backtop

Print 122 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Jun 25 at 9:52 PM

  (Source: Sainsbury)

A major supermarket in Britain is now powered by customer's kinetic energy, with energy harvesting road plates made by AEST, a Californian firm.  (Source: DailyMail)

The Sainsbury supermarket also showcases many other green technologies, which are helping to save it money.  (Source: Sainsbury)
Shopping market jumps on the kinetic energy craze

Kinetic energy harvesting is one of the newest and hottest fields in alternative energy.  With the world's inhabitants constantly in motion -- particularly people and cars -- there's ample opportunity to find ways to turn some of this energy into power. 

California-based AEST has developed a road plate technology that create electricity when pressure is applied to it, such as a car driving over it.  A system of 20 of its plates can generate 10,000 to 12,000 kWh per day and costs approximately $2.5M USD to deploy.  With power in the U.S. at over $0.10/kWh, that's a a savings of over $1,000 a day and over $300,000 per year.  At that rate the system will repay itself in just over 6 years.

England's third largest supermarket chain, Sainsbury is making a push to go green.  Among its many efforts is to trial a larger deployment of the AEST plates at one of its stores, in Northampton, England.  The plates will generate 30kw of green energy an hour, enough to power the store's lighting and computers.

The plates work as a hydraulic system.  When pressure is applied, fluid moves through pumps, which in turn drives a generator.

Sainsbury's environment manager Alison Austin cheers, "This is revolutionary. Not only are we the first to use such cutting-edge technology with our shoppers, but customers can now play a very active role in helping make their local shop greener, without extra effort or cost."

The store also showcases many other green technologies, such as rainwater tanks, solar hot water systems, more daylight and an efficient building management system (BMS).  The store recycled or reused 90 percent of its construction waste, as well.  The store has also contracted a biomass plant in Scotland to help it dispose of its waste.

While cost remains an issue, Sainsbury's store showcases how over the course of several years, going green can save money.  It also provides a perfect launch spot for the AEST, one of the biggest names in the burgeoning field of kinetic energy power generation.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So le me understand
By siliconvideo on 6/24/2009 10:13:23 AM , Rating: 4
So let me understand this. As car drives into the parking lot, mats on the surface use hydraulic action to capture the energy of the car’s motion. The energy that is captured is that of the car rolling up a slight incline no matter which direction it is going. It’s similar to a person running on beach sand compared to running on concrete. It’s takes a lot more effort to run on sand versus concrete.

The bottom line is the stores are not really going green by reducing energy needs or getting energy from a green source like sunlight or better insulation but capturing the extra energy/gasoline that the cars use when rolling around on this new mat.

This technology works by increasing the rolling resistance of the cars and then capturing the extra energy needed to over come this rolling resistance. The stores maybe saving money but the customers consume more gasoline driving around their lots. So where is the real energy savings, we can't get something for nothing.




RE: So le me understand
By Connoisseur on 6/24/2009 10:22:39 AM , Rating: 3
That's the first thing I thought too. Conservation of energy and all that... you don't get something for nothing.


RE: So le me understand
By MrPoletski on 6/25/2009 5:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Which is odd because in life you always seem to be able to get nothing for something.


RE: So le me understand
By Samus on 6/25/2009 8:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
at least love is still free. unless you count the dinners and movies. ohh. crap.


RE: So le me understand
By AnnihilatorX on 6/25/2009 6:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. But I think the morale of the story here is Supermarket saves money, not the customers paying for the fuel.


RE: So le me understand
By Oregonian2 on 6/25/2009 9:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ah! But it's green if the cars are electric cars, or at least hybrids!

They could have a sign so that they only steal energy from the engines of green cars, not hummers and the like.


RE: So le me understand
By Aeonic on 6/24/2009 10:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yah I was thinking this too, it's more like they're just stealing energy from the cars. The only savings I see is if the mats took the energy normally absorbed (and wasted) by braking, but in a parking lot, that's probably not much energy.

Kind of a cool idea, you know, put it before toll plazas, steep grades, and sharp curves maybe and then you might get capture some wasted energy.


RE: So le me understand
By ebakke on 6/24/2009 10:42:21 AM , Rating: 4
My suggestion for toll plazas is to just remove them all together. Blech.


RE: So le me understand
By Tsuwamono on 6/24/2009 1:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've never seen a toll road, it strikes me as odd to have them.


RE: So le me understand
By Alexvrb on 6/24/2009 10:55:28 PM , Rating: 3
There's nothing odd about them, once you understand government.
Government = wants more money.

