Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: metal halides ( HQI )

Expand Messages
  • biogasoline
    By concentrating the light and then removing excess heat you get the right blue/red spectra that algae require and can convert the rest to electricity. The
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      By concentrating the light and then removing excess heat you get the
      right blue/red spectra that algae require and can convert the rest
      to electricity. The stationary concentrators extract more light per
      Sol because the light in not reflecting of the surface of the water,
      but is injected under the surface, so the pond/photobioreactor can
      be deeper and more productive with less wasteful surface area and
      more productive volume.--- In oil_from_algae@yahoogroups.com, Gary
      Myers <suncreekmyers@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello,
      > I agree use of electric sources of light will not be
      > an economical method for algae biofuels production.
      >
      > You suggest using solar concentrators; with the use of
      > these concentrators do you get more algae production
      > with one square meter of solar concentrator than
      > growing algae in one square meter of the same
      > sunlight?
      >
      > Gary
      >
      > --- biogasoline <biogasoline@...> wrote:
      >
      > > I use sunlight in all my PBRs, simply because no
      > > fossil fuel powered
      > > lighting, will ever be efficient enough, to make
      > > biofuels that can
      > > truly be said to be "fossil fuel free."
      > > I see no advantage, to trying to use any artificial
      > > lighting at all.
      > > We are not lighting salt water aquariums, that
      > > happen to also grow
      > > algae, to feed the fish.
      > > The fact that salt water aquarium enthusiasts, like
      > > to use a lot of
      > > fossil fueled electricity, is due to the
      > > presentation needs, of that
      > > wonderful hobby.
      > > But that sort of lighting can hardly be said to be
      > > efficient. Hell, I
      > > have used HMI lights for television shows and
      > > concert lighting (even,
      > > to give Paul Simon "those Nice Bright Colors")
      > > plenty of times, and
      > > my "extension cord" was always at least 3 inches in
      > > radius, with 4
      > > ought copper Type W mining cable!
      > > Metal halide bulb run very hot, and suck up vast
      > > quantities of
      > > electrons, and do make quite a few photons too.
      > > But they are VERY inefficient when applied to
      > > growing biomass.
      > > The "Energy Yielded" as biomass or biofuels v.
      > > Energy INPUT, gets
      > > ridiculously low.
      > > What's more, the whole concept is backwards.
      > > Large scale, stationary solar concentrators, can
      > > supply all the
      > > needed photons for growing algae biomass, with no
      > > need for gigantic,
      > > expensive power feeder cables and a massive grid
      > > power-sink sucking
      > > up lots of coal of fossil fuels.
      > > Instead, it should be done the other way around!
      > > The excess, unneeded (for photosynthesis) Solar IR
      > > photons that are
      > > co-collected and unneeded by the algae, can, and
      > > should be, converted
      > > INTO electrical power, to become a massive new
      > > NON-FOSSIL electrical
      > > power source, that can replace fossil fueled,
      > > daytime peaking power
      > > plants, and also should power daytime pumping in
      > > pump-storage
      > > baseline power plants so that nuclear power plants
      > > can also be phased
      > > out entirely as uneconomical, dangerous, and
      > > unneeded.
      > > That way, the production of algal biomass for
      > > biofuels will co-
      > > produce the electricity to power the surrounding
      > > cities, while also
      > > reducing the need for fossil fuel power plants and
      > > reducing the
      > > expensive grid upgrade costs by eliminating
      > > "Electrical Power
      > > Wheeling" opportunities, decentralizing the
      > > electrical power
      > > production and making the grid far more reliable,
      > > and inexpensive by
      > > robust, multi-point, power source feeding.
      > > We have been down the artificial lighting road
      > > numerous times before.
      > > The only advantage, is if you want to extend the
      > > growth cycle, in the
      > > lab, or experiment with spectral purity.
      > > But why? You can not take that lab experience and
      > > scale it up!
      > > The energy cost would be disastrously uneconomical
      > > no matter how
      > > efficient the light source may be. That is because
      > > the second law of
      > > thermodynamics, makes perfectly efficient energy
      > > sources
      > > unattainable.
      > > So we really have no choice, but to use sunlight,
      > > rather than to try
      > > to collect up the energy needed, to make biomass and
      > > provide it from
      > > any source other than the strong nuclear force that
      > > provides us with
      > > abundant sunshine. Other than the strong nuclear
      > > force, there is just
      > > no economical way to do that at all (with the
      > > possible rare exception
      > > of some weak nuclear force and gravity driven
      > > chemosynthesis
      > > organisms, that occurs as some thermophile bacteria
      > > and tube worms,
      > > that live at a very few, dark, undersea volcanic
      > > vents)!
