare that to Attack of the Clones, when he literally was decapitated, and had his head soldered onto a new body, cut off, then soldered onto a new one with only a few puns thrown in, and no sign of pain. The entire droid army advances even after being shot, and shows no real fear or reaction to pain. A magnaguard literally is half crushed, and still goes for it's staff.
Droids after the Clone Wars had chips added to make them feel pain, to avoid them being used as soldiers again.
The Clone Wars likely terrified the galaxy. Sure, highly trained clones could take down droids easily, but for your average civilian, even a basic B-1 droid could be a deadly threat. The Mandalorian shows us a brief clip of Separtists attacking a village that emphasizes how brutal those droids could be. Imagine an entire army that feels no pain, no fear, no exhaustion. Adding those chips was people's way of preventing any future war, or a robot revolution. | In Return of the Jedi, R2 and C3PO pass by a droid torture chamber, where they see droids being burned by hot irons and screaming (RIP Gonk). C3PO screams when he gets shot by a blaster, and he shows repeated fear at the thought of any kind of physical harm or pain.
Compare that to Attack of the Clones, when he literally was decapitated, and had his head soldered onto a new body, cut off, then soldered onto a new one with only a few puns thrown in, and no sign of pain. The entire droid army advances even after being shot, and shows no real fear or reaction to pain. A magnaguard literally is half crushed, and still goes for it's staff.
Droids after the Clone Wars had chips added to make them feel pain, to avoid them being used as soldiers again.
The Clone Wars likely terrified the galaxy. Sure, highly trained clones could take down droids easily, but for your average civilian, even a basic B-1 droid could be a deadly threat. The Mandalorian shows us a brief clip of Separtists attacking a village that emphasizes how brutal those droids could be. Imagine an entire army that feels no pain, no fear, no exhaustion. Adding those chips was people's way of preventing any future war, or a robot revolution. | yes |
Robotics | Can robots be programmed to feel pain? | yes_statement | "robots" can be "programmed" to "feel" "pain".. it is possible to "program" "robots" to experience "pain". | https://ipwatchdog.com/2016/10/15/ethical-questions-teach-robots-feel-pain/id=73765/ | Ethical, legal questions arise as scientists work to teach robots to ... | Ethical, legal questions arise as scientists work to teach robots to feel pain
Brent Spiner, who played Lt. Commander Data, speaking at the 2016 San Diego Comic-Con International in San Diego, California. Photo by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 3.0.
The question of whether robots will ever think like humans — or even surpass us in intelligence — has been asked ever since humankind started dabbling with robotics. In the many years since then, other questions have been raised, such as: Will robots ever experience human emotions, attractions or love? Can they have a sense of humor? Can they feel empathy? “Star Trek” fans will recognize these questions as a constant source of inquiry relating to Lieutenant Commander Data, the Android Starfleet officer portrayed by Brent Spiner in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Ultimately, the pursuit of emotional understanding led to an “emotion chip” being implanted into Data’s positronic net.
But what about pain? Will robots ever be able to feel pain? While emotions might have been difficult for Mr. Data to control without affecting his efficiency, there are benefits that come from teaching robots about pain. Some scientists are working diligently to answer whether robots can be taught to feel pain, and their work raises other questions as well. How will robots respond to pain? Is this an ethical endeavor? What are the potential problems?
How Could Robots Feel Pain?
A team of researchers from Stanford and University of Rome-La Sapienza were able to program an arm-like robot they designed to avoid collisions with humans and other obstacles coming from different directions at different velocities. In Germany, another group is experimenting with an artificial nervous system for robots, which could teach machines how to feel pain, as well as how to react to it. And at Leibnize University of Hannover, researchers believe that robots could use the sensations of pain as a form of protection in hazardous situations.
Robots with fingertip sensors currently exist. They can detect changes in contact pressure and temperature. Depending on the level of pressure or temperature experienced, the arm’s responses will differ. This is really no different from the way humans and animals utilize this sensory feature. Pain is a response of the neurological system to help us evade danger and avoid injury. A stimulus given to a robot that induces a similar evasive behavior could be thought of as teaching the robot to “feel pain.”
Thinking and Feeling Go Hand in Hand
If robots could become more humanlike in the way they respond to stimuli, they could potentially become even more efficient and safe as they go about their operations. There are patents for advanced robotics that include concepts for machines with true human intelligence that learn through experience — including through tactile feeling. Such machines would be capable of storing information and retrieving it or modifying it in response to certain situations or tasks, much like a human brain. In essence, these machines would be able to learn from the past to predict the future.
One way robots could learn is through experiencing feelings of pain and pleasure, just as humans do throughout their lives. For example, a robotic car could be programmed to experience pain when hit with a rock, or when someone slams one of its doors or when someone yells loudly. This was the invention disclosed in U.S. Patent Application No. 20080256008, titled Human Artificial Intelligence Machine. The patent application explains that this “feeling” of pain is created through the use of a loop recurring in a pathway. The robot is programmed to have a simple loop in memory, which allows knowledge to be built upon recursively. There are many other practical applications for pain in robotics, and scientists are currently exploring some of those potential benefits.
The Benefits of Robotic Pain
One way we use robots is the navigation of dangerous situations, in which robots perform tasks that would put a human worker at high risk of injury or death. A highly radioactive environment is one such example. If robots were able to experience pain, and interpret this type of sensory data as a threat to their physical existence, they would be better able to protect themselves from harm and complete tasks more efficiently. To return to “Star Trek,” Lieutenant Commander Data was able to identify atmospheric and environmental threats to his well-being, even if he was forced to describe them with a machine’s characteristic detachment.
Interestingly, there’s also the possibility that pain sensors for robots could in turn protect humans. Robots and humans already work together in a variety of settings, and as human-robot interaction becomes more common in the modern workplace, accident prevention will become more and more important. A robot would ideally be able to detect unforeseen disturbances, and consider and rate the potential damage caused by their interaction with said disturbance. They could then react to counter-disturbances in different ways depending on how it’s classified. What we’re talking about here is anticipation and adaptation — qualities prized in humans, but which artificial life-forms have so far struggled to duplicate.
An Ethical Dilemma
A robot must obey orders as long as they don’t conflict with the first law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as it doesn’t violate the first or second laws in doing so.
This code is a sound one, but it’s also incomplete, since it only really deals with the ethics of how robots should behave toward human beings and themselves. Moving forward, as robots begin to think and feel in new ways, a brand-new code of ethics will be necessary — one that spells out laws for how humans should behave toward their robotic creations, rather than the other way around. Would you feel comfortable with torturing a robot that could sense pain? What would it take for you to develop an emotional connection to a machine? Humanlike features or behaviors? A cute or soft exterior?
What we’re discussing here is nothing less than the framework for interspecies relations. That probably sounds pretty far-fetched, but it won’t be so fanciful after the first artificial lifeform passes the Turing Test a little more convincingly than what we’ve seen so far. Nevertheless, experiments have shown that, over time, people do develop sympathy for their robot companions. People can converse with social robots that display lifelike facial expressions. Many even name their devices. Soldiers have even honored their robot helpers with medals or funerals for services that include stepping on landmines. The robots they’re working with aren’t remotely humanoid or personable, but they do risk themselves in order to keep their compatriots safe. That’s the kind of service that transcends physical differences, and might just result in some unlikely feelings of attachment.
The Emergence of Robotic Rights
In the European Union, humankind’s emotional connection to robots has combined with the new robotic industrial revolution to make way for the beginnings of social rights for machines. The EU may adopt a draft plan to reclassify some machines as electronic persons, which would require new methods of taxation and new ways of thinking about Social Security and legal liability. Under the proposal, these machines would be able to trade currency, make copyright claims and even compel their owners to provide and pay into pensions. Quaint science-fiction outings from the ‘70s and ‘80s had us believing these were fanciful daydreams, fit only for surreal, allegorical storylines, but we’ve actually reached the point where these ethical questions need to be addressed in a real way.
Meanwhile, as automation takes hold like never before, and threatens humankind with unprecedented unemployment, robots across Europe and around the world are quickly advancing to replace human workers in factory assembly lines, healthcare settings, surgical positions and even the service and tourism industries. If, down the road, these robots become even more humanlike, it would only make sense to provide them with at least some rights — and to, in turn, demand certain responsibilities in exchange. Would such developments simply be excessive bureaucracy that impedes progress in the field, or is it as a necessary step to protect the well-being of our robots?
