Alternative Energy

Alternative Energy

Produce Electricity While You Drive, posted in Future Energy, Inventions, Transportation.


Alternative Energy
Alternative Energy

Produce Electricity While You Drive

News » Energy | Biofuels | Environment | Hydrogen | Solar | Transportation | Wind
October 7th, 2009 - View Comments

Electricity Driving This can be achieved by using piezoelectric materials under busy roads. The property is aptly known as piezoelectricity and it’s the ability to produce electric power in response to applied mechanical stress, and in this case this stress is the movement of vehicles on the roads. The concept was originally developed by Innowattech and now the company is laying down a sort of test road in Israel. Is it a solution to the global energy and environment crisis? It could very well be.

According to Innowattech (in fact, it should be common knowledge) massive amounts of mechanical energy go waste when millions of vehicles move on the roads. The piezoelectric generators harvest that energy and save them in roadside batteries that can be used by people. This process is also known as Parasitic Energy harvesting.

Under the upper asphalt there is a layer of piezoelectric crystals that produce electricity when squeezed.

According to people at Innowattech the Piezo Electric Generator (IPEG™) should be able to produce 200KWh, while a four-lane highway would produce about 1MWh of electricity, per kilometer, enough to provide power to 2500 households. Considering that Israel has about 250 kilometers of roadways suitable for the technology, in terms of volumes of traffic, and the mass of vehicles taking the roads, you can very well imagine how much electricity can be produced.

The same technology can be implemented on airport runaways and rail systems. The system also has the capacity to deliver real-time data on the weight, frequency and speed of passing vehicles as well as the spacing between vehicles.

Although initially revealed last year, this is a really exciting project and large green energy corporations and environmental organizations are closely monitoring its progress. No infrastructure is required. You don’t need to set up wind farms or solar panels and use up vast areas. You simply have to use the roads that you already have.

“The technology is based on piezoelectric materials that enable the conversion of mechanical energy exerted by the weight of passing vehicles into electrical energy. As far as the drivers are concerned, the road is the same,” according to Dr. Lucy Edery-Azulay, the project manager.

What do you think?

Related posts:

  • Gary Schabel

    Sound like perpetual motion to me. The energy generated must come from the motion of the car. This will reduce the efficiency of the car’s propulsion system and result in a an increase in the cars energy usage that will be bigger than the energy generated by the road.

  • http://www.appropedia.org Lonny

    @Gary Plus the units are wrong – kWh are a measure of energy. We would need to know over what period the energy was collected (one day, one week, etc). They probably meant power in kW. See http://www.appropedia.org/Power_and_energy_basics for more.

    Some other big questions:
    How will this electricity be transported?
    How much embodied energy is in the system?
    How long will they last?

  • Glenn

    Gary, it is good that you are skeptical of energy claims, especially from sources that do not seem possible. However, the energy here is coming from gravity – the car is pulled down creating pressure on our roads. This is why heavy trucks destroy our roads quicker than they should deteriorate. Thus, the energy use of the car is unaffected – since the same gravity is acting with and without the piezoelectric material being placed under the road.

  • russ

    Why don’t they do it and then show it? Then they have something.

    There are many harebrained schemes coming out today – people are expected to accept them all at face value?

  • Vilas Khadse

    It is a good idea.One must look at the capital cost per MW for the project since the electricity generation will be free. The generated electricity can be used for street lighting.The other use is to charge electric cars moving on the same road by electromagnetic induction.The mix of vehicles on the road now is 99% IC engine and balance electric which will certainly support the charging of electric cars till the mix attains 80:20 proportion.

  • Boneheaded1

    Sounds like an interesting idea. I would definitely like to see a test on this. Use two sections of road with similar grade and construction and measure fuel use over both. Then also determine output.

    Analyze: fuel use vs. output vs. construction cost

    But in all, if the roads can be done at a moderate cost (and we all don’t mind the construction delays) and can last for 20 years then this is pretty good idea. Even if you only end up averaging 1 MwH (that is one megawatt sustained for an hour) during the “rush” hours per mile of road this is a pretty good idea.

  • ferd

    Be careful of sales hype here. Currently available piezoelectric devices only produce millivolts (around 0.02 volts) per activation, and only for a very short duration (milliseconds). You need to use lots of them to obtain enough power to charge even small batteries. You also need to rebuild roads, which is expensive too. But it does have merit in as far as it does harvest unclaimed energy. Here’s a web address for a good recent paper that discusses unbiased test results:

    http://institute.lanl.gov/ei/pdf_files/JIMSS2005.pdf

  • Bojan Radak

    In effect, this is still just saving some of the energy dissipated by motion which is produced by other means (gas, etc. in the engines). It also needs a lot of energy to set up and maintain the piezo-grid needed, not to mention the energy needed to produce the materials, etc. So, the net effect is suspect, at best.