      > > In the real world, ANY artificial light source,
      > > becomes an IMMENSE
      > > energy penalty, for making mass produced biofuels.
      > > That sort of
      > > energy penalty is exactly what we need to avoid.
      > > Spectral purity can be easily be achieved by using
      > > the correct
      > > filters applied to natural sunlight.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _____________________________________________________________________
      _______________
      > Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's
      updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
      > http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
      >
    • David Miller
      biogasoline wrote: What are the realistic efficiencies of these two effects? A) Sunlight reflecting off pond as % of daily insolation B) Light throughput
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 1, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        biogasoline wrote:


        What are the realistic efficiencies of these two effects?

        A) Sunlight reflecting off pond as % of daily insolation
        B) Light throughput through:
        1) concentrating collector (% lost in mirror or lens)
        2) % lost through light pipe
        3) % lost to plates distributing the light
        4) % lost to dead cell detritus clinging to the flat plates

        My uneducated WAG would be that you'd be doing very well indeed to get
        50% of the original light through system B and into the algae that can
        actually use it, and that most of the losses in the first case would be
        when the sun is fairly low on the horizon and thus not that high on the
        relative insolation scale.


        --- David

        > By concentrating the light and then removing excess heat you get the
        > right blue/red spectra that algae require and can convert the rest
        > to electricity. The stationary concentrators extract more light per
        > Sol because the light in not reflecting of the surface of the water,
        > but is injected under the surface, so the pond/photobioreactor can
        > be deeper and more productive with less wasteful surface area and
        > more productive volume.--- In oil_from_algae@yahoogroups.com, Gary
        > Myers <suncreekmyers@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Hello,
        >> I agree use of electric sources of light will not be
        >> an economical method for algae biofuels production.
        >>
        >> You suggest using solar concentrators; with the use of
        >> these concentrators do you get more algae production
        >> with one square meter of solar concentrator than
        >> growing algae in one square meter of the same
        >> sunlight?
        >>
        >> Gary
        >>
        >> --- biogasoline <biogasoline@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >>> I use sunlight in all my PBRs, simply because no
        >>> fossil fuel powered
        >>> lighting, will ever be efficient enough, to make
        >>> biofuels that can
        >>> truly be said to be "fossil fuel free."
        >>> I see no advantage, to trying to use any artificial
        >>> lighting at all.
        >>> We are not lighting salt water aquariums, that
        >>> happen to also grow
        >>> algae, to feed the fish.
        >>> The fact that salt water aquarium enthusiasts, like
        >>> to use a lot of
        >>> fossil fueled electricity, is due to the
        >>> presentation needs, of that
        >>> wonderful hobby.
        >>> But that sort of lighting can hardly be said to be
        >>> efficient. Hell, I
        >>> have used HMI lights for television shows and
        >>> concert lighting (even,
        >>> to give Paul Simon "those Nice Bright Colors")
        >>> plenty of times, and
        >>> my "extension cord" was always at least 3 inches in
        >>> radius, with 4
        >>> ought copper Type W mining cable!
        >>> Metal halide bulb run very hot, and suck up vast
        >>> quantities of
        >>> electrons, and do make quite a few photons too.
        >>> But they are VERY inefficient when applied to
        >>> growing biomass.
        >>> The "Energy Yielded" as biomass or biofuels v.
        >>> Energy INPUT, gets
        >>> ridiculously low.
        >>> What's more, the whole concept is backwards.
        >>> Large scale, stationary solar concentrators, can
        >>> supply all the
        >>> needed photons for growing algae biomass, with no
        >>> need for gigantic,
        >>> expensive power feeder cables and a massive grid
        >>> power-sink sucking
        >>> up lots of coal of fossil fuels.
        >>> Instead, it should be done the other way around!
        >>> The excess, unneeded (for photosynthesis) Solar IR
        >>> photons that are
        >>> co-collected and unneeded by the algae, can, and
        >>> should be, converted
        >>> INTO electrical power, to become a massive new
        >>> NON-FOSSIL electrical
        >>> power source, that can replace fossil fueled,
        >>> daytime peaking power
        >>> plants, and also should power daytime pumping in
        >>> pump-storage
        >>> baseline power plants so that nuclear power plants
        >>> can also be phased
        >>> out entirely as uneconomical, dangerous, and
        >>> unneeded.