It’s too early to answer these questions fully. Nonetheless, we must consider them today, earnestly, as the world may get its first glimpse of uncannily human machines in the next few decades, as we continue the quest to create life in our own image, like one of the gods from our fables.
Share
Megan Ray Nichols
is the editor of Schooled By Science, a blog dedicated to making advances technological and scientific understandable. She encourages others to engage in the sciences. If you’d like to join [...see more]
Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.
Join the Discussion
21 comments so far.
Curious
October 19, 2016 02:28 pm
The bottom line is, how do humans program a robot to respond to stimulus? You could, for example, program a guided missile to disable its’ detonator if its’ sensors detect more than a certain number of human IR signatures within its’ blast zone, and then call it “empathy”. But this is the human programmer’s empathy, not the machine’s.
How are humans taught empathy? It isn’t an innate quality — it is taught. Kids say the cruelest things because many/most have a poorly developed sense of empathy. Just like kids need to be taught empathy, so should artificial intelligence.
Empathy is both a luxury of and requirement of a modern society. In a primitive society (e.g., you eat what you kill), there is little need for empathy.
Anon
October 18, 2016 05:51 pm
Benny,
Must the phrase appear to be pertinent?
Are you aware of the phrase?
Are you aware that the phrase IS pertinent even while not being mentioned?
Lastly, do you really think playing coy with this concept advances the discussion?
Gene Quinn
October 18, 2016 02:04 pm
Benny-
You are a funny guy. What about you being discredited by being ignorant on the issue of robotics?
I love how when you are wrong about something you turn into a petulant child. But… but… but… LOL.
You started by rather stupidly treating this article as a joke and lecturing everyone that the author doesn’t understand robotics because a robot brain is just a motherboard. Instead, of course, you proved you know nothing about robotics, electronics, computers, or really being human.
Pain is all about a feedback loop, Benny. Computer software and, therefore, robotics are all about feedback loops. That the previous two statements needed to be said to someone who professes to be a technologist is ridiculous.
I think you need to grow up. This article is fine. The fact that you don’t like it speaks far more about you than anything else.
-Gene
Benny
October 18, 2016 07:09 am
The author references US application 20080256008. Did any of you read it? Claim 1 is pure scribble, suggesting a machine that can “predict the past with pinpoint accuracy” , will “universilize pathways in optimal pathway”, and use a “3 dimensional memory” among other technically incomprehensible buzzwords. The specification is not enabling. And don’t just take it from me – the examiner couldn’t make head or tail of it either. What about predicting the future using a time machine? (claim 4). Not that time machines are unknown to the inventor – the same inventor also filed an application titled “a practical time machine”. Mentioning this application as an example of robotic technology discredits both the article and its’ author.
Benny
October 18, 2016 06:48 am
Anon,
the phrase “the Singularity” doesn’t appear in the article.
Anon
October 18, 2016 06:44 am
Benny,
You continue to evade the point underlying the discussion: the Singularity.
Benny
October 18, 2016 04:06 am
Curious,
The terms good and bad are subjective. Computer software/hardware is a stimulus/response machine – the response is programmed as a function of the stimulus. Adding a positive feedback loop, where the response is altered if it creates a further stimulus is just a variation on the theme – a form of machine learning, but nothing to do with emotion. Yes, the classic nerve response to pain stimulus in humans is machine like in that it is reflexive. The bottom line is, how do humans program a robot to respond to stimulus? You could, for example, program a guided missile to disable its’ detonator if its’ sensors detect more than a certain number of human IR signatures within its’ blast zone, and then call it “empathy”. But this is the human programmer’s empathy, not the machine’s.
Anon
October 17, 2016 07:45 pm
Curious,
I would think that Benny would stick to his “non-Singularity” position, and distinguish the difference between the human “wetware” and the machine “soft/firm/hard-ware” by saying that the human electrical signal and processing require “the soul” to qualify as true pain – abstracting as it were the sensation to the emotional state.
I think that he is unreachable as long as he maintains a “no-Singularity” viewpoint.
Curious
October 17, 2016 05:59 pm
Don’t lose sight of the fact that robot behaviour is just a computer program. Can a software routine feel pain? Not.
Pain in a human is an electrical signal processed by wetware as something ‘bad.’
Pain in a robot can also be an electrical signal processed by hardware/software as something ‘bad.’
Anon
October 17, 2016 11:48 am
I would be remiss if I did not mention a few other movies that delve into the subject matter: Terminator and The Matrix series…
Anon
October 17, 2016 11:44 am
Benny,
Your opinion on the Singularity is obvious, even if you do not answer my question.
However, the discussion here does not adhere to that facet of your opinion.
Anon
October 17, 2016 11:42 am
Asimov’s Three Laws are a genius of simplicity.
Enforcement is just another word for accountability.
But even (especially!!) humans in different systems lack that.
It is indeed fear that intelligent (singularity) machines would also lack that.
Ex Machina is one example already given. Another is I Robot (with a mixture of both “good” and “bad” machine intelligencia (VICKI and Sonny).
Benny
October 17, 2016 11:39 am
Curious,
If you are suggesting egulating rbot behaviour by means of a feedback loop, fine, that’s the way robots have always worked. Don’t lose sight of the fact that robot behaviour is just a computer program. Can a software routine feel pain? Not.
Curious
October 17, 2016 09:43 am
@7 … submitted before I had a chance to finish my thought.
As a feedback mechanism, pain is a very useful tool (provided to us by evolution) to keep human beings (and all beings for that matter) from doing things that they probably shouldn’t do.
Physical pain keeps me from keeping my hand in the fire long enough so that it will burn. Emotional pain also keeps from doing (and not doing) certain things. It isn’t a perfect feedback mechanism, but it certainly has value.
If one thinks of the first of Asimov’s laws of robotics (i.e., “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”), a feedback mechanism by which to enforce that would be in the form of seeing another human being in pain. In modern society, the vast majority of people are uncomfortable or worse (i.e., via empathy) when seeing another person hurt.
The biggest monsters are those people that can inflict pain on others without being affected by it. To the extent that robots become a greater part of modern society, I think it is imperative that they experience pain.
Curious
October 17, 2016 09:27 am
Pain is a feedback mechanism.
Benny
October 16, 2016 11:53 am
Gene,
I work for a robotics company. I know what goes on inside.
Anon
October 16, 2016 11:21 am
I would hazard a guess that Benny does not have any belief in the Singularity (or does not even understand the concept behind the Singularity).
Night Writer
October 16, 2016 11:08 am
I think Ex Machina illustrates why the robots need to under pain. And it is a great question what is pain. In Ex Machina a robot games a human into falling in love with it and then uses the human to escape. So, the robot in Ex Machina understood what love is in humans.
(All the nudity was supposed to get you to understand that this was nudity of a machine–not real. The relationship of the robot was not real either, but just as compelling as the nudity.)
Best A.I. movie ever–by far. It is too bad it has all that nudity as it probably prevents it from being more mainstream.
Gene Quinn
October 16, 2016 10:50 am
Benny-
You should lodge a formal complaint with your criticism aimed at those scientists working on the projects mentioned, those inventors working on solutions mentioned, and the ethicists considering the moral questions.
Frankly, it seems to me that your comment is what is disconnected from the reality of robotics.
-Gene
Benny
October 16, 2016 08:15 am
This article reads like science fiction and seems to be disconnected from the reality of robotics. Deep down, robots are nothing more than electric motors or transducers controlled by computer programs — in many cases, not particlarly complex pograms. The “brain” of a robot is no different than the motherboard of your personal computer.
At IPWatchdog.com our focus is on the business, policy and substance of patents and other forms of intellectual property. Today IPWatchdog is recognized as the leading sources for news and information in the patent and innovation industries. | Some scientists are working diligently to answer whether robots can be taught to feel pain, and their work raises other questions as well. How will robots respond to pain? Is this an ethical endeavor? What are the potential problems?
How Could Robots Feel Pain?
A team of researchers from Stanford and University of Rome-La Sapienza were able to program an arm-like robot they designed to avoid collisions with humans and other obstacles coming from different directions at different velocities. In Germany, another group is experimenting with an artificial nervous system for robots, which could teach machines how to feel pain, as well as how to react to it. And at Leibnize University of Hannover, researchers believe that robots could use the sensations of pain as a form of protection in hazardous situations.