See? It's simple. If you can't push a direct tax hike, convince people that you need more money for road maintenence. US citizens don't put up much of a fight. Or better yet, tell them that you need funding for new roads and that the best way to pay for it is a "temporary" toll. Then, after the toll has collected enough money to pay for the new road ten times over, you never ever take it down! It's perfect - a victimless crime! Like punching somebody in the dark.


RE: So le me understand
By Souka on 6/24/2009 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 5
yep, stealing energy from cars....

And it has been clearly shown that a car produces energy far less effeciently in terms of greenhouse gasses than a city powerplant...

As a result...yes, the shopping center is reducing THEIR carbon-footprint, but overall is INCREASING the carbon footprint by using such technology.... tisk tisk...


RE: So le me understand
By Murloc on 6/24/2009 1:57:36 PM , Rating: 3
add the energy cost for the production and installation of the plates and it gets even worse.


RE: So le me understand
By wushuktl on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: So le me understand
By Entropy42 on 6/24/2009 10:35:50 AM , Rating: 5
You don't get to ignore conservation of energy just because the amount of energy lost is small. This system undoubtedly takes energy from the car. But if they install them in places where cars are already braking, then they are just stealing energy the car doesn't "want" anyway.


RE: So le me understand
By mattclary on 6/24/2009 10:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
Do you make it a habit to drive around a parking lot using only your brake?

Any place you touch your gas pedal while on this thing will require you to burn more gas to power the store.


RE: So le me understand
By MrPoletski on 6/25/2009 5:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you make it a habit to drive around a parking lot using only your brake?


They should put these things on the M25...


RE: So le me understand
By Mint on 6/24/2009 10:45:17 AM , Rating: 3
No, it exactly like siliconvideo described. Any energy captured, along with all energy wasted as heat moving the fluid, is coming from extra gas burned by a car that wouldn't be if it was rolling on a flat surface. It's just like going up a little bit uphill and then having the hill deflate underneath you.

It would be cool, though, to have these placed just before stop signs or roundabouts at busy intersections. You'd slow the car down without using your brakes. Highway offramps are another great place for them.


RE: So le me understand
By mattclary on 6/24/2009 10:58:57 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly! Any place you need to brake it would be great. Turn lanes are the only place I can think you could rely on that though.


RE: So le me understand
By Ratinator on 6/24/2009 12:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Finally someone who realises that it doesn't have to use more gas if implemented in the right spot.


RE: So le me understand
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 1:50:18 PM , Rating: 4
Not exactly. If you are driving a hybrid that uses regenerative braking, then you've just stolen that recoverable energy from the car.


RE: So le me understand
By Spectator on 6/25/2009 2:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sound Logic Jimbo.

Its all about how can you take fractions from ALOT of people to give you a large result.

And on the taxes for paying to build roads.. ohh lets not go there.lol

Here in the UK, we pay something to close to 5X the amount in road taxes, than they spend on the roads. Then bring in congestion charges, and then want to have pay as you go. on roads we paid 5X over to build in the first place. LMAO

But Hey it cost alot of cash to support all the non taxpayers, and pay all the bills for our politicians :P


RE: So le me understand
By 91TTZ on 6/24/2009 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
obviously, i'm not doing any math here (just like you didn't), but to me it seems to still work out to almost getting something for nothing because the car is already moving. it is already serving a purpose and the hindrance of such a system on the already moving mass would be minimal.


You can't get something out of nothing. You say the loss will be minimal, which is true, but the power generated will be minimal too.

In other words, even if you assumed a 100% efficiency in generating electricity, you can only generate as much energy as the cars must produce to overcome the load incurred on them by this system. Net result- no energy savings, you're just making the traffic pay for the store's energy costs.


RE: So le me understand
By wushuktl on 6/24/2009 3:38:20 PM , Rating: 1
so you are all saying that the amount of gas that would be needed for some sort of mechanical device to create 2500lbs of force on a plate would be the same amount of gas a car to increase its speed by a few mph to make up for the lost speed of moving over an inch thick plate? The energy to make a car move horizontally does not seem to be the same amount of force that gravity causes. Otherwise pushing a car wouldn't be any easier than lifting


RE: So le me understand
By 91TTZ on 6/24/2009 3:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so you are all saying that the amount of gas that would be needed for some sort of mechanical device to create 2500lbs of force on a plate would be the same amount of gas a car to increase its speed by a few mph to make up for the lost speed of moving over an inch thick plate?


Yes. It's basic physics. You CANNOT get something for nothing. People have tried and tried and always failed, not surprisingly.

