Latest "Green" Power Generation — Your Feet 189
gbjbaanb writes "Remember those ideas that suggested hooking gym machines to the power grid? Well, the Times is reporting that something like this to harness free energy is about to become a reality — the footfall of trudging shoppers is to become the latest source of emission-free energy.
'Engineers who have modelled the effects of the technology at Victoria Underground station in central London have calculated that the 34,000 travellers passing through every hour could power 6,500 lightbulbs. ... The plans for heel-strike generation follow successful trials last year at a bridge in the Midlands where generators converted energy from trains passing above into electricity powering a flood detector.'
Possibly the most important thing for the readership is at the end:
'There could also be a range of domestic uses, for example powering iPods by plugging them into batteries placed in the owners' heels, using technology which is already available.' Obviously you'd have to get up and walk around, but, as they say, it's the thought that counts."
There is no free lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Waste of resources (Score:5, Insightful)
All the equipment, moving parts, maintained, used to capture human power won't reach the point of break even on any of this stuff. (If you pay your maintenance guy at least.)
They'd be better off CLOSING the stinking gyms and making people work out outside and not DRIVE there than capturing that power.
Green is not complicated, often, it is SIMPLE.
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
But as for free energy -- this is not it. By putting generators in the ground that are moved by people walking on them, it will make it harder to walk. I don't know the specifics, but I'm guessing that parts of the floor will move up and down a little as people walk on it, probably a few milimeters. It might be somewhat akin to walking on sand -- and I have to wonder what it would do to a wheelchair.
This might be practical if you're in a remote location where electrical power is unavailable and you only need a little -- but beyond that, the solution seems worse than the problem. (And really, solar power is more practical for remote areas where you need only a little power.)
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
There is however an amass of energy out there going to waste.
Re:Waste of resources (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not green energy (Score:2, Insightful)
Post was modded "Funny", but it's actually true. Wish there was a +1 "Ironic". I would hazard a guess that most of the World's problems wouldn't exist w/o people...
freeking obesity epidemic (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't exhale (Score:1, Insightful)
The idea is not as bad as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)
In 'reality' though there are certain bonusses to a soft walking surface.
1. You get more traction and reduce slipping of feet (which is a problem on hard surfaces with grains of sand on it).
2. Damage from falling is reduced.
3. A soft surface is easier on the joints, which is important for everyone, though especially elderly and disabled people.
Try finding one of those new fancy playgrounds with a semi-soft rubbery-like surface and walk on it. Much more comfortable to walk on compared to concrete.
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:3, Insightful)
What's with all the negative waves? (Score:2, Insightful)
If we could build a device to pick up all the negative waves around here, the amount of energy collected would cause the Sun to snuff out a septillionth of a second later.
Its a cool idea, even if its not 100% practical. Throwing around the standard "there's no free lunch" response doesn't prove your smart, it just proves you're an asshole.
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:4, Insightful)
6500 light bulbs isn't all that much. Let's be generous and say that each bulb is a high-powered, inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulbs. 6500 bulbs x 100 watts = 650,000 watts, or .65 megawatts. To put things in perspective, a coal or nuclear plant might put out 500-1500 megawatts of power (according to various Wikipedia pages). Obviously, the power output is going to be a lot lower if they're talking about 15 watt compact fluorescent bulbs, however; that'd be about 100 kilowatts of power. That's a respectable amount of power, but you've got to ask (1) how expensive is it going to be, (2) how widely applicable is this model going to be, and (3) how reliable is this power source? Presumably foot traffic is going to decline substantially at night, and perhaps on weekends and major holidays, so the average power generation will be much lower than peak power generation.
I thought this article http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90714692 [npr.org] provided a much more practical take on the problem. Apparently, factories, mills and refineries which generate high temperature exhaust can use that exhaust to generate power. A major difficulty here is legislative, not technological; if you install the machinery to generate power from the heat produced by a steel furnace, laws designed to protect utilities mean that it's often difficult to sell it.
That being said, I don't think that recycling waste heat, or any other single technology will solve our energy problems. We need a whole suite of technologies- the ability to drill for deeper oil deposits, more cost-effective mining of tar sands and oil shales, more efficient cars, solar, wind, and more efficient houses, cars, and light bulbs- to increase our supply and reduce our demand.
What you're forgetting is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool toy, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that depends on how you define the Green Revolution [wikipedia.org]. I prefer to define it in terms of agriculture and human production standards. In terms of the work of Norman Borlaug [wikipedia.org] and other scientists' contribution, rather than as a way to dismiss folks as leftist, which these folks in particular are not. That work has likely saved the lives of more people than almost any other act in human history.
That said, there's a lot to be said for currently 'leftist' ideas like biodiversity, climate change, and such - but none of those are as much a critical bottleneck to saving lives from suffering and death as the core ideas of food and energy production. It's very much correct to worry if these processes are removing quality and sustainability to life too, over the longer term - but the core issues with the green revolution are far closer to the 'old timers' than the hippies you may associate the words with.
Ryan Fenton
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Wikipedia is your friend [wikipedia.org], but you have to know how to use it. Most solar cells are not cadmium telluride.
From this wikipedia link,
T
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no free lunch (Score:4, Insightful)
And that would be bad for the typical obese American or Brit how?
rj