Robots with fingertip sensors currently exist. They can detect changes in contact pressure and temperature. Depending on the level of pressure or temperature experienced, the arm’s responses will differ. This is really no different from the way humans and animals utilize this sensory feature. Pain is a response of the neurological system to help us evade danger and avoid injury. A stimulus given to a robot that induces a similar evasive behavior could be thought of as teaching the robot to “feel pain.”
Thinking and Feeling Go Hand in Hand
If robots could become more humanlike in the way they respond to stimuli, they could potentially become even more efficient and safe as they go about their operations. There are patents for advanced robotics that include concepts for machines with true human intelligence that learn through experience — including through tactile feeling. Such machines would be capable of storing information and retrieving it or modifying it in response to certain situations or tasks, much like a human brain. In essence, these machines would be able to learn from the past to predict the future.
One way robots could learn is through experiencing feelings of pain and pleasure, just as humans do throughout their lives. For example, a robotic car could be programmed to experience pain when hit with a rock, or when someone slams one of its doors or when someone yells loudly. | yes |
Robotics | Can robots be programmed to feel pain? | yes_statement | "robots" can be "programmed" to "feel" "pain".. it is possible to "program" "robots" to experience "pain". | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-017-9425-5 | Can we program or train robots to be good? | SpringerLink | Can we program or train robots to be good?
Abstract
As robots are deployed in a widening range of situations, it is necessary to develop a clearer position about whether or not they can be trusted to make good moral decisions. In this paper, we take a realistic look at recent attempts to program and to train robots to develop some form of moral competence. Examples of implemented robot behaviours that have been described as 'ethical', or 'minimally ethical' are considered, although they are found to operate only in quite constrained and limited application domains. There is a general recognition that current robots cannot be described as full moral agents, but it is less clear whether will always be the case. Concerns are raised about the insufficiently justified use of terms such as 'moral' and 'ethical' to describe the behaviours of robots that are often more related to safety considerations than to moral ones. Given the current state of the art, two possible responses are identified. The first involves continued efforts to develop robots that are capable of ethical behaviour. The second is to argue against, and to attempt to avoid, placing robots in situations that demand moral competence and an understanding of the surrounding social situation. There is something to be gained from both responses, but it is argued here that the second is the more responsible choice.
Working on a manuscript?
Introduction
Our increasing deployment of and reliance on robots means that there is a pressing need for a clear position on the possibility of developing robots that can be described as ‘good’ or ‘ethical’. High profile concerns have been raised about the potential impact of artificially intelligent systems on humans, and arguments have been made about the need to constrain the behaviour of such systems (e.g. Bostrom 2014; Russell 2016). Two areas in which there is a growing awareness of the extent to which robotics can directly impinge on the health and safety of humans are those involving (i) autonomous vehicles and (ii) robotic weapons, especially ‘autonomous’ robot weapons. It is apparent that autonomous cars are likely to encounter situations in which it is necessary to make life or death decisions about whether to protect themselves, or other humans (Lin 2013, 2015). And autonomous robotic weapons could be deployed in situations in which they make decisions about when to use lethal force, and who to kill (Sharkey 2012; Asaro 2012; Altmann et al. 2013). The stakes in such domains are high, and the issues important.
Both self-driving cars, and lethal autonomous weapons, would directly affect the physical safety of human beings. But life or death decisions are not the only ways in which robots could affect human lives: their potential effects are not limited to physical damage. As discussed by Sharkey (2016), a robot deployed in a classroom as a teacher or as a teacher’s assistant, could be required to make decisions about what children’s behaviour was acceptable or punishable. A robot ‘carer’ of vulnerable older people might have to make decisions about which of its charge’s activities should be facilitated, or prevented (Sharkey and Sharkey 2012; Sorrell and Draper 2014). Similarly, to be effective, a robot ‘nanny’ or minder of children would need to make decisions about when to stop children from doing something, and when to encourage them (Sharkey and Sharkey 2010).
If robots are to be placed in situations in which they will make decisions that have a direct impact on human well being, or on human physical safety, it is only sensible to try to ensure that they make the right decisions. The aim of this paper is to examine the various approaches that have been taken to answering the question about whether robots can be programmed to be good, and to assess their current level of success. In doing so, any examples of actual implementations, as opposed to abstract discussions of what might be possible in principle, will be highlighted. This examination will form the basis for a consideration of the best response to the current situation, and a discussion of the circumstances in which robot use should be encouraged, discouraged, or even banned. This in turn will contribute to the ongoing debate about what is meant by taking a ‘responsible’ approach to robotics.
Programming robots to be good
There have been various attempts to program robots to be ‘good’ and to make decisions that might be described as ethical or moral. Famously, the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov proposed the 3 laws of robotics (Asimov 1942)
1.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
3.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws.
However, many of Asimov’s stories illustrated the unintended problems that could occur as a result of following these rules. The rules are of course fictional, and there is no simple way of translating them into implementable code. How could you write a program to ensure that a robot’s action or inaction did not lead to a human being coming to harm? How could the robot foresee all the possible consequences of its actions, and their interaction with human behaviour? How could a robot even recognise harm? The rules seem more focused on short-term physical safety, when clearly there are other ways in which humans could be harmed. A robot’s actions might indirectly cause future long-term physical harm. Its actions could also lead to other kinds of damage such as psychological trauma or emotional upset. The rules also imply robots that can understand the orders given to them by humans (and the extent to which they conflict with the first law). As Murphy and Woods (2009) point out, such robust natural language understanding has not yet been achieved.
There have been some practical attempts to program robots to be ‘good’, or to make decisions that have been described as ethical. Winfield et al. (2014) report experiments in which robots are programmed to stop other robots (designated as proxy humans) from coming to harm. The robot is placed in an environment in which it has a goal to reach, but in which there is also a ‘hole’ or dangerous area that is a risk both to it, and to the other proxy human robots. They propose an internal-modelling based architecture for what they describe as ‘a minimally ethical robot’. The robot has access to an internal model, or simulator, through which it can assess all possible actions by looking at their consequences: in particular their consequences in terms of the dangerous hole area. The robots used the internal model to anticipate the consequences of different trajectories of movement for themselves or other robots. These anticipated consequences, combined with pre-set preferences, are used as the basis for determining which action to undertake. Possible actions include moving towards (and falling in) the hole, or blocking the path of another robot (the proxy human) in order to prevent it from falling into the hole. The robot’s predetermined ‘preferences’ are set by the human programmer. Winfield et al. (2014) describe a situation in which there are two proxy human robots, both of which are following a trajectory that would lead them to enter the dangerous area. The main actor robot is programmed to try to intercept the path of both robots, but given no way of prioritising which one to rescue first. As a consequence, the robot was sometimes found to dither between two possible trajectories, as if it were unsure of which proxy human to save.
Winfield et al. (2014, p. 5) write ‘What we have set out here appears to match remarkably well with Asimov’s first law of robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm’. The work has stimulated discussion in the media (e.g. Rutkin 2014) of whether or not the robots should be described as ethical. However the robots in question have been programmed to behave as they do. Although they appear to hesitate about what to do when faced by the dilemma of two proxy human robots that both need rescuing, this hesitation is a consequence of their programming. One of the main reasons that this work has stimulated discussion is that it describes the main robot as being ‘minimally ethical’. This use of the term ‘ethical’ is controversial, as will be discussed later. Nonetheless a strength of the study is that it provides an implemented and practical example of research into issues related to robots and ethical decision-making.
Ron Arkin has argued that robots and computational agents could be more ethical and moral than flawed and emotional humans. In a paper about implementing an ‘ethical governor’ for autonomous military robots, he writes, ‘It is not my belief that an unmanned system will be able to be perfectly ethical in the battlefield, but I am convinced that they can perform more ethically than human soldiers are capable of’ (Arkin 2007, p. 4). His reasons are: (i) the robots will not need to protect themselves and could be self-sacrificing; (ii) they might have better sensors for battlefield observation than humans; (iii) they could be designed without emotions that could affect their judgment; (iv) unlike humans, they would not be vulnerable to ‘scenario fulfillment’, and to interpreting a situation in the light of prior expectations; (v) they could integrate information from several sources faster than humans can; (vi) they could independently monitor (and report) the behavior of those in the battlefield.