    In any case, this is not an energy generation scheme, just saving, and not very efficiently, at that.

  • Sanoj

    Why can’t we apply the same technique in the railway track? In the case of roads there is no specific line for movement of a vehicle (vehicle can wander), but in the case of rail tracks there is a specific path.

  • Jos Conil

    @ ferd,
    The article for which you have given the link is very informative.It’s true that the present efficiency of piezoelectric electric materials is very poor to permit a viable commercial application, but so was computers and automobiles when they were introduced.First computers needed large rooms and sacrosanct enclosures.But now its so simple and user friendly as a notebook. Similarly internal combustion engines were very large, noisy and cumbersome initially.

    Our roadways are a veritable source of unused energy-both the mechanical load and the radiant solar heat. I’d like to draw you attention to Solar Roadways (www.solarroadways.com) which proposes to harness radiant solar heat on roads by covering the entire roadways with solar panels that can be driven over. Here again the commercial viability for the huge capital investment is not proven yet.

    What we need now is a combination of both these concepts (concepts only, not the methods) to tap both the solar and the mechanical energy to produce power, using a single system. That will provide the basis for intelligent roadways of the future which can produce power for its own lighting,electronics and GPS enabled traffic control & warning systems which can communicate with future smart cars.Surplus power if any will be fed into the grid.

    All these developments can be called green only when ours cars have become green – fuel cell electric, bio-fuel and/or efficient pneumatic engines. So the R&D for green cars and intelligent roads should go hand in hand to develop a sustainable habitat for our posterity.

  • Andy Cipollo

    I will recommend that the Atlas Monetary International Trust advocates that the NTA require this to be incorporated into highway standards for the pre-2020 guidelines. Excellent idea! I will call our political action committees in DC to suggest this today.

  • John Douglas Porter

    There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Any electric energy “created” by this technique is actually coming from the gasoline being burned in the cars.

  • Shawn Evan Perine

    Piezoelectric is a really inefficient form of electricity, but so long as we can create the chips using less energy that that which we gain, then I’m all for it.

  • Rosa Garcia

    But isn’t the “gasoline” being burned anyway?? The only way this would be a bad thing is if it casued extra to be burned.

  • Matt Marion

    Well, if all major highways had this stuff underneath we could power tonnes of electric cars so it kills two birds with one stone (ideally, I have no idea what the technology actually can or can’t do).

  • Antony T Curtis

    This idea would only conserve energy iff the vehicles had no suspension and had solid wheels and the road surface provides the means to smoothen the ride and convert the excess movement into electricity.

    Otherwise, it will increase fuel consumption by the vehicles and everything would still be lossy.

  • John Boston

    This WILL save energy. The cars are already being driven. We simply aren’t capturing the energy that we could be capturing. Adding piezoelectric crystals to the road surface will not cause the cars to burn more gasoline, so there will be a net gain.

    At first, I thought this was like the test in California 20+ years ago. They put in a stretch of road that was electrified, so electric cars could move into the proper lane, slow down, and lower contacts that would conduct the electricity up to their batteries to recharge them. This was supposed to help with making electric vehicles able to drive further in between charges. The road looked like a big slot-car track, and worked under the same principle.

  • Haim Meiri

    Proud to be an israeli: “The concept was originally developed by Innowattech and now the company is laying down a sort of test road in Israel”

  • Aaron Plaat

    I saw this technology and was amazed! I had been thinking there needed to be a similar solution, and was pleased to see somebody has found it!

  • Gordon Smith

    From what I understand the compression that is placed on the piezoelectric material is no greater than would have been exerted on the pavement without it. This means that additional force was not required over the distance which means the work was the same and therefore the energy expended by the car ( train,plane or pedestrian).

    Explained this way the first 2 laws of thermodynamics are obeyed and the energy is of a recovered nature.

    Just my 2 cents worth..

  • Michel Floyd

    Gordon is right. If some of the energy going into deforming the pavement which was previously released as heat is converted to electricity then there is some recovery. How much energy is available however compared to the energy cost of installing the piezoelectric material and the supporting grid?

