I live in a house with huge southeastern window... and when there's occassional clear winter morning, the light and later the warmth, that's...glorious! No idea how could I replicate that with LEDs, would be probably pretty expensive.
If it was as simple as light exposure, leds on glasses would be an easy cheap fix - wear light therapy glasses x minutes a day while you work or listen to podcasts, etc.
Plants store their solar energy in a hydrogen-carbon bond for storage. To compare a plant with a solar panel and LED you need to also include the storage technology, which is usually batteries. Because plants do not as a rule glow brightly, a more apt comparison would involve, say, a locomotion system. Comparing the efficiency of, perhaps, a car that drives at night powered by a solar/battery system vs. a plant/combustion system. It would be an interesting experiement.
And yes, I know the dye doesn't absorb green. It's still a green dye; last I checked we name dyes by their reflected color.
You meant a "green, light-absorbing dye" (using hyphens to make the distinction clearer), the previous poster understood "a green-light absorbing dye".
Most indoor lighting is below 1000 lux. Bright daylight without direct sun is 10000 lux. There's no comparison between proper daylighting and almost any reasonable amount of indoor lighting. This is why it's very difficult to see things even on a very high luminance screen like a Macbook Pro outdoors during daylight.
I didn't mean compete in terms of max lux output, though if they actually wanted to do that for whatever odd reason (film studio? indoor weed farming?), the basic tech probably could as well.
I meant effective task lighting for multiple people and multiple tasks across seasons in a large building with multiple very similar large rooms that have windows in different places but usually along one wall only (in a valley, in a cloudy country relatively far from the equator).
Which on the face of it, seems totally absurd. Things such as Night School, and schools/offices near the poles for example, exist. Is there something more specific that you're actually saying?
Especially children need significant time spent in bright daylight in order to develop normally. It's not beyond our technology, but nobody actually does it.
Maybe that's just me, but natural light is way better for my mental health than artificial light. Being forced to depend on artificial light makes me feel like I'm in a basement, which I don't like at all.
Most of the problems could be traced to simplified models they claim, yet the two they actually mention in detail clearly did not. And they make no attempt to quantify the contribution (in terms of cost Vs energy waste) of the ones that do.
It seems highly unlikely that they'll rival having your heat on too high and the windows open to vent the heat.
In particular, a school in a valley in the UK having its lights on doesn't on really seem like a big deal as long as they're using LED lights. Attempting to harness natural light in this type of building sounds like a feel-good notion that can't possibly compete with decent led lighting run from a renewable grid.