Some posters in this thread are making it sound like since the amount of energy required to overcome the drag imposed by this system will be so small it's a wash. But it isn't a wash, the energy HAS to come from somewhere. If this system generates 1 KW of electricity from the motion of vehicles passing over it, it must consume at least 1 KW by putting additional strain on them. (1 KW wouldn't be much, considering that 1 hp would be 746 watts)


RE: So le me understand
By postalbob on 6/24/2009 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 1
This is not getting energy from nowhere. Your comparison is very vague.

Burning gas is no real different. It's energy transferance, and it's about how they are doing it and to where.

Let's assume there is one plate on top of a sequence of air chambers. Let's assume that this plate is designed inentionally not to bend too much but the air packets themselves do bend for obvious reasons. Now when the moving vehicle hits them it actually creates less resistance than a typical asphalt road which bends and molds during all contact. Even with no resistance on the surface of an object it can still hold weight. The resistance is actually very irrelavent to actually receiving energy with these plates because it's the weight from gravity pushing down and causing the air to move. However, it is true that resistence is relavent to exerting energy on our end. This means the energy conservation for the car could be increased, and the energy absorption we are trying to harness would be based on a factor which does not effect the car. Then let's assume they have a system of springs or levies which work with the force of gravity and ensure that the plate does not end up pushing up and down on one side, but only in the way which ensures we do not exert more energy ourselves(This is very possible to do) and each plate is linked together in a similar method so that one individual plate does not pop up and therefore there is no plate to plate slight increase in height.

Again, it is energy transferance as always. They are not creating energy from nothing, they are shifting how the existing energy transferance takes place. Normally 100% of the energy from driving on a road goes into the road or the car through a breaks system. If done right this is no different than getting energy from wind with a wind mill, energy from breaks, etc.

This system is good. These engineers are quite smart.


RE: So le me understand
By menace on 6/24/2009 6:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing in the article that says the surface has equivalent rolling resistance to common parking lot pavements like asphalt. The thing looks like a wrestling mat. As you can imagine driving a bicycle over a wrestling mat it is like riding through a couple of inches of thick mud. There is no reason the article gives to NOT assume that the system for the most part is simply STEALING energy from the cars, causing them to burn more fuel.

Others bring up a good point that the system could be used to collect energy that otherwise would be lost to heat in braking (not breaking). On the surface, this seems to make sense for stop signs, turn lanes, toll lanes, tight curves, etc (but not for stop lights). But is it cost effective? Do these stand up to years of traffic? What happens when some 17 year old floors the pedal on his 400hp sports car on it? Will he (or his parents) be liable for the damages? Are they safe? What happens (to either the car or the mat) if you hit one at 90 mph? What happens if a motorcyle rides over one at night without expecting it? (I suppose it will cushion his impact if he spills) What happens if you lock up your brakes on it at 50 mph, will that destroy it?

Another person smartly points out using that system as a passive braking system in this way would then defeat regenerative braking systems in the most efficient vehicles (hybrids & electrics). This essentially makes it a dead end technology (unless you are in the business of stealing energy) if you consider HEV and PEV to be the future.


RE: So le me understand
By 91TTZ on 6/25/2009 8:51:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This system is good. These engineers are quite smart.


You seem to lack the fundamental understanding required to carry on a conversation about this.

I don't think this system is good. If you look on their website you'll notice that it's completely devoid of specifics about the system, but there are a ton of sales pitches, showing how it can be used for energy production, anti-terrorism, etc. The fact that there are no specifics and lots of sales pitches on their own website tells me that they are more interested in gaining government research funding than actually demonstrating or producing an efficient, usable system.


RE: So le me understand
By tjr508 on 6/24/2009 9:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Energy and force are not of the same units and not transferable. That force has to travel. To use the downward force of gravity to make energy, the car has to move down. To be able to move down again on a flat surface, the car has to move up. Where do you think the energy to move back up comes from?
As stated before, the only time you are not stealing the energy from cars is when there is a long downhill slope like a mountain pass or directly before a known stop (even then you are still stealing from electric vehicles).


RE: So le me understand
By wushuktl on 6/25/2009 8:42:09 AM , Rating: 1
If you don't think the grocery store steals from you already well you're wrong! Modern day parking lots steal from you, they force you to accelerate by making you turn in and out of the lane aisles. If grocery stores did it right and didn't cost the customers any extra money they would create one single lane of parking that's really really long. That way we would only go down a single aisle and never have to slow down for a turn and speed back up again to maintain my 15mph in a parking lot.

For all of you that are calling this energy system as "STEALING" well you're just not really thinking this through. Divert your anger to something actually cause worthy. I'm sure if they implemented it and tracked gas usage not a single customer would ever notice any sort of drop in gas mileage. It's not like i normally get 26mpg but all of a sudden because of my a-hole grocery store i'm now getting 24mpg! i'm sure nobody will notice any loss at the pump for their once a week trip to the grocery store and being forced to drive over a one inch plate. So what are they really STEALING? a couple of cents at the most?