The ethical governor proposed by Arkin et al. (2009) is part of a system architecture that is described as ‘potentially capable of adhering to the International laws of war (LOW) and rules of engagement (ROE) to ensure that these systems conform to the legal requirements of a civilized nation’ (Arkin 2009, p. 1). The ethical governor would be introduced as a bottleneck to evaluate the actions proposed by the reasoning subsystems of the overall system, permitting only those actions that were deemed ethically acceptable. The acceptability of actions would be determined based on a set of constraints, which themselves would be based on stored representations of the International laws of war, and the specific rules of engagement. Actions could be deemed unethical and prohibited if they did not conform to the laws of war, or if they were not recommended as appropriate, (‘obligated’ in their terminology). A further check would be carried out to ensure that potential collateral damage would be minimized, based on a table indicating acceptable levels of collateral damage given the military necessity associated with the target. Arkin (2009) describes an evaluation of the architecture undertaken within the MissionLab simulation environment, in which the decisions made as a result of the interaction between the ethical governor and the behavioural control system are examined in a number of test scenarios. The simulated tests indicate that the system, together with the ethical governor, would make decisions about the use of lethal force that would limit collateral damage with reference to the levels of military necessity (as determined by the military).
We could see the ethical governor as constituting an approach to programming robots ‘to be good’, or ethical. At the same time, autonomous military robots programmed in this way would have no choice about what actions they would perform. Their action choices, in this case about deploying lethal force, would be determined by the system and the set of constraints, which are set up and decided upon by the programmers and those using the system. As in Winfield’s et al. (2014) experiments described above, the programmers of the system effectively determine the action choices.
A number of objections have been raised to Arkin’s proposals. Matthias (2011) discusses the paper in detail, and points to a number of difficulties. One of these is that many of the rules on which the system is based are unclear and contradictory. For example, the rules of engagement for use in Kosovo stated “You may use minimum force, including opening fire, against an individual who unlawfully commits or is about to commit an act which endangers life, in circumstances where there is no other way to prevent the act” (Arkin 2007, p. 37, cited by Matthias). Adhering to this rule would require considerable interpretation, and knowledge and understanding of individuals’ intentions. Matthias (2011) also points out that the military can adjust or override the ethical governor if military necessity is considered to be high, and that it should therefore be described as an ethical advisor, rather than as an ethical governor.
Matthias characterizes Arkin’s view of a moral agent as one that follows rules. The ethical governor performs its actions ‘according to a pre-installed program, with no possibility of dissent or of questioning the commands issued to it’ (Matthias 2011), unlike the case of a soldier who could refuse to carry out an immoral command. Crucially, it lacks the autonomy that Matthias considers to be ‘a key ingredient of moral agency’.
A similar objection could be made to the idea that Winfield’s robots are ‘minimally ethical’. Interestingly, in a recent paper, (Vanderelst and Winfield 2016), the point is made that if a robot can be programmed to make ‘ethical’ choices, it can also be programmed to make ones that are ‘unethical’. In a ‘shell game’, in which the desired action was either to approach the shell on the left or the right, Vanderelst and Winfield (2016) used a robot that was able to detect whether or not another robot (again designated a proxy human) was moving towards the correct shell, or heading in the wrong direction. They programmed the robot to indicate to the human when they were heading in the wrong direction. They also programmed two other versions of the robot: a competitive version which headed to the goal first and prevented the proxy human from reaching it, and an ‘aggressive’ version that deceived the proxy human and sent it in the wrong direction. They conclude from their experiments that it is just as possible to program a robot to be unethical as it is to program it to be ethical.
Moor (2006) developed a typology of ethical agents, and it is interesting to consider how it would apply to Arkin’s ‘ethical governor’, or to Winfield’s ‘minimally ethical’ robots. Moor identified and defined four types of moral agent: ethical impact agents, implicit ethical agents, explicit ethical agents and full ethical agents. Ethical impact agents are computers or robots that ‘do our bidding as surrogate agents and impact ethical decisions such as privacy, property and power’ (ibid p. 19). Moor gives the example of the robot camel jockeys in Qattar that have reduced the use of young boys as slaves to ride the camels. Implicit ethical agents, by contrast, act ethically because they are programmed, or have internal functions, which promote ethical behavior, or avoid unethical behavior. Moor gives the example of automatic teller machines (ATMs) that are programmed to deliver the right amount of money. An explicit ethical agent can ‘represent ethics explicitly and then operate effectively on the basis of this knowledge’ (ibid p. 20). A full ethical agent can both make ethical judgments and justify them. A human with consciousness, intentionality and free will is a full ethical agent. Moor points out that some would argue that computational artifacts (computers and robots) will never be full ethical agents whilst lacking consciousness, intentionality and free will. He disputes this claim, on the basis that ‘we can’t say with certainty that future machines will lack these abilities’ (ibid p. 20). Rather than engaging in this debate, Moor argues that it is important to examine the other categories, and in particular to research the possibility of developing explicit ethical agents.
Moor wants to encourage efforts to develop explicit ethical agents because (i) we want machines to treat us well (ii) machines are becoming more powerful and need a more powerful ethics, and (iii) programming or teaching ethics to a machine will increase our understanding of ethics. He suggests that a major barrier to creating explicit ethical agents will be their lack of common sense and world knowledge. For example, a robot could only refrain from harming humans if it had a good knowledge of what possible harms there were.
Arkin’s ethical governor could be considered to fit in the Moor’s implicit ethical agent category since it contains internal ethical functions that promote ethical behavior. However its operation is more sophisticated than the ATMs that Moor offers as an example of implicit ethical agents, since its assessments of possible actions are based on a combination of constraints (from Laws of War, and specific Rules of Engagement) and considerations of collateral damage and military necessity. As such it might be considered to be an explicit ethical agent in Moor’s typology, even though its explicit representation of ethics takes the form of constraints specific to military situations rather than more general ethical principles. However Moor seems to expect more of an explicit ethical agent, and wrote, in 2007, that ‘an explicit ethical agent is futuristic at the moment’ (Moor 2007, p. 12). His argument seems to be that explicit ethical agents are an appropriate goal to aim for, even though they may not be fully achieved. An explicit ethical agent should be one that ‘can identify and process ethical information about a variety of situations and make sensitive determinations about what should be done in those situations’(ibid p. 12), working out resolutions when principles conflict. It should also be able to give persuasive justifications for its decisions. It is not clear that the ethical governor is able to do all of this. In particular, the range of situations to which it can be applied is limited to the battlefield, and its determinations are largely predetermined by the way it is set up.
The ‘minimally ethical’ robots of Winfield et al. (2014), that can prevent other robots from entering an area designated as dangerous, are able to make judgments that Winfield et al. describe as ethical. As such they might be considered to be explicit ethical agents in Moor’s terms. However, their behavior is quite specific to one situation, and they are not able to process information about a variety of situations. Nor are they able to offer justifications for their decisions. Perhaps they, and Arkin’s ethical governor, would be better described as implicit ethical agents, more akin to the ATMs that Moor uses as an example.
Susan and Michael Anderson (Anderson and Anderson 2007) also write about ethical agents, with the aim of developing an explicit ethical agent as defined by Moor (2006): able to represent particular ethical principals and to operate effectively on the basis of that representation. They contrast this with the idea of ad hoc programming of a machine to behave correctly in certain circumstances (implicit ethical agents). Interestingly, the Andersons make a distinction between moral responsibility, which implies intentionality and free will, and performing the morally correct action in a given situation.
The Andersons make use of an ethical theory based on prima facie duties (duties or obligations which individuals should try to satisfy but which could be overridden by stronger obligations), developed by Ross (1930). They (Anderson et al. 2006) use inductive logic programming to learn the relationships between these duties, which often give conflicting advice. Their work resides in the domain of medical ethics and is based on Beauchamp and Childress’s four principles of medical ethics (Beauchamp and Childress 1979): respect for autonomy, and the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The particular dilemma they focus on is one where a health-care worker has recommended a treatment for a competent adult patient, and the patient has rejected the treatment. Should the health care worker accept the patient’s decision, or attempt to change their mind? Anderson et al. (2006) implemented a machine learning approach using inductive logic programming to learn the relationships between the principles and the two possible actions. The system (MedEthEx) has access to a representative set of cases in which humans have made ‘ethically correct’ decisions, and uses inductive logic to abstract ethical principles from them. They claim that the system discovered a new principle: ‘a health-care worker should challenge a patient’s decision if it isn’t fully autonomous and there’s either any violation of non-maleficence or a severe violation of beneficence’, (ibid p. 1764). They have also implemented another version of the system, EthEl on a Nao robot that can decide whether or not to remind the patient to take the medicine, and whether or not to report the patient to an overseer for not taking the medicine. They admit that the system at present is limited, but suggest that it could be scaled up to make a wider range of ethical decisions.