  • Soesilo Pn

    Wow, the application of this technology can reduce emissi CO2. Could this technology competitive with other renewable energies such as solar, wind, wave, etc.?

  • Dean Langadas

    Technically do-able, but nobody mentions what it costs to resurface hundreds of miles of roads with piezo electronics and the wiring to bring the electricity someplace useful. Could be the most expensive form of energy recovery yet.

  • Kami Corston Brown

    I agree w/the expensive part… we’re in no shape to pursue anything too far out there. Can’t even fill all the potholes in MI!

  • Julio Cesar Alvidrez

    I would prefer to wait till we come up with solar cells that are either clear or can be painted on. I know that we’re probably 30-40 years before the tech gets that good, but once it happens, solar cells could literally be painted onto existing structures in order to power them. Combined with new lithium nanocell battery backups and wind power, we would be good to go.

  • Suzanne McEneaney

    Wouldn’t it be simpler to have the turning of the wheels create (or transform) electric energy and connected to the battery to recharge it. I can’t understand why electric cars don’t incorporate this or a version of it.

  • Stasulos

    Amazing how a very much obvious scam can resurface over and over again! Gary is absolutely right – more energy can actually be saved by making roads sturdier, thus reducing fuel wastage. The piezoroad is an equivalent of a billion tiny steps ladder cars have to climb instead of just moving forward.

  • russ

    Improved roads, traffic flow patterns and timing of traffic would no doubt be far easier, cheaper and accomplish more.

    Improved roads/traffic is not as sexy though and hard to get VC’s interested and the big bucks wouldn’t go to the inventors pocket.

  • Dutchie

    So many have though of similar “free” energy. Just build a windmill for crying out loud!

    To save such amounts of energy, they could invest the same money to make road surfaces easier to roll over for a car. A more high-tech tire also helps. It all costs, though.

    Yet another idea: place turntable boards along highways, which re-direct the wind to create tailwind, each direction. See how much that saves. Yet, you will STILL save more by just placing as many windmills along the highway as will fit. While you’re at it, build a roof over the highway, stuffed with solar panels. Those may actually manage to collect enough to power some or all of the passing electric cars on sunny days, so they don’t need their own solar setup. Wireless transmission of electricity also exists now. And hey, no sun on the cars, so less aircon power used.

    This piezoelectric is either a disturbed mind’s work, or a evil one’s, trying to divert attention and funding away from projects that DO CUT EMISSIONS.
    Google : “GEET” and “HHO on demand”.

  • Blazo

    How do we make roads stiffer? Think of them like a metal – generally the stiffer they are the more brittle they get. There is a limit to how stiff you can make a road surface that is on top of flexible ground without it breaking up.

    I suppose the question is what is more feasible? Stiffening up the roads or harvesting the energy generated by the flex?

    However this technology can also be used for applications where flex and vibration can’t be avoided so is worth researching.

  • chuckyd

    As long as they don’t soften the road surface to get higher electricity gains. Ideally they would work on firming up the road surface so there is no movement, this would result in better fuel economy in the vehicles.

  • Tex

    The energy harvested will cause the passing cars to use more fuel. You are not getting energy for free. This method is like putting a windmill on top of a car to generate power, then using that power to drive an electric motor that moves the car. Sounds good until you realize that the windmill puts increased drag on the car. You can’t get something for nothing.

  • slaps

    Why not put the devices in our car tires, thereby allowing us to drive without fuel, just using gravity? The answer is, because gravity is not supplying energy. Force, power, and energy are related, yet very different. Getting the units right should be the first priority of editing here.

    I think such devices may have some value on off ramps and before stop signs. In such locations, making the roads softer may actually be of some benefit, as it would slow the car. But then, instead of 250 km or useful roadway, we would be down to probably 1 km of useful roadway in Israel.

  • Adam

    @Lonny

    Don’t mean to be pedantic but kWh actually stands for kilo watt hours which is a measurement of power over time. Power on it’s own is measure in Watts, thousands of them in kilo-Watts. Energy is measured in Joules or Calories, depending on your country’s standard.

  • TimMex

    It would work in road sections where cars need to slow down anyway – similar to hybrids that generate energy in deceleration. Like a windmill on your car that pops up whenever you hit the brakes.

  • WiseEnergy

    Glenn,

    You are mistaken when you claim that the energy comes from gravity. Any energy transferred to such a system comes from the car’s movement, and that movement is created by the car’s fuel. The car must become less efficient as energy transfers to the road.

