What Dimitrov??

How many galons of diesel worth shines per year on an acre (Or square meter)?

Let's see:
1350 J/m^2/s Specific Solar power
* 60 s/min
* 60 min/h
* 24 h/day
* 0.5 ligh/day Minus night
* 0.5 IntegralCos(incident angle)/light (Consider some rays at an angle)
* 365 days/year
* 80% SunnyDays/year Discount for bad weather and solar eclipse
* 4047 m^2/acre
/ 39.8 MJ/L Compare to Heat energy of Diesel
/ 3.78 L/gal
= 229,049 Gallons/acre/year of diesel at 100% efficiency
/ 4047 m^2/acre
= 56.6 gal/m^2/year .

What would the ??? Dimitrxx assume only 2% solar convesion efficiency?

I get a better yield %% growing potatoes, that actually taste well!
And I haven't even saturated them with CO2, optimized water, or fine-tuned nutrients!

Okay... dude, all that incident solar calculation has been done with real numbers at nrel.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi

using a flat recieving surface like water would have to be and neglecting albedo differences, that gives us a maximum of 5 kwh/day/m^2 (arizona)
= 18 mj/day/m2 = 6570 mj/year/m2 = 43 gallons/m2/yr. that's at 100% efficiency.

Now, photosynthetic efficiency for algae is from 3% to 6%.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm

Now, bear in mind that the best algaes produce 50% of their mass in lipids. The rest is nonuseful biomass. That's the show.

The reason that I want to go back and re-read Dimitrov is that he broke the efficiency down into several steps as I recall, and I think he made an incorrect assumption in one of them. Until I have gone back through his numbers, and then compared them with some experimental results, I would prefer not to conjecture on where the error might be.

Well, that is current best case.

But we had for a sake of an argument a hypothetical case, where more efficient algae could be (imagine) invented.
Dimitrov writes While the lipid content of microalgae, on a dry cellular weight basis varies between 20 and 40 %, lipid contents as high as 85 % have been reported for certain microalgal strains.

So all we have to improve efficiency of that strain. It is said that 80% of each quantum of visible light is used in photosynthesis. So all our hypothetical group could do is to engineer it, so that more of the light enters photosynthesis and less is converted to heat.

Do you know of any provend fundamental physical barier for such an improvement of efficiency, other than experience from past algeae performance?
OK. One: As long as the biomass is composed of many cell, it needs overhead such as cellular wall and nucleus. Let's take 10% off our estimate. Still pretty high. What's your next argument against possibility of increasing chances for more photosynthetic 'hits' ?

Well, my next suggested probable limit would be that only 50% of the spectrum is photosynthetically active in chlorophyll based systems. I HAVE heard that there are filters that can be put in place that absorb non-usable frequencies and re-emit them at usable frequencies, but those have inefficiencies of their own and are a leeetle pricey.

Next is that not 100% of the surface of the pond will have an algae cell in the correct position to absorb the photon. There will always be debris, turbulent blank spots, dirt, etcetera (or in this case, oil scum) that tends to block or deflect incoming photons.

After that, there is the 3-6% current best case for total energy conversion. Not that that can't be improved upon, but can the energy conversion efficiency AND the lipid fraction both be improved upon in the same species?

This is not necessarily the way that algae are going to be optimally grown. I used the idea of a weeping algae to overcome one of the harvesting problems - there are ways of harvesting, but I wanted to write a story that was relatively short and uncomplicated, and so invented this method to make the lipid separation easier. There are however validated ways of increasing algal yield, I just need to go through the conversion process to see where the gain is achieved, there are at least two different possibilities and so either I or that mythical student will have to do a little more homework.

It's okay, I understand that for the purposes of the story it doesn't matter, you were going for "major breakthrough" and you got it. I am really not trying to make your life difficult with excessive critiquing of what was an excellent summary of the path from conception to meaningful impact, this is just a side-thread about the nature of the "theoretical" limit.

BTW, I just looked into the albedo issue. It is a major one.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3rv.html

At a rough guess water will accept *maybe* 1 kwh/day/m^2 in the arizona sun. The sun crosses the sky at 15 degrees per hour and a mere 5 degree incident angle drops the absorbed light to 50%. So you'd get 40 minutes at above 50%, then another 40 minutes at 35-50%, 80 minutes at 13-35%...