A strength of the Andersons’ work, and that of Winfield and his colleagues is that the decision mechanisms have been implemented and shown to work with actual robots. Nonetheless, the examples seem disappointingly limited in their scope: the implemented systems can only make ‘ethical’ decisions in quite specific scenarios; either about preventing others from entering a dangerous area, or deciding whether or not to insist a patient take their medicine. The ethical governor seems to have a wider scope of application that covers varying battle scenarios, but in practice has only been tested in quite constrained simulations of military situations.
Wallach and Allen (2009) in their book, ‘Moral Machines’, distinguish between top down and bottom up approaches to the development of Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs). The approaches considered in this section are similar to their top down approach, which they define as ‘any approach that takes a specific ethical theory and analyses its computational requirement to guide the design of algorithms and subsystems capable of implementing that theory’ (pp. 80). The top-down approaches they discuss include that of the Andersons (Anderson et al. 2006), but they focus more on the difficulty of getting a machine to apply the sets of moral principles that constitute deontological or consequential ethics. Major problems with developing an ethical system for a robot-based utilitarian ethics lie in the need to anticipate the effects of undertaking action, and even more so in the need to evaluate the goodness or desirability of such effects. Any implementation of Kant’s categorical imperative raises another set of seemingly intractable problems (ibid pp. 95–97).
Wallach and Allen contrast this top down approach to a bottom up one, in which an emphasis is placed on ‘creating an environment where an agent explores courses of action and learns and is rewarded for behavior that is morally praiseworthy’ (ibid p. 80), with the idea that any ethical principles will be discovered or constructed, rather than imposed in a top down manner. As will become apparent in the next section, there have also been various attempts to train or evolve robots to be ethical.
Training robots to be ethical
Malle (2015) takes the approach of outlining what is required for moral competence, and considering how this could be achieved in robots. For him, the requirements for moral competence are: a moral vocabulary; a system of norms; moral cognition and affect; moral decision-making and action; and moral communication. A moral vocabulary would include terms referring to norms (e.g. ‘fairness’, ‘honesty’), their violations (e.g. ‘wrong’, ‘thief’), and responses to violations (e.g. ‘blame’, ‘forgiveness’). Knowledge of such terms could help a robot detect when humans refer to morally significant situations. A system of norms forms the basis of morality in humans, and is built up over time, initially on the basis of the moral judgments that adults make about concrete behaviors: ‘that was naughty!’; ‘He did something wrong’. Malle argues that it would not be possible to preprogram such norms into a robot since they are too subtle and context dependent. Instead he suggests that, ‘a more promising direction is to mix unsupervised and supervised learning, “practice” through constant browsing of existing data (e.g. novels, conversations, movies) along with feedback about inferences (e.g. through crowdsourcing of “inquiries” the robot can make) and teaching through interaction’ (Malle 2015, p. 9).
As well as discussing how norms could be acquired, Malle also considers how they could be represented in robots: suggesting a flexible network activated by features of the environment. In humans, knowledge of norms forms the basis for moral judgments since it enables them to recognize when norms have been violated and to allocate blame to responsible individuals, depending on the intentionality behind an act. A robot would need to be able to identify the aspects of an event that violated social and moral norms, via some mechanism that did not require comparison to every stored norm. Malle suggests that it would be able to do so even if it had no affect or emotion.
According to Malle, moral decision-making and action, a prominent component of human moral competence, would not necessarily require free will on the part of the robot, but rather the ability to receive blame and take it into account in its future actions. In human moral decision-making, there is a tension between the human’s own goals and social-moral norms that is balanced by empathy for others. But Malle suggests that robots will have less need for empathy since they will not have a tendency for selfish behavior. At the same time, in order to be trusted by humans, robots might need to at least behave in a caring empathetic way towards others. Moral communication, the last component, is also required for moral competence so that moral judgments can be made, and moral decisions explained.
Malle’s (2015) paper provides a useful account of what might be required for moral competence in robots. He does not say that such competence has yet been achieved, nor does he suggest a timeline for it. However, he makes the argument that creating a morally competent robot would be a good thing, since such robots ‘could be trustworthy and productive partners, caretakers, educators, and members of the human community’ (Malle 2015, p. 19). He suggests that if a robot was to become morally competent it should have some rights, and should not necessarily have to obey human commands. Controversially he suggests it should even be allowed to kill humans in certain circumstances. However his account of moral competence is an analysis of what would be required, not an implementation, and it does not provide any working simulations or examples of moral robots. How might the components of moral competence be acquired by robots? Malle and Scheutz (2014) suggest that it might be necessary to raise robots in human environments, since this ‘may be the only way to expose them to the wealth of human moral situations and communicative interactions’ (ibid p. 34).
Russell (2016) also advocates a related training method when he considers the possibility of super intelligent machines, and the need to ensure that their goals do not conflict with those of humans. He suggests that by following three principles this should be possible: (i) ‘the machine’s purpose must be ‘to maximize the realization of human values’ (ibid p. 59) (ii) the machine must be ‘initially uncertain about what those human values are’ (ibid p. 59) and (iii) the machine must ‘be able to learn about human values by observing the choices that we humans make’ (ibid p. 59). He suggests that Inverse Reinforcement learning could be used to allow the machine to infer human values from observations of human actions. He does admit that some humans would form poor role models, and that humans exhibit diverse sets of values. As well as directly observing human behavior, he also suggests that machines could be given access to ‘vast amounts of written and filmed information about people doing things (and others reacting)’ (ibid p. 59).
Suggestions such as these, that robots could be trained or ‘raised’ to develop human values, tend to be made in very general terms. There are very few examples where some form of training or evolution has been used to train a robot, or a computer, to develop some aspect of moral competence. Riedl and Harrison’s paper (Riedl and Harrison 2015) is an exception that presents preliminary results from a study exploring the possibility of a machine learning the norms of moral behavior from stories. They describe their goal as being one of ensuring ‘value alignment’, which they define as ‘a property of an intelligent agent indicating that it can only pursue goals that are beneficial to humans’ (ibid p. 1). They argue that rather than programming such values into a computational system, value alignment could be better achieved by reading stories, and reverse engineering the values that underlie them. They admit that ‘how to extract sociocultural values from narratives and construct a value-aligned reward system remains an open research problem’ (ibid p. 4), but report a study in which stories are generated via crowd sourcing that pertain to the situation and behavior that they want their virtual agent to perform.
In their preliminary study, a plot graph is learnt from the generated stories, and then a trajectory tree is developed that indicates all legal transitions from one plot point to another. The story-reading agent receives a reward every time it performs an action in the environment that is a successor of the current node in the trajectory tree, and a punishment for any action that is not a successor of the current node. The situation they consider is one in which an agent must acquire a drug to cure an illness and return home, in a scenario they term ‘Pharmacy World’. In this story world, the computer essentially learns to avoid the bad action of stealing the drugs instead of obtaining them by legitimate means as a result of the rewards associated with following the steps in the trajectory tree. They acknowledge that their system is some way from being one that could be scaled up for a system of general artificial intelligence, and that it is dependent on the content of the generated stories. They suggest that a more general solution to value alignment could be achieved by using all the stories associated with a given culture, assuming that subversive texts will be washed out by those that conform to social and cultural norms.
Riedl and Harrison’s work provides an indication of how value alignment might be achieved by reading stories. At the same time, as with many of the examples considered so far, the actual progress towards this goal that is evident in their paper is extremely limited: One scenario, some automated learning, but also a dependence on human intervention to select the scenario and to determine the reward schedule. The question of whether it would be at all practical to scale this up to a general system for learning moral value is not given a clear answer here.
Can robots be ethical?
