Jon Singinton wrote:
I'd like to get a light to supplement the sun on cloudy days.
Suppose the light intensity is 10,000 foot-candles when sunlit, and 1,000 ft-cd when overcast.
The photosynthesis rate when cloudy is not 10%, it's more like 50%. Depending on what you're growing, light-saturation is reportedly around 2,000 ft-cd , as seen on a bright cloudy or partly-cloudy day.
So there's a tendency for indirect sunlight to be undervalued. It's worth noting that this indirect sunlight has more blue light (due to atmospheric scattering), having higher energy per photon and making it more valuable for photosynthesis. So 1000 ft-cd of scattered light could be comparable to something like 1500 ft-cd of more yellow-ish direct sunlight. Indirect sunlight is more than half way to the saturation level. The common use of opaque north-walls in greenhouses is mainly a strategy for saving heat, not for maximizing light use. Indirect light is being sacrificed in order to reduce heat loss. This is often a good design decision and trade-off to make, however it is probably one reason why reportedly a fully-glazed greenhouse can have twice the yield of a Chinese style greenhouse for example with only south glazing. While it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense, energy-wise it might technically be more efficient have a glazed north-side that was normally covered in thick opaque insulation but removed on warmer days, and particularly on warmer, cloudier days.
If you're on the electric grid, artificial lighting is probably more economically used well into the night. As I recall plants might need some darkness but not much. The slope of the photosynthesis curve is steeper at low light levels, so it's more efficient to provide a little extra light at night than a little extra on a cloudy day.
A much more efficient and less expensive way to increase light levels on a cloudy day, especially for off-grid greenhouses, is to use reflecting concentrators; either white or silvered. Although it's a design challenge to make them handle wind and snow loads outside, or to minimize floor space inside, and to minimize the labor of adjusting them.
Jon Singinton wrote:
What kind of inexpensive lights do people recommend?
In terms of minimizing both purchase cost and operating cost, I'll make two-categories for high and low light levels. For lower light levels, I figure the standard white LEDs and florescents are high on the list. It's tough to beat their value. Florescents are more efficient in the long tubes and with electronic ballasts. They do contain something like a few milligrams of inorganic mercury vapor which may or may not concern you. That is a difficult and controversial subject. For the higher light levels, I read one cost-analysis paper claiming that high pressure sodium is the most economical, particularly with an electronic ballast. Metal-halide is probably next.
Another interesting lamp that is surprisingly overlooked is the neon lamp, and similar ones using neon-blended gases. These are more-or-less as efficient as LEDs and florescents. In some cases they can last even longer than LEDs.
It seems unfortunate that the spectrum of these lamps isn't very well matched to the ideal photosynthesis spectrum, but the economics are such that it ends up getting very expensive very quickly to try to improve that. Although some of the LED strip lights are suprisingly inexpensive, and basically one can just buy the color/wavelength they want. Blue (400-500 nm) and red (625-675nm) are the most efficient for photosynthesis alone. If maximum efficiency is needed, then those are probably the thing to use. Although plants do use other wavelengths/colors too, and so other color/wavelengths can be useful and appropriate. This is one explanation for why I think it's fairly reasonable to use inexpensive white lamps, which is good news for those of use without a lot of money, haha.
I've given some thought to ways that
solar energy might be stored for later use as artificial lighting, but it's a difficult technical challenge. I have some ideas that might work in the future, but for now it seems the most suitable available technologies are all well-known.