        >>> That way, the production of algal biomass for
        >>> biofuels will co-
        >>> produce the electricity to power the surrounding
        >>> cities, while also
        >>> reducing the need for fossil fuel power plants and
        >>> reducing the
        >>> expensive grid upgrade costs by eliminating
        >>> "Electrical Power
        >>> Wheeling" opportunities, decentralizing the
        >>> electrical power
        >>> production and making the grid far more reliable,
        >>> and inexpensive by
        >>> robust, multi-point, power source feeding.
        >>> We have been down the artificial lighting road
        >>> numerous times before.
        >>> The only advantage, is if you want to extend the
        >>> growth cycle, in the
        >>> lab, or experiment with spectral purity.
        >>> But why? You can not take that lab experience and
        >>> scale it up!
        >>> The energy cost would be disastrously uneconomical
        >>> no matter how
        >>> efficient the light source may be. That is because
        >>> the second law of
        >>> thermodynamics, makes perfectly efficient energy
        >>> sources
        >>> unattainable.
        >>> So we really have no choice, but to use sunlight,
        >>> rather than to try
        >>> to collect up the energy needed, to make biomass and
        >>> provide it from
        >>> any source other than the strong nuclear force that
        >>> provides us with
        >>> abundant sunshine. Other than the strong nuclear
        >>> force, there is just
        >>> no economical way to do that at all (with the
        >>> possible rare exception
        >>> of some weak nuclear force and gravity driven
        >>> chemosynthesis
        >>> organisms, that occurs as some thermophile bacteria
        >>> and tube worms,
        >>> that live at a very few, dark, undersea volcanic
        >>> vents)!
        >>> In the real world, ANY artificial light source,
        >>> becomes an IMMENSE
        >>> energy penalty, for making mass produced biofuels.
        >>> That sort of
        >>> energy penalty is exactly what we need to avoid.
        >>> Spectral purity can be easily be achieved by using
        >>> the correct
        >>> filters applied to natural sunlight.
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        > _____________________________________________________________________
        > _______________
        >
        >> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's
        >>
        > updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
        >
        >> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • biogasoline
        That about right 50% or so. However the ligh delivered to the algae is then uniform throuhghout the depth and tuned to the frequencies of the antennae and much
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 4, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          That about right 50% or so. However the ligh delivered to the algae is
          then uniform throuhghout the depth and tuned to the frequencies of the
          antennae and much more effectively captured--- In
          oil_from_algae@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <riley_4_prez@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > biogasoline wrote:
          >
          >
          > What are the realistic efficiencies of these two effects?
          >
          > A) Sunlight reflecting off pond as % of daily insolation
          > B) Light throughput through:
          > 1) concentrating collector (% lost in mirror or lens)
          > 2) % lost through light pipe
          > 3) % lost to plates distributing the light
          > 4) % lost to dead cell detritus clinging to the flat plates
          >
          > My uneducated WAG would be that you'd be doing very well indeed to
          get
          > 50% of the original light through system B and into the algae that can
          > actually use it, and that most of the losses in the first case would be
          > when the sun is fairly low on the horizon and thus not that high on the
          > relative insolation scale.
          >
          >
          > --- David
          >
          > > By concentrating the light and then removing excess heat you get
          the
          > > right blue/red spectra that algae require and can convert the rest
          > > to electricity. The stationary concentrators extract more light per
          > > Sol because the light in not reflecting of the surface of the water,
          > > but is injected under the surface, so the pond/photobioreactor can
          > > be deeper and more productive with less wasteful surface area and
          > > more productive volume.--- In oil_from_algae@yahoogroups.com,
          Gary
          > > Myers <suncreekmyers@> wrote:
          > >
          > >> Hello,
          > >> I agree use of electric sources of light will not be
          > >> an economical method for algae biofuels production.
          > >>
          > >> You suggest using solar concentrators; with the use of
          > >> these concentrators do you get more algae production
          > >> with one square meter of solar concentrator than
          > >> growing algae in one square meter of the same
          > >> sunlight?
          > >>
          > >> Gary
          > >>
          > >> --- biogasoline <biogasoline@> wrote:
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>> I use sunlight in all my PBRs, simply because no
          > >>> fossil fuel powered
          > >>> lighting, will ever be efficient enough, to make
          > >>> biofuels that can
          > >>> truly be said to be "fossil fuel free."
          > >>> I see no advantage, to trying to use any artificial
          > >>> lighting at all.