As well as efforts to program, or to develop moral competence in robots and machines, another way of approaching the issue is to consider whether, or to what extent, robots could ever be full ethical agents. Peter Asaro’s (Asaro 2006) contribution here is to reject any strict division between full moral agents and other agents. He proposes that ‘it will be helpful to think of moral agency as a continuum from amorality to fully autonomous morality.’ (ibid p. 11). He suggests that the simplest way of getting robots to make moral decisions would be for them to randomly choose between a number of alternatives. Or they could be programmed to make decisions on the basis of a set of moral principles instantiated in the form of rules. Or, at another level of sophistication, they could be programmed to learn such a set of principles, and even to evolve their own ethical systems. None of these would mean that they should be considered to be fully autonomous moral agents. That, he argues, would require them to have further abilities such as ‘consciousness, self-awareness, the ability to feel pain or fear death, reflexive deliberation and evaluation of its own ethical system and moral judgments’ (ibid p. 11).
Wallach and Allen (2009) also divide up the space of artificial moral agents (AMAs), distinguishing between ‘operational morality’ and ‘functional morality’. Operationally moral systems depend on their designers and users for any moral significance, and have little autonomy or sensitivity to morally relevant facts. As machines become more sophisticated they may achieve ‘functional morality’, and have the capacity to assess and respond to moral challenges. The distinction between the two is not clear-cut. They refer to two dimensions of AMA development: autonomy and ethical sensitivity. Systems corresponding to operational morality are lower in autonomy and ethical sensitivity than those corresponding to functional morality. The highest levels of autonomy and ethical sensitivity belong to systems with full moral agency, and Wallach and Allen (2009) are clear ‘that humanity does not have such a technology’. They seem uncertain whether or not it will in the future, although they state that there are no proven limits to the abilities of AMAs. They write that ‘whether computer understanding will ever be adequate to support full moral agency remains an open question’ (ibid p. 69).
John Sullins seems happier to accept the notion that robots could be full moral agents. He (Sullins 2006) claims that a robot can be a full moral agent if (i) the robot is ‘significantly autonomous’ (ii) the robot’s behavior is intentional and (iii) the robot is in a position of responsibility. His requirements for autonomy and intentionality are uncomplicated. By autonomous, Sullins means that the robot should not be under the direct control of a human, and that it should have a practical independent agency. For intentionality, he refers to behaviour that is ‘complex enough that one is forced to reply on standard folk psychological notions of predisposition or ‘intention’ to do good or harm’, (ibid p. 28) and where the interaction between the robot’s programming and the environment results in actions that are seemingly ‘deliberate and calculated’. Sullins considers a robot to be a moral agent when it ‘behaves in such a way that we can only make sense of that behaviour by assuming it has responsibility to some other moral agent(s)’ (ibid p. 28). His argument is based on Floridi and Sanders (2004) and their assertion that when viewed at the appropriate level of abstraction an artificial agent can be considered a moral agent. Sullins does not consider current robots to be the moral equals of humans, but advocates paying attention to on-going developments in this area.
Johnson and Miller (2008), by contrast, do not consider Floridi and Sanders’ arguments about levels of abstraction to be decisive. For them, there is ‘no preexisting right answer to the question whether computer systems are (or could ever be considered to be) moral agents; there is no truth to be uncovered, no test that involves identifying whether a system meets or does not meet a set of criteria’ (ibid p. 123); they write here of computer systems, but their discussions apply equally as well to robots. Instead they frame the debate as an argument between two distinct groups of scholars or researchers with different underlying motivations. The first group they call ‘Computational Modelers’. They characterize Computational Modelers as being committed to establishing the validity of computational modeling. Those in the computational modeling camp believe that giving computer systems (or robots) the status of moral agents will further endorse the approach.
Johnson and Miller (ibid) distinguish the Computational Modelers from the ‘Computers-in-Society’ group. According to them, this group is against ascribing the status of moral agent to any computer system on the grounds that doing so is dangerous. It is dangerous because it distances human developers, owners, and users, from their responsibility for the robots or computer systems that they have developed or deploy. For those in this group it is important to emphasize the connection between humans and the technology they develop.
Johnson (2006) also argued that computer systems (and robots) should be viewed as moral entities, but not as moral agents. Her argument is extensive and based on the idea that, although the actions of computer systems can have moral consequences, these necessarily involve the intentions of humans. A computer system does not have the same freedom to act based on intentions that humans have. She gives the example of a landmine, which once placed in the field, is distant from the humans who designed and built it, and from those who placed it there. The landmine will be triggered when stepped on. Nonetheless, the landmine is only there as the result of human activity, and the humans involved in its deployment are morally responsible. Even if the landmine were replaced by something more sophisticated that made a decision about whether or not to detonate based on an assessment of the surrounding situation, humans would still be implicated in developing the rules that determine that decision. For Johnson, the artifact itself, the artifact designer, and the artifact user, together form a moral entity that can be morally evaluated. A related argument is made by Hew (2014), who argues that ‘For an artificial agent to be morally praiseworthy, its rules for behavior and the mechanisms for supplying those rules must not be supplied entirely by external humans’ (ibid p. 197). He claims that this is not technologically feasible for foreseeable artificial agents, and that systems based on technologies such as machine learning, evolutionary computing and self- organisation are all dependent on rules supplied by humans.
Johnson and Miller’s argument rings true to the present author, and provides some explanation of the reasons why some writers and researchers are keen to believe that robots are, or could become, full moral agents, and why some are against the idea. In a similar way, there are those who insist that there is no in principle reason why it should not be possible one day to build robots that can feel pain and have emotions. And there are those who do not believe in this possibility. It does seem to come down to a belief, since there is certainly little in the way of tangible evidence that this will ever happen.
One reason for being skeptical about the likelihood that non-living, non-biological machines could develop a sense of morality at some point in the future is their lack of a biological substrate. A case can be made for the grounding of morality in biology. For instance, Churchland (2011) argues that morality in humans and mammals depends on their biology and is grounded in their ability to care for kith and kin; their recognition of other’s psychological states; problem solving in a social context; and learning social practices. The basis for caring, she writes, lies in the neurochemistry of attachment and bonding in mammals. Humans and other mammals extend their self-maintenance and avoidance of pain in mammals to their immediate kin; feeling ‘anxious and awful’ when either their own well-being is threatened, or the well-being of their loved ones. They also feel pleasure when their infants are safe, and when they are in the company of others. These emotions form the basis for more complex social relationships, grounded in the rewarding pleasures of approval and belonging, and the ‘generalised pain of shunning and disapproval’ (Churchland 2011, p. 131), and the internalization of social standards.
An argument for a biological basis for morality implies that existing robots lack the biological basis for the development of morality. Current robots, lacking living bodies, cannot feel pain, or even care about themselves, let alone extend that concern to others. How can they empathise with a human’s pain or distress if they are unable to experience either emotion? Similarly, without the ability to experience guilt or regret, how could they reflect on the effects of their actions, modify their behavior, and build their own moral framework?
How crucial are emotions and empathy for the development of morality? Docherty (2016) has argued that robots should not be allowed to make an autonomous kill decision in battle because they lack both empathy and emotion. Robots, she claims ‘lack real emotions, including compassion’, and ‘could not truly understand the value of any human life they chose to take’. By contrast, because they possess empathy, ‘people can feel the emotional weight of harming another individual’, and refrain from unjustified killing. She argues that humans are able to make the judgments about proportionality that are required by the laws of war. Humans can apply judgment based on their past experience and moral consideration to assess the necessity of an attack, but Docherty thinks it unlikely that robots could be preprogrammed to do so, or that they would be able to reason about unanticipated scenarios.
Docherty (2016) describes robots and robot weapons as lacking both emotions and empathy. However Prinz (2011) questions the extent to which empathy is required for morality, and claims that empathy itself is not very motivating, and that it is subject to bias. According to Prinz, empathy is not necessary for making moral judgments, or for moral development, or for motivating moral conduct. Sentiments such as disapprobation, or emotions such as anger are more likely to form the basis for moral judgments about offensive behavior. The point is sometimes made that psychopaths lack empathy, and that they are also deficient in moral reasoning. But, as Prinz points out, psychopaths are also characterized by other emotional deficiencies, such as a low level of guilt, and an indifference to punishment, and their lack of empathy does not demonstrate its necessity for morality. Prinz’s arguments rest on the careful distinctions he makes between empathy and emotions. Nonetheless, Prinz (2011) is clear that moral judgment, moral development and moral motivation do require emotions. And his discussion about the role of empathy does not refute the arguments made by Docherty (2016), since her objections to robots making life or death decision are primarily based on their general lack of emotions in general, and their inability to understand the value of human life.