RE: So le me understand
By Digimonkey on 6/25/2009 12:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you increased the length of a parking lanes you'd also increase the likely hood of having to stop more to wait for other people to pull in and out of spaces, or in general to get their cart and kids out of your way. I won't even go into the inconvenience of having to walk a half mile after parking to get to a store, or the extreme waste of land this could cause.

Nobody is saying the customers would notice. Everybody is just saying this is not a green energy source as it's getting energy at the expense of cars needing to exert more force to get across the platform.


RE: So le me understand
By retepallen on 6/24/2009 10:39:08 AM , Rating: 5
If you put the plates just before a braking zone, then no additional fuel is expended as cars would be slowing down anyway. It is a win-win situation.


RE: So le me understand
By GrandMareg on 6/24/2009 10:39:43 AM , Rating: 3
All of you are thinking about this the wrong way. The plate is going to take energy from the car by slowing it down slightly, correct? What do you usually do before you park? Instead of all of the kinetic energy being transfered to heat by your brake pads some of it is actually salvaged for something useful.

Just my 2 cents.


RE: So le me understand
By invidious on 6/24/2009 11:16:25 AM , Rating: 4
That is what regenerative breaking is for. And regenerative breaking is a much better means for achieving that goal than paving parking lots with semiconductors.


RE: So le me understand
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: So le me understand
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 1:52:51 PM , Rating: 3
Regenerative braking systems (or retarders) can bring a car to a complete stop. I used to work for an OEM which built mining trucks. We had our wheel motors acting as generators to bring 330 ton trucks to a complete stop.


RE: So le me understand
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: So le me understand
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 9:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Our mining trucks had friction brakes (wet disc brake stack) as well for a fail safe mechanism in case the electronics overheated. I'm not saying that hybrids do not have friction brakes nor that they do not use them, but rather that the ability to stop without them exists.


RE: So le me understand
By RU482 on 6/24/2009 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
seems like it could be practically applied to the 100ft or so in front of any stop sign out there.


RE: So le me understand
By Spectator on 6/25/2009 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
When they are used on aircraft carriers to stop incomming planes il be impressed. :P chukkle


RE: So le me understand
By Daphault on 6/24/2009 10:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
If they were located only leading up to a section that requires the driver to slow down - a turn lane, or stop sign, for example - then your point is negated. That would be the responsible thing to do, but not necessarily the method that will reap the greatest reward, either monetarily or in publicity, for the deployers, so why knows if it will be used smartly or not.


RE: So le me understand
By siliconvideo on 6/24/2009 11:03:48 AM , Rating: 3
Lots of good comments on this new product. The only place where this technology makes sense is where you want increased rolling resistance such as down grades with a stop sign at the bottom or in front of a toll booth. Increased rolling resistance will capture the braking energy instead of burning dust off my brake pads.

I assume the pictures Jason put with the article are direct from the manufacturer. They show the entire parking lot covered with this hydraulic system even in non-braking areas. Conservation of energy still rules.

The store will put on a PR campaign showing how green they are but people rarely dig into what and where the energy comes from and who pays for it.

In my opinion, we'd be better off using efficient nuclear power or solar cells or increasing the power efficiency of the store in the long run instead of this approach. This just transfers the store's energy cost from a direct cost to a extra hidden cost to the customer.


RE: So le me understand
By Manch on 6/24/2009 9:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
This system would actually be awesome in apartment complexes. I would love to have these vs speed bumps. At least the wasted energy from braking/throttling would be used for something. This could be used to power the lights on the street, the tennis courts or even run the filters on the pool. I know the apartment complex prolly wont pass the savings onto the tenants but the benefit of slowing traffic without speed bumps that scrape the hell out of my vehicles. My stock Harley can't clear some of them because they're so high!

The tech definitely has it's uses but people are fooling themselves if they think it costs nothing.


RE: So le me understand
By invidious on 6/24/2009 11:12:22 AM , Rating: 4
That is not a proper assumtion that this system would add resistance and require the car to do more work. The system works on vibration that exists wether the system is installed or not. Sure your car bends the road and causes a small incline relative to its position, but that is true regardless of this system.

You do not need to cause displacement to induce vibration.

Could a system like you are describing be developed? Sure. But it would be terrible for the reasons you described and I see no reason to believe that it is the case.


RE: So le me understand
By invidious on 6/24/2009 11:18:39 AM , Rating: 3
Actually it looks like this sysetm does use displacement. So they are morons. But it would be possible to harvest waste energy that would otherwise be lost to friction without adding additional resistance to the car's motion.

