The vertical system does not need to use more electricity. If you move the liquid with a turbulent gas, like CO2 in a smaller diameter tube the vertical could use less power. I would bet that it takes just as much pressure and energy to move that pig through the tubes as it does to move water through the vertical systems. He is using a positive displacement pump in his videos anyway, so the energy cost between pumping up 5-10 feet, versus pumping sideways forcing a pig through the tube is a wash. In fact the pig may be using more pressure. If he pumps back up into a vertical storage tank that feeds that diaphragm pump he is using, that has a liquid level 5-10 feet above ground level that is no different than pumping vertically through horizontal tubes stacked vertically 5-10 feet high.
If the reactor is one continuous tube it should not matter, the pumping cost would be the same if the flow rate is the same.
If the tubes are made of UV transmitting polymers, then plenty of light should get through other vertical tubes to get enough light to the others. I am not convinced that the flat method he is using is maximizing the use of sunlight, or said another way, I am not convinced the competitors vertical designs are starved for sunlight. I don't think sunlight is a limiting reagent in that way. I could be wrong. Anyone got any growth versus light intensity charts and light intensity readings on the different reactor designs we have seen?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