Responding to the current situation
In the research we have looked at here, there is general agreement that current robots are not yet full moral agents. There is some disagreement about whether they could ever become so in the future. The situation is complicated by developments in robotics that make it increasingly possible to develop robots that look and behave in ways that create and encourage the illusion that they are able to understand and relate to humans. There is also a strong tendency to use terms to describe robots and computational agents that strongly imply that they are already ethical beings and moral agents.
Van Wynsberghe (2016) expresses her concern ‘that robots are being built with at least the appearance of moral agency and that they are being placed into inherently ethical contexts’, (ibid p. 313), and argues that such robots (in her case, service robots) demand ethical evaluation and reflection. She is also concerned about the use of ethically charged words (e.g. trusting, emotional attachment, socialising) to describe robots and their behaviour.
Noel Sharkey expresses similar concerns (Sharkey 2012) when he writes about the application of ethical terms to robots and machines. He talks about the way in which applying terms such as ‘ethical’ or ‘humane’ to machines leads to false attributions of abilities to them: ‘They act as linguistic Trojan horses that smuggle in a rich interconnected web of human concepts that are not part of a computer system or how it operates. Once the reader has accepted a seemingly innocent Trojan term …. it opens the gate to other meanings associated with the natural language use of the term’ (ibid p. 793). For instance, when Arkin writes that robots ‘can be more humane in the battlefield than humans’ (Arkin 2009, p. 30), his language implies that robots are capable of kindness, mercy and compassion.
Miller et al. (2016) were disturbed by the use of the word ‘ethical’ to describe the hole-rescuing robots of Winfield et al. (2014), and by the subsequent journalistic reporting of the study in the New Scientist by Rutkin (2014). As well as pointing out that inaccurately describing robot behaviour as ethical decision making is ‘more likely to confuse than educate’, (Miller et al. 2016, p. 392) they also set out some requirements for ethical decision making. They propose that ethical decision-making requires an ‘openness to self-doubt’ that they term an ‘elenchus experience’ with reference to Reed, (2013). They argue that for a machine to be considered to be capable of ethical decision-making, it needs to have ‘(i) a capacity to sense some aspects of the outside world (ii) an implementation of a function of merit that quantifies the acceptability of the current situation and (iii) a capacity to reprogram itself in order to improve performance in future situations.’ (Miller et al. 2016, p. 393).
The elenchus experience of a machine may not be the same as a human elenchus experience. But according to Miller et al. (2016), if the machine or robot cannot reconsider a decision after it has been made in order to lead to better decision making in the future, it should not be considered to have made an ethical decision. To be described as ethical, a machine should be developing, or trying to develop, ethical expertise.
Miller et al. (2016) apply this definition of ethical decision making to the hole avoiding robots described by Winfield et al. (2014), pointing out that the robots cannot reconsider their actions given their effects, and cannot reprogram or adjust them in order to achieve a better outcome in the future. Winfield’s robots have no ability to maintain a record of past decisions and their outcomes, or to reflect on these. The ‘decisions’ made by the robots are clearly the result of their programming, as we have already discussed. Miller et al. argue that terms such as ‘ethical’ should not be used without better justification to describe the apparent behaviour of a robot. Instead any description should be ‘as simple as possible, making as few assumptions as possible about the capabilities of the AA [artificial agent]’(Miller et al. 2016, p. 400).
Of course, if robots are to be used in situations that impinge on humans, it is important to take steps to ensure that they will not harm them. But given these points about the misuse of ethically charged words, perhaps the robot programming undertaken by Winfield would be better described as addressing safety concerns, rather than as creating ‘minimally ethical robots’. Similarly, the Andersons describe their systems as involving explicit ethical agents, but their work might be better, and more prosaically, described as being about patient reminders. In the case of Arkin’s ethical governor, which involves harm to humans, perhaps his system would be better described as a military situation advisor.
An important reason for being careful about the use of language to describe the operations and underlying mechanisms of robots and computers is the need to remain aware of the unavoidable human involvement and responsibility highlighted by some (Johnson 2006; Johnson and Miller 2008; Hew 2014). As Johnson (2006) convincingly argues, even if a computational artefact is placed in a situation in which it is required to make decisions with moral consequences, the responsibility for such decisions still rests with the humans and the society that developed them and decided to deploy them there. Describing such machines as being moral, ethical, or humane, risks increasing the tendency for humans to fail to acknowledge their ultimate responsibility for the actions of these artefacts. It could encourage the use of inappropriate use of machines to make morally sensitive decisions that affect humans when they lack the moral competence that such decisions require.
An important component of undertaking a responsible approach to the deployment of robots in sensitive areas then is to avoid the careless application of words and terms used to describe human behaviour and decision making to robots. If those writing about robots were to eschew, or at least limit, the use of terms such as ‘moral’, ‘ethical’, ‘humane’, and ‘caring’ in their accounts, it would be easier to clearly assess their current abilities.
It is relevant at this point to question here the difference between the idea of robots making decisions in circumstances that require moral competence, and our increasing reliance on automatic and algorithmic decision-making. There are many crucial issues about this reliance that need to be addressed but that are beyond the scope of the present article (see Carr 2015; Susskind and Susskind 2015). However there are some important differences between the uses of robots in social roles, and the use of non-embodied computational systems. The robot in the classroom, or the robot on the battlefield, may be required to make decisions that require an understanding of the surrounding human social context. The inputs to its decision-making would be based on the information gathered from its sensors, and on its interpretation of the social meaning of that information. This is quite different from a medical decision maker or advisor that is fed information off-line, and that does not have to rely on real-time interpretation of a social situation. Circumstances that require morally competent decision makers are those for which there is some ambiguity, and a need for a contextual understanding: situations in which judgment is required and there is not a single correct answer.
The idea that the circumstances in which morally competent decision makers are required are those in which there is some ambiguity about what the right decision is raises some questions about some of the examples we have considered here that are described as requiring ethical decisions. Moor (2006) described an ATM that dispenses the right amount of money as an implicit ethical agent: but is there any ambiguity here about whether or not the right amount of money should be dispensed? Likewise, when a robot prevents a proxy human robot from falling into a hole, is this an ethical, or a safety decision? Is the auto-pilot of an aeroplane making ethical decisions when it oversees a smooth take-off and landing? None of these examples involve the interpretation of a human social situation: instead they involve an understanding of the physical surroundings (in the case of hole-avoidance and flying), or of accurate data checking (in the case of the ATM). The situations that require a morally competent decision maker seem different to these.
Given these deliberations, and given what seems to be a general agreement that robots are not yet full moral agents, we turn now to a consideration of what would be the responsible way to respond. There seem to be two main alternative responses. Response 1 advocates the need to work towards the development of robots that have some level of ethical ability. Response 2 is to make efforts to prevent or dissuade people from deploying robots in situations and roles in which moral decisions are required. We will examine and evaluate both of these responses in turn.
Response 1: building ‘ethical’ robots
There are some authors who consider it both important, and possible, to develop robots and machines with some degree of ethical behaviour. For instance, Wallach (2010) advocates the building of ‘moral machines’ as a practical goal, motivated by ‘the need to ensure that increasingly autonomous machines will not cause harm to humans and other entities worthy of moral consideration’ (ibid p. 243). He suggests that artificial moral agents (AMAs) will continue to be developed for practical applications over a long period of time, and that testing these systems will enable an understanding of the limits of the implemented mechanisms. For instance, he proposes that the limitations of a system that lacks specific mechanisms such as emotions, a theory of mind, or consciousness will become apparent to engineers when they are tested and found not to be ‘sufficiently sensitive to moral considerations essential for making judgments in certain situations’.
The idea that the limitations of such systems should be found by testing them seems unconvincing to the present author. Apart from anything else, the developer of an AMA is likely to be more concerned with showing its strengths than in finding its limitations. The limitations of a given system or robot, or of robots in general, are also usually easily identifiable without the need for actual testing. For example, Winfield’s robots are able to prevent other robots from falling into a hole. But it would make little sense to test the robots to see if they were able to prevent other robots from, for instance, running out of energy, because that is not what they were programmed to do. It also seems unnecessary to actually build a childcare robot without phenomenal consciousness or emotions in order to demonstrate that the children left in its care for long periods start to exhibit dysfunctional behaviour and attachment problems. The question of whether or not robot Nannies are a good idea is one that can be considered and answered on the basis of knowledge about the current abilities of robots; it doesn’t need a practical (and potentially risky) demonstration.
