Bioluminescene in NYC

If I were to redesign New York City using only one type of photoemitter I would choose bioluminescence. First off, because it is a natural photo emitter. The word Bioluminescence derives from “bios” (Greek for living) and “lumen” (Latin for light). By definition, Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by a living organism. In order for a biolumnescent reaction to occur there needs to be oxygen and luciferin present. In the presence of oxygen, luciferin chemically reacts to produce light. However, bioluminescence is not a source of light that can cause any sort of mutations or lethal repercussions if one comes in contact with it like when one is overexposed to UV radiation which can cause skin cancer.

Bioluminescence makes up for 90% of marine life. While typically, bioluminescence is used for marine animals to lure their prey and confuse predators, scientists are also quite interested in the study of bioluminescence and how to harness its energy for above-sea purposes. I think if New York was redesigned solely on one form of a photoemitter it should be bioluminescence because it would prove efficient both economically and environmentally. My first plan of action would be to utilize the glowing nature of bioluminescence to cut-down the wasteful epicenter that is Times Square. Companies could still sustain their flashy advertising billboards around Times Square; the only difference is what the billboards would be made of to keep them lit. Instead of LED lights, I’d use bioluminescence. Central Park would also be a big spot where I’d use bioluminescence. Central Park isn’t known for being the safest place at night, and I think part of it is the fact that it is so poorly lit in some spots. Electricity in general is a major cost for New York City. However, by making many of the trees in Central Park glow with bioluminescent radiation, this will emit the necessity for costly street lamps. Plus, the glowing trees can also double as sort of natural art sculptures to gentrify the city. Another idea: though NYC would clearly need to go through a water purification process in order to accomplish this, if New York’s rivers and water systems contained bioluminescence, our natural waters would be a source of light for the city, so we wouldn’t have to spend as much money on electricity for lamp posts and the like to light the city. Additionally, it would make it easier for boats driving through the river and night to see. Since bioluminescence is natural, once our water has been purified, there’s no reason it can’t also be used to sustain agriculture and defeat bacteria that could culminate in crops. Other ideas that are being studied in bioluminescence right now is using bioluminescence to creating glowing trees to line highways emit the use of costly electricity bills to even the most domestic uses, creating bioluminescent Christmas trees to omit the need for lights.

The only cons to using bioluminescence is that it is often referred to us “cold light” because process generates only 20% of thermal radiation (very little heat). This is because almost all energy in the process is instead converted into light. Hence, the glowing effect that occurs. But even in a light bulb only 3% of the energy it uses is converted to light. While an astounding 97%, is wasted as heat. So though bioluminescence generates very little heat, it’s not wasting as much, either.

In terms of how I’d advertise bioluminescence for New York, I’d definitely play-off of the fact that it is radiation of light by a living organism. It's natural in the sense that New Yorkers would be photodependent on natural sources like trees that happen to be glowing as opposed to unnatural blaring TV-screens and billboards emitting light.