          > >>> We are not lighting salt water aquariums, that
          > >>> happen to also grow
          > >>> algae, to feed the fish.
          > >>> The fact that salt water aquarium enthusiasts, like
          > >>> to use a lot of
          > >>> fossil fueled electricity, is due to the
          > >>> presentation needs, of that
          > >>> wonderful hobby.
          > >>> But that sort of lighting can hardly be said to be
          > >>> efficient. Hell, I
          > >>> have used HMI lights for television shows and
          > >>> concert lighting (even,
          > >>> to give Paul Simon "those Nice Bright Colors")
          > >>> plenty of times, and
          > >>> my "extension cord" was always at least 3 inches in
          > >>> radius, with 4
          > >>> ought copper Type W mining cable!
          > >>> Metal halide bulb run very hot, and suck up vast
          > >>> quantities of
          > >>> electrons, and do make quite a few photons too.
          > >>> But they are VERY inefficient when applied to
          > >>> growing biomass.
          > >>> The "Energy Yielded" as biomass or biofuels v.
          > >>> Energy INPUT, gets
          > >>> ridiculously low.
          > >>> What's more, the whole concept is backwards.
          > >>> Large scale, stationary solar concentrators, can
          > >>> supply all the
          > >>> needed photons for growing algae biomass, with no
          > >>> need for gigantic,
          > >>> expensive power feeder cables and a massive grid
          > >>> power-sink sucking
          > >>> up lots of coal of fossil fuels.
          > >>> Instead, it should be done the other way around!
          > >>> The excess, unneeded (for photosynthesis) Solar IR
          > >>> photons that are
          > >>> co-collected and unneeded by the algae, can, and
          > >>> should be, converted
          > >>> INTO electrical power, to become a massive new
          > >>> NON-FOSSIL electrical
          > >>> power source, that can replace fossil fueled,
          > >>> daytime peaking power
          > >>> plants, and also should power daytime pumping in
          > >>> pump-storage
          > >>> baseline power plants so that nuclear power plants
          > >>> can also be phased
          > >>> out entirely as uneconomical, dangerous, and
          > >>> unneeded.
          > >>> That way, the production of algal biomass for
          > >>> biofuels will co-
          > >>> produce the electricity to power the surrounding
          > >>> cities, while also
          > >>> reducing the need for fossil fuel power plants and
          > >>> reducing the
          > >>> expensive grid upgrade costs by eliminating
          > >>> "Electrical Power
          > >>> Wheeling" opportunities, decentralizing the
          > >>> electrical power
          > >>> production and making the grid far more reliable,
          > >>> and inexpensive by
          > >>> robust, multi-point, power source feeding.
          > >>> We have been down the artificial lighting road
          > >>> numerous times before.
          > >>> The only advantage, is if you want to extend the
          > >>> growth cycle, in the
          > >>> lab, or experiment with spectral purity.
          > >>> But why? You can not take that lab experience and
          > >>> scale it up!
          > >>> The energy cost would be disastrously uneconomical
          > >>> no matter how
          > >>> efficient the light source may be. That is because
          > >>> the second law of
          > >>> thermodynamics, makes perfectly efficient energy
          > >>> sources
          > >>> unattainable.
          > >>> So we really have no choice, but to use sunlight,
          > >>> rather than to try
          > >>> to collect up the energy needed, to make biomass and
          > >>> provide it from
          > >>> any source other than the strong nuclear force that
          > >>> provides us with
          > >>> abundant sunshine. Other than the strong nuclear
          > >>> force, there is just
          > >>> no economical way to do that at all (with the
          > >>> possible rare exception
          > >>> of some weak nuclear force and gravity driven
          > >>> chemosynthesis
          > >>> organisms, that occurs as some thermophile bacteria
          > >>> and tube worms,
          > >>> that live at a very few, dark, undersea volcanic
          > >>> vents)!
          > >>> In the real world, ANY artificial light source,
          > >>> becomes an IMMENSE
          > >>> energy penalty, for making mass produced biofuels.
          > >>> That sort of
          > >>> energy penalty is exactly what we need to avoid.
          > >>> Spectral purity can be easily be achieved by using
          > >>> the correct
          > >>> filters applied to natural sunlight.
          > >>>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >
          ___________________________________________________________
          __________
          > > _______________
          > >
          > >> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now
          (it's
          > >>
          > > updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
          > >
          > >> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?
          gamekey=monopolyherenow
          > >>
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.