  • Glenn

    WiseEnergy, I beg to differ. The force of the cars drive train is horizontal to move the car forward. The piezo device turns vertical movement into electricity. The only vertical force here is gravity. Those that think the device would create resistance for the car to overcome need to consider that a pebble on the road is drastically more resistant than the piezo device under the road.

  • Brent

    Need to know: The effect on these due to weather pressures, ice, expansion and crunch tolerance. Cost for all installation and future repairs. Rarity of materials in the all ascpect of the process forming the product. Establishing a competitive product climate to solidify pricing.

    There should be a 2 kilometer slab for demonstration and pricing before anything is spread and dispensed and sold both mentally and physically.

  • Brent

    @slaps If they did as you said and use it as resistance mechanism it will bring down the efficiency of common hybrids which gain by slowing themselve in such situations. Making it less of a pure gain and more of a partial.

  • Tsvi Bisk

    It amazes me that so many people feel qualified to comment on something they themselves know nothing about. This experiment may or may not succeed — it is still an experiment and has just entered the pilot stage.

    The people behind it are all Ph.Ds in material science, physics etc. from some of the best universities in the world and are senior research scientists at the Technion and specialize in various aspects of Piezoelectric technology.

    The pilot itself was approved by Israel’s chief scientist as well as other scientific factors who examined the data and thought it had merit.

    It may yet prove to have no merit — but these offhanded know-it-all comments are beyond belief. Lets wait and see what the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is in regards to the financial ROI and then we shall see.

  • newman

    Awesome idea to use one of the biggest consumers of energy to help off set some of it’s energy. Just starting to learn alternative energy can lessen the over all impact of our consumption of natural resources. Wondering if any other way to use cars to generate energy are in the making would like to know more about the out put of energy that can be made and how can it be harness to be used.

  • http://www.freethegreenenergy.blogspot.com dave

    The concept of creating energy harvesting systems is in its very first phase… in the far future we will program the roads to build themselves like dna builds our bodies… these roads will grow to maximize power production… and teleport the power right to the cars.

    People will get paid to drive and get paid for parking !

  • Vilas Khadse

    Dave, When you are talking about teleporting, in first place there will not be any need of roads since travel in that case will happen by teleportation..

  • Ron

    The very first comment by Gary is correct. You can never get energy from nothing. It goes against the most basic laws of Physics. Has anyone heard of Newton ? The energy that the cars disperse into the road “needs” to happen to allow the cars to move. Any change on the road’s surface (above or below) will affect the vehicle’s performance. Adding very large bumps in the road will worsen a vehicle’s fuel consumption .. correct ? Well, the same mathematical rules apply when adding even microscopic bumps, or squeeze cells etc. etc. Nothing changes, only the numbers.

  • janet northam

    Several years ago the sunday chronicle had an article about a car that produces electricity as you drive. When the car gets home you plug it in and it powers the home. Not surprisingly the article can’t be found. I do want to make a point about solar energy. If all flat surfaces were covered with solar shingles, car ports, homes and malls, even warehouses, that sun would be used instead of causing global warming. If we all drive to work in an electric car to our LOCAL solar shingle or panel factory we will not be causing any pollution. That means we should be reversing pollution and warming at twice the speed.

  • Kirill

    Let’s make some rough calculations.

    The force of rolling resistance can be calculated by:

    Frr = Crr Nf

    where

    Frr is the rolling resistance force,
    Crr is the dimensionless rolling resistance coefficient or coefficient of rolling friction (CRF), and
    Nf is the normal force.
    Crr for regular tire against a concrete road = 0.01 – 0.015.

    If we have a car with mass = 1000 kg, the force of rolling resistance will be:

    Frr = Crr m g = 0.015 x 1000 x 9.8 = 147 (N)

    The power required to compensate the rolling resistance can be found:

    Prr = Frr S / t = Frr V where V is the speed. For V = 80 km/h we have:

    Prr = 147 x 80 x 1000 / 3600 = 3267 (W) = 3.3 kW

    “About 60% of the power required to cruise at highway speeds is taken up overcoming air drag, and this increases very quickly at high speed.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient ). Let’s try to confirm this statement using a different reference.

    “A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics))

    We can see that Prr = 3.3 kW and Pair = 7.5 kW are in good agreement with this 60% estimation. That means, we can consider the calculated Prr = 3.3 kW to be reliable enough for our farther findings.