I recall that if you do not chlorinate pools and hot tubs in Arizona, they will soon become filled with yellow-green algae. Am not sure if you could keep a pure algae strain in a pond as other species might quickly infiltrate and compete against higher lipid algae.

In some Florida offshore areas nitrogen from onshore was entering shallow water via rivers and streams. This caused algae bloom. The algae shaded out the sea grass that was the habitat of shrimp and numerous species of fish. It also depleted oxygen from the water. The growth rate of algae might be limited by nutrients and available oxygen.

These early algae models were not very efficient in their predictions of labor, energy, harvesting & processing costs, plant and equipment prices, land rent or mortgage costs, other borrowing costs, taxes etc.

With subsidies the California solar industry is growing quickly. One may need to compare the amount of energy provided per dollar between all types of renewable energies including wind, solar, hydroelectric, tidal, geothermal, and biomass. Some wind and hydroelectric projects were advancing without subsidies. A few geothermal projects were profitable without subsidies. Solar preheating of water before it entered water heater tanks has proved to be economical in areas not too far north.

With ethanol there has been some success in Brazil, yet it is causing the loss of forest habitat and creating greenhouse gas that was not properly considered by those promoting ethanol. In the United States it was calculated that to meet govt. ethanol standards forty percent of the grain (corn + wheat) might be required. Such a rapid increase in acreage of corn planted is not happening in 2008. Other nations' biofuels programs might also lead to grain deficits and spiking food prices. Grain prices tripled since 2005 when ethanol use became mandatory.

Food price increases cannot all be attributed to rising energy costs, else the price of homes, cars, clothes, electricity, etc. might have tripled.

Here is one system which would seem to minimise problems of contamination as the algae is kept in contained units:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html
Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy' - CNN.com

They also claim far higher rates of production per acre, due to growing the algae in vertical containers.

With ethanol there has been some success in Brazil, yet it is causing the loss of forest habitat and creating greenhouse gas that was not properly considered by those promoting ethanol.

There are many reasons that forest habitat is being lost in Brazil, ethanol production from sugarcane is NOT a major contributing factor to this particular problem.
Massive monoculture of any sort does indeed have major effects on other ecosystems in Brazil and is most certainly not a completely benign influence. However it would give your otherwise excellent points a lot more credibility of you and others checked your facts and stopped propagating this myth. You can get a good overview of where and what kind of habitat is suitable for sugarcane production in Brazil by looking at the maps in this pdf file.
http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf

As for

creating greenhouse gas that was not properly considered by those promoting ethanol.

Neither were any of consequences of using fossil fuel and building a global economy based on a single non renewable energy source, which sort of makes the consequences of using ethanol in Brazil pale in comparison.

Ride a Bike or take a Hike!

Well, my next suggested probable limit would be that only 50% of the spectrum is photosynthetically active in chlorophyll based systems. I HAVE heard that there are filters that can be put in place that absorb non-usable frequencies and re-emit them at usable frequencies, but those have inefficiencies of their own and are a leeetle pricey.

Is that 50% by wavelenght bandwidth or 50% of radiated power?

Obviously, chlorophyl does not use green light and reflects it as a waste.
If we managed to develop black chlorophyl, that would be great.

Also, I see great solar energy loses in evaporation. If the oil film itself cannot contain it, we'll need to build a greenhoise for the algae or keep it in glass pipes.

The next problem is thermal management. Warmer environment likely increases photosynthesis rates. However, cooked algae probably refuese to work. If we cannot manage heating or cooling by some simple means, such as mass of the water or controlled evaporation, there will be large energy loses on HVAC.

I see 2 natural means of thermal management:
1. Thermal capacity of large amount of water
2. Photosynthesis itself should have cooling effect, since it is energy taken. So at hight temperatues the increased rate of photosynthesis should sel-regulate temperature. But we need to keep the system at or below peak photosynthesis rate. If we blow past it, lots of added cooling woud be needed just to keep algae alive.