Well, chlorophyll evolved for survival, not to maximize yields for human agriculture. In the wild, plant growth is bottlenecked on the availability of water and nutrients, and they tend to get way more sunlight than they can use. This is shown by the fact that chlorophyll is green, so plants are actively reflecting away most of the energy from the sun (where green is the dominant wavelength). If wild plants benefited from absorbing all available sunlight, they would be black (or, given the specific chemistries involved, probably a deep purple). In artificial conditions, perhaps one could do better.

Which isn't to say that artificial starch poduction isn't still the way to go, but even in the grim darkness of the future where we're all eating starch capsules for every meal, people will still want a tomato once in a while.

That's actually a common misconception that even some older physics textbooks get wrong. You could argue with the same logic (and the same math, just using the frequency domain black body description) that the peak output of the sun is in the infrared. But the truth is that there is no such thing as a dominant wavelength in a continuous density distribution spectrum.

See e.g. here for more info: https://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light-and-radiometry/l...

If we can boost plant production using electricity generated by solar panels next (or above) the fields or greenhouses, it could be great. An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too.

Faster growth may mean two crops per year instead of one in some places. Acetate is easy to store, so it's a good way to apply the excess solar output during day, and excess nuclear output at night time.

I think it'll be niche on Earth, but maybe it has a role to play-- e.g. for food security for cold nations that already rely on greenhouses and could improve yields.

One of the hypotheses for the obesity epidemic is a reduction in essential nutrients, resulting in a lack of satiety.

Understanding of prebiotics, phytonutrients, and ultratrace minerals are relatively new, and we're still learning how different forms of fat have different impacts.

In the meantime, improving existing yields could be really helpful.

Zero micronutrients, only carbs.

Humans need micronutrients, fats and some protein to live.

Carbs are optional.

Since starch is pure carbs this means that a diet high in artificial starch will just fatten you up while making you nutrient deficient.

It's only use if for extreme hunger prevention.

But humans raised on that kind of a diet will be deficient.

If micronutrients are ever a problem, we are really screwed on macronutrients.

There should be billions pouring into artificial food. It would solve so many problems that we have.

1: Ocean dead zones for example: https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php