    From the original article we have 200 kW per 1000 m of one way road. Let’s find how much power is harvested from one car.
    Let the following distance to be as allowed by traffic regulations 5 x CarLength = 5 x 4 = 20 (m). The simultaneously present car’s number on the 1000 m road segment will be:

    n = 1000 / (20 + 4) = 42

    The power collected from one car is P / n = 200 / 42 = 4.8 kW

    We can see that this power exceeds the power of rolling resistance (3.3 kW) that is the only source we can take energy from without stealing. That means, even if we convert all the energy that is lost on the tire hysteresis, rubber to concrete friction, and vibrations originated by tires running over the surface of the road, there should be no more than 3.3 kW. Note that this “technology” does not utilize the air waves produced by moving cars; we can talk only about the rolling resistance. And of course, there is no efficient way to utilize the thermal energy of rubber deformation and tire-surface friction.

    This simple estimate shows there is no way to get 200 kW energy per 1000 m of a piezo road without stealing from cars. If we use this technology to decelerate cars in front of stop signs only, in the future, when electric cars will be in majority, the energy that suppose to return to the battery will be stolen.

    Why we won’t notice this stealing? – Just because the aerodynamic drag is almost twice greater than the rolling resistance and we have powerful engines. An additional 40-50% resistance will result in power consumption 16 kW versus 11 kW. Not a big deal, assuming a contemporary engines have 75 kW (100 horsepower) or even more power.

    We are witnessing one more scam was just born, following the ones about global warming, swine flu mortality disinformation, and so on. And these previous scams were backed up also by scientists graduated from the best universities.

  • Glenn

    Nice calculation, but Frr is horizontal, and Prr is horizontal. Piezo effect captured in vertical axis. F=mg is thus 1000 x 9.8 = 9800 N. The energy captured is converted Potential Energy, not horizontal kinetic energy. as long as the earth sucks, it will be available. As to the previous “scams” – 1st, it is apples and oranges. 2nd, the scams are the attacks by the fossil fuel industry to try to discredit other peer reviewed science. Where is the science – peer reviewed – to back the oil and coal industries. Where is the “clean coal” technology they say exists (I personally know of one, been it has not been rolled out yet). As far as the swine flu, we were lucky that it was not worse. When the predictions were made, how could the scientists determine that it was close enough to earlier flu to make the 30+ population immune? If it had been as virulent as the post WWI flu, which my mother remembers surviving, would their predictions have been off? While I agree that many scams exist, to label this as one, simply because a researcher has announced a possible future technology, is short sighted. I happen to live a couple of miles from Huffman Prairie, where the Wright brothers perfected controlled flight, despite the accusations of a “scam” by others. It took them six or seven years after Kitty Hawk to do it. Then they had to go to France to get the world’s attention – to avoid the ridicule of those in the US. Who knows if this technology will ever be implemented. I question the economics of putting the devices in roads, especially in cold climates that destroy roads with freezing and thawing, more than the energy equations involved.

  • Kirill

    Glenn, thanks for responding. I see my estimations were too long, and the main message got lost.

    I wanted to tell that the engine of a car with the mass 1000 kg driving with the constant speed 80 kmh produces only 3.3 kW to compensate Frr. This 3.3 kW is the maximum power we can utilize without increasing gas consumption. There is no way to get 4.8 kW out of 3.3 kW.
    4.8 kW is the power harvested from one car to make this 200 kW per 1000 m of road claim true. This estimate was for the piezo generator efficiency coefficient = 1.
    (In reality, if it is 0.5 – 0.7, we’ll need to take about 8 kW instead of 3.3 kW from the car engine which is still not so noticeable).

    So my calculation were only to show their claim 200kW per 1000m of single lane without increasing fuel consumption cannot be true.

    Potential Energy of gravity cannot be utilized if there is no change in altitude. The gravitational field is a conservative field (see wiki) which means the potential energy difference for a round trip (e.g. from home to work and back) equals 0.

    If there was a way to utilize potential energy of a body and the earth that “sucks”, there will be no nead in oil, photovoltaic panels, wind power, etc.

    I 100% agree with you, there is no science to back fossil fuel industry. Even nuclear energy (that is well developed and much cheaper) produces less pollution, but oil guys are in power.

    When I mentioned swine flu, I meant the forged statistics about the mortality from it. Instead of figures for the swine flu itself, they used combined flu and pneumonia statistics just to make people pay for the vaccine (which appeared to be inefficient and even dangerous, as it contains lead and something else).

