Millions of people drive on roads every day. You are driving anyway and yes you are spending money on gas to fuel your vehicles. Fact is you are spending that money on a means to get you back and forth to places for your personal interest.
the notion that this is stealing is just stupid.

What I do disagree with is that this energy is funneled back into the power grids at some point. but do the power companies o local municipalities give us a break on our taxes for this type of system being in place? NO, the most certainly do not. With the introduction of such a system the monetary gains should be passed back to the residents of the locales where they are installed. Instead they would use this to supplement their own pockets in local government.

this is the part that I disagree with. this energy could be sold back to power companies to assist in the funding of road projects thereby reducing the amount of taxes local governments should charge residents. But this will never happen because dollar for dollar the Fed matches state gov’s in the money they spend for these projects. If they don;t spend it then they don;t get it back from year to year.

this is the only problem I have with this, but it is not at the system level where the problem is but within your own local and state governments.

As many people have said, there may be cost and maintenance issues, but that’s what people said about paving the nation’s roads. Look how far that whining got them.

Additionally, why not apply this idea, on a smaller scale, to crowded New York City sidewalks? Then, the energy gained would be strictly voluntary; you don’t like it? Walk on the other side of the road… or in the middle of it.

But wait, then we’d be STEALING people’s precious calories without their permission, and that’s unacceptable.

This is just pure boon-doggle fantasy on the part of its inventors and investors. They do like so many other energy designers do by preying on the collective ignorance (and 65 IQ) of the policy making bubble-heads in Washington to get them to buy into it, implement the technology with huge tax-payer revenues and then leave us all holding the bag in a few years when other cost-effective energy technologies become available.

Even if the technology is never utilized (thank Zeus) these folks will still enjoy a healthy pay day and they know it. As usual the only people who would benefit from this technology will be the ones that manage a way to get it in place before the rest of us realize what’s really going on here. Can you imagine how much it would cost to purchase, install and maintain a system like this?

Just another half-measure to a band-aid solution that is on the same par as wind and solar PV, which are also likely to become obsolete soon after squandering billions to subsidize these industries. I suggest the technology be used, if at all, in driveways to supplement power to ornamental solar PV outdoor lighting for our homes, then we’ll see if it merits further use beyond that, which is doubtful. The Greeks should really stick to what they do best, counting olives, not dollars.

1. If my memory serves me right, there is an established system in England for powering flood indicators with wind energy got from passing trains. Notice, that there is very, very little potential in it.

2. Momentum doesn’t have effect: The up-down movement still gets all the energy from the car fuel.

3. If put in a place where MOST OF THE TIME people slow down, NOT stop, the thingie does not steal energy. (Easy to find those places, though?)

I have a better idea. Why don’t we legislate the mandatory use of hand generators? Say, everyone has to charge one 2500mAh battery a day with it and return it to collection point, where an empty battery will be delivered for charge. Every day, 360 days a year, 300 mln. people. Wow! And we would have stronger hands also!

I say someone build one and see what the actual return on investment is. Until then, the debate is theoretical.

1: It will work and the implementations of harnessing kinetic energy is a breakthrough, and reduces the need for fossil fuels greatly. This will bring down gas prices slightly and for a short time, buy us time to find a solution to the motor vehicle issue.

2: It will fail miserably and just increase US debt (if funded by the government, which will most probably happen) or put some investors in the red zone, in terms of finance, threatening the economy and probably bringing the US into supreme debt, causing inflation, etc etc.

3: Just another branch in the future tree, for some unexpected turn of events that might happen. One of them, for example might be that this new implementation is transformed into the next great thing, and somehow can be so widespread that it is the solution to all our issues! It can be implemented around the world, generating all the electricity we need, including our new electric cars, that use resonance frequency, and by driving through a station, can ‘absorb’ the power it needs for the drive to the next. Or some outstanding theory like that.

John K Ormond fl