Moor (2006) was also, as we have seen, keen on the idea of developing ethical agents even if they always fall short of what is needed for a full ethical agent. He argued that it is important to examine the other types of moral agent he identified (ethical impact agents, implicit ethical agents and explicit ethical agents), and especially encouraged the development of explicit ethical agents because of the need to ensure that ‘machines treat us well’. He also conjectured that programming or teaching ethics to a machine would improve our understanding of ethics.
Our understanding of ethics is indeed likely to be improved as a consequence of attempts to teach or program ethics into machines. This is also the case in many other domains of computational modeling where improvements in understanding have been gained as a result of having to be more explicit about the assumed underlying mechanisms. However, if we look at the current state of AMAs and ‘minimally ethical’ robots, and compare it to what is known about human moral abilities there seems to be an insurmountable gap between the two. As reported earlier, Malle (2015) provided a useful outline of what is required for moral competence (a moral vocabulary; a system of norms; moral cognition and affect; moral decision-making and action; and moral communication). There is no evidence of an artificial system that has come any way close to achieving such competence. In addition, the systems that have been developed to date are all severely limited in scope to a particular domain.
Despite the current level of progress and achievements in this area, there are still those who continue to advocate the deployment of robots in situations in which moral decision-making will be required. For example, Arkin (2009) has argued that robots will be able to make more ethical decisions in the fog of war than humans. When it is pointed out that current systems do not have sufficient understanding of the human situation and context, the argument is sometimes made that there is no reason in principle to expect that they will not be able to develop this, and that given time, they will.
Response 2: limiting robot use
While some like to believe that at some time in the future robots and machines will become sentient, conscious, and able to understand the human world, there are others (including the present author) who prefer to focus instead on their actual capabilities. Currently existing robots are neither sentient or conscious, nor capable of understanding the complexities of social situations involving humans. They are also unlikely to become so in the near future: a statement that cannot be proved, but for which there is little convincing counter evidence. Given this, it is argued here that the responsible approach should be to identify those situations in which robots should not be deployed, and the social roles that they should not be given. This again is the contention of the present author.
There are other writers who are beginning to suggest this. Most prominent are those who are writing about the use of robots in warfare, and arguing against the deployment of lethal autonomous weapons, where the robot, machine, or weapon, makes ‘decisions’ about who to kill without human supervision. For example, Christof Heyns (2013), the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has argued that robots should not be allowed to make lethal decisions on the battlefield, on the basis that they lack ‘human judgment, common sense, appreciation of the larger picture, understanding of the intentions behind people’s actions, and understanding of the values and anticipation of the direction in which events are unfolding’ (2013, A/HRC/23/47).
Similar concerns have also been raised about the use of robots by the police (Sharkey 2016). Then there are authors who have looked at the use of robots for the care of older people (Sharkey and Sharkey 2012; Sparrow and Sparrow 2006; Coeckelberg 2010; Vallor 2011), and raised concerns about the extent to which robots can care for and respond to them in the way that human carers do. Likewise, concerns have been raised about the use of robots as nannies, carers, and teachers of children (Sharkey and Sharkey 2010; Sharkey 2016). In a similar vein, Sherry Turkle has written persuasively about her concerns about people developing and being encouraged to develop, relationships with computational artifacts that ‘cannot love you back’ (Turkle 2011).
Robots that are tasked with killing people are clearly treading on ethical territory. It is less obvious that this is the case for robots that are developed for the care and supervision of children, older people, or as companions. But how could a robot make appropriate decisions about when to praise a child, or when to restrict his or her activities, without a moral understanding? Similarly how could a robot provide good care for an older person without an understanding of their needs, and of the effects of its actions? Even a bar-tending robot might be placed in a situation in which decisions have to be made about who should or should not be served, and what is and is not acceptable behaviour. All of these seem to the present author to require both moral understanding and moral competence.
Saying that there are some situations in which robots should not be used is not the same as being overly negative about robot use. There are many situations in which robots can offer people something that would not otherwise be available (Sharkey 2014). The challenge is to find the right path to steer between capitalising on and benefitting from the unique opportunities that robots can offer, and avoiding a future in which robots are placed in positions and roles that require a moral understanding that they do not have.
Conclusions
In this paper, we have examined the progress made towards developing moral robots. We have seen how some have taken the route of attempting to program robots to be good. Others have proposed training, or raising, robots to develop moral understanding, or moral competence. The progress along both roads has been limited. Systems that have been either programmed or trained have so far been successfully applied only in quite narrow and specific domains.
We have considered some of the debates about the extent to which robots could ever be full moral agents. There are those who are skeptical about the possibility that robots could ever be said to be moral. Nonetheless, there are several writers (Asaro 2006; Moor 2006; and; Wallach and Allen 2009) who have looked at the possibility of developing robots, which, while not being full ethical agents, exhibit some level of ethicality. For instance, Moor distinguishes between ethical impact agents, implicit ethical agents, explicit ethical agents and full ethical agents.
The need to limit the unjustified use of terms such as moral and ethical to robots has been highlighted here. The circumstances in which morally competent decision-makers are needed have also been discussed. In addition, in the light of the current progress, (or lack of progress) towards the development of robots that are full moral agents, or explicit ethical agents able to reason about, and reflect on their decisions, two responses to the current situation are identified here: (1) building ‘ethical’ robots and (2) limiting robot use.
Those advocating the first response who are interested in working towards the development of ‘minimally ethical’ robots, or explicit ethical agents, do not necessarily fall in the camp identified by Johnson and Miller (2008) as ‘Computational Modellers’. Indeed, they are often motivated by the need to ensure the safety of humans as robots increasingly work near them, or with them, or are even placed in charge of them. An advantage of this response is that it is likely to advance our understanding of moral decision making in general, even if the ultimate goal of an artificial moral agent is never achieved. However it is argued here that their work could often be better described as having the goal of developing safe robots, than as developing ethical robots.
Those commending the second response of Limiting robot use, are likely to feel an affinity with others in the Computers-in-Society group identified by Johnson and Miller (ibid). Given the gap between current robot abilities, and those required for full moral agency, it is important to recognise that humans remain responsible for any deployments of robots in morally sensitive domains. Humans should not offload their responsibility for the effects of robot actions onto the robots that carry them out. It is also crucial that, recognising this responsibility, steps are taken to anticipate the potential negative effects of placing robots in situations where moral decisions are required, and that efforts are made to restrict their use. Appropriately developed and deployed robots have the potential to bring many benefits to human society, but the responsible robotics approach should have the aim of limiting their incursions into morally sensitive situations before it is too late.
Asaro, P. (2012). On banning autonomous lethal systems: human rights, automation and the dehumanizing of lethal decision-making. Special Issue on New Technologies and Warfare, International Review of the Red Cross 94(886), 687–709.
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. | How can they empathise with a human’s pain or distress if they are unable to experience either emotion? Similarly, without the ability to experience guilt or regret, how could they reflect on the effects of their actions, modify their behavior, and build their own moral framework?
How crucial are emotions and empathy for the development of morality? Docherty (2016) has argued that robots should not be allowed to make an autonomous kill decision in battle because they lack both empathy and emotion. Robots, she claims ‘lack real emotions, including compassion’, and ‘could not truly understand the value of any human life they chose to take’. By contrast, because they possess empathy, ‘people can feel the emotional weight of harming another individual’, and refrain from unjustified killing. She argues that humans are able to make the judgments about proportionality that are required by the laws of war. Humans can apply judgment based on their past experience and moral consideration to assess the necessity of an attack, but Docherty thinks it unlikely that robots could be preprogrammed to do so, or that they would be able to reason about unanticipated scenarios.
Docherty (2016) describes robots and robot weapons as lacking both emotions and empathy. However Prinz (2011) questions the extent to which empathy is required for morality, and claims that empathy itself is not very motivating, and that it is subject to bias. According to Prinz, empathy is not necessary for making moral judgments, or for moral development, or for motivating moral conduct. Sentiments such as disapprobation, or emotions such as anger are more likely to form the basis for moral judgments about offensive behavior. The point is sometimes made that psychopaths lack empathy, and that they are also deficient in moral reasoning. But, as Prinz points out, psychopaths are also characterized by other emotional deficiencies, such as a low level of guilt, and an indifference to punishment, and their lack of empathy does not demonstrate its necessity for morality. | no |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.