    About this “researcher has announced a possible future technology”. I watched the innowattech video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW-GxSFSy3w, where the guy says “200 kWh per hour”(3:34). I speak and understand Hebrew, and he really said so; it wasn’t a bad translation. A technically educated person would say “200 kW”.

    In the video they say “without adversely affecting vehicle fuel efficiency or the durability of roadway” (4:12). Of course, as you noticed, the road durability cannot be the same as in case there are no piezo blocks installed under asphalt. These separate blocks will contribute to cracks production, especially on their borders. For their purposes the words “noticeably” and “adversely” are same.

    The technology will be implemented, I think, just because it is a way of making money. Research grants, good deals, etc. Who cares it will lead to increased oil consumption and atmosphere pollution.

    If you are interested in knowing where this “free” energy is coming from (as I see it), I can explain, though it’s not so easy without making drawings and diagrams. I didn’t expect anybody would respond to my post, but it’s hard to keep silent when I see something is going wrong.

    When I tried to post a similar comment on innowattech channel, they simply moderated it out without proving I’m wrong. It’s an indication they have no objections.

  • Kirill

    Update to my first post:
    I visited the Innowattech site http://www.innowattech.co.il/techInfo.aspx
    Using the additional info: “According to Innowattech’s mathematical model, IPEGs™ have a potential to generate an average of 200 kWh per hour for the highway with traffic of 600 heavy trucks/buses per hour on average”.

    Assuming the mass of a truck 10000kg and a bus 6000kg, I tried to make more accurate calculations. I used average mass 8000kg.

    600 vehicles per hour means they appear with period T = 6 sec.
    Distance between vehicles:
    d = TV = 6 x 80000/3600 = 132m
    Number of vehicles per 1000m:
    n = 1000 / d = 1000 / 132 = 7.6
    Frr = Crr m g = 0.015 x 8000 x 9.8 = 1176 (N)

    The power expended to overcome rolling resistance:

    Prr = Frr V = 1176 x 80 x 1000 / 3600 = 26133 (W) = 26 kW

    The power collected from one car is P / n = 200 / 7.6 = 26 kW

    This means following:

    In order to keep fuel consumption intact, all 26kW should be converted to electricity (with efficiency coefficient = 1). Rolling resistance must be = 0, i.e. no tire warming up, no tire wear, no roadway wear.

    It is still impossible, sorry Innowattech.
    I’ve tried the best to see this technology works as promised.

  • mike3121

    I thought of this a few years ago but did nothing about it. A strip of Rochelle salt with a layer of copper mesh on the top and bottom. Encase this all in rubber (or some flexible non conductor). Bury a number of these under the road way. Rochelle salt, when pressure is applied, creates electricity. My experiments showed Rochelle salt just doesn’t produce enough electricity to be of practical value.

  • Julian P

    Thanks for some good technical figuring Kirill and ignoring some emotive posts. Is this worse; Electricity from kinetic energy of dry ice dropped from a suitable height into a novel mechanism perhaps immersed in warm ocean as heat provider to sublimate [release] CO2 as a gas which may drive a turbo-alternator.

  • Kirill

    Julian, your double source method is great. The only disadvantage is that it’s too easy to see from where the energy is coming.

    What about this (realistic, btw) setup:
    If you live in your own house, you pay water bills for the water you consume and for the pressure of this water but never use this pressure as a source of energy. Put a water tank in the attic and install a turbine so that water will release its energy while filling the tank. The pressure of water from attic is sufficient.
    This is the real case of energy harvesting that is lost anyway, and there is no robbery.
    You owe me ice-cream for the idea.

  • john

    ok.. everyone that says it is impossible to create electricity with no cost to produce it is correct. “NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH”. yes, it takes a lot of thought, money to invest, and even more work to be able to do this. all you idiots that say there is no such thing as perpetual motion need to get over your over educated selves. it is too simple: weight, leverage, and any other pre existing force can be combined and utilized and transfered into mechanical motion/energy. mechanical motion/energy has been used to drive generators, and other equipment
    for longer than anyone has been alive. if you guys cant figure that out, then maybe you can just remain in your own negativity, and let someone with common sense get the job done.

  • prateek mishra

    this is really a mind blowing project. it describe all the expect of power generation by rolling friction which we lost in daily life. no any other method is so sufficient to generate so much power in sort of time.

blog comments powered by Disqus
AEoogle

Alternative Energy on Facebook

Powered by Renewable Energy and AEoogle!
Renewable Energy Topsites