These shopkeepers are essentially taxing your gas milage.


RE: So le me understand
By Nobleman00 on 6/24/2009 12:11:00 PM , Rating: 1
At parking lot speeds, the car will be in 1st or 2nd gear which is not optimal for mileage. I doubt there will be any increase in fuel consumption over what is required to get the vehicle moving in the first place.

It is not wasteful because you no longer need to burn a gallon of whatever to produce electricity when you can harvest the potential energy being created by the cars in your lot.

However if your lot is always empty, your business will fail and the 2mil tag will not help you, and the energy wasted to produce the plates will have been for nothing.

I'd rather see them at every other intersection and pumped into the city power grid.


RE: So le me understand
By 91TTZ on 6/24/2009 1:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. I doubt there will be any increase in fuel consumption over what is required to get the vehicle moving in the first place.


Actually, there will have to be an increase in fuel consumption that is proportional to the amount of energy being generated by this system.

Considering that power plants generate electricity much more efficiently than this system does (with a gasoline engine moving a car over plates) you'll have a net loss in overall efficiency. The only difference (the one the stores will like) is that this cost will be passed onto the operators of the vehicles rather than the store.


RE: So le me understand
By rippleyaliens on 6/24/2009 12:33:16 PM , Rating: 1
There is no energy created or destroyed.. it is merely transferred..
In a Parking lot, of a WALMART size, With these plates, it is not like it is causing a car to loose out on 5MPG, rofl.. This would be the same, as if a car were driving around looking for parking. This doesnt cause a car to go any slower, while driving in a parking lot..

If this works, sweet.. and i guess people arent really thinking of SCALE.. In a given day, how many Cars per say drive in/park/drive out of a Walmart parking lot? That is where this benefits us. Yes it powers the super market. WITH a substantial investment into this technology. This technology can have many applications...
Airport parking / driving areas.. Not like ya can speed all over anyplace. Sports areana,, Pretty much anyplace in which slow moving cars will be..

Some of these post's just kill me.. We complain that we are wasting fossil fuel and there is no clean way to help.. SO now we have a tech, that could help save some energy, by just transfering it from a cars inertia to supermarket power.. then people are up in arms, about it will make the car go slower/stealing power??? Give me a break, rofl


RE: So le me understand
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 1:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
What you aren't getting is that you are NOT reducing fossil fuels.

You are simply burning more gasoline in a car (15% efficient) vs natural gas in a electric turbine (60%+ efficient).

The ONLY place this technology would be "green" is if installed somewhere where the car needs to slow down anyways such as 100ft before a stop sign.

How little or much is produced in irrelivent.

If the system "produces" 1 watt from each car then each car will burn 1 watt more gasoline. Actually due to inefficiencies it will burn something > 1 watt.

This technology COULD be useful but now how it is illustrated in the article.


RE: So le me understand
By 91TTZ on 6/24/2009 1:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
You summed up my thoughts nicely. Too bad I can't give you 6 stars.


RE: So le me understand
By tjr508 on 6/24/2009 9:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
You don't get the point. Being green isn't about reducing footprints or energy dependence. It's about pulling your hybrid up to a Starbucks and bringing your MacBook inside. You also need to be like the guy in the Honda commercial and commute at least 30 miles to get the freshest "organic" groceries. Bonus green points are awarded to those who do all of this with an Obama sticker on the back of their car.


RE: So le me understand
By PlasmaBomb on 6/25/2009 3:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The bottom line is the stores are not really going green by reducing their energy needs or getting energy from a green source like sunlight.


Congratulations on conveniently ignoring an entire paragraph -

The store also showcases many other green technologies, such as rainwater tanks, solar hot water systems , more daylight and an efficient building management system (BMS) . The store recycled or reused 90 percent of its construction waste, as well. The store has also contracted a biomass plant in Scotland to help it dispose of its waste.

So it is using solar power for heating water, and passive solar gain to for heating and cooling, which can use better insulation to prevent unwanted thermal transfer.

From wiki -
quote:
Improperly configured BMS systems are believed to account for 20% of building energy usage, or approximately 8% of total energy usage in the United States.


So by spending the time to ensure their BMS is as efficient as possible they are saving energy.


RE: So le me understand
By SimplyChaos on 6/25/2009 2:38:20 PM , Rating: 1
I'm a Mechanical Engineer from Georgia Tech. It bothers me that so many of you are looking at this in the wrong way. It's not an inflated mat. It's a plate. You guys make it sound like you'd be driving over a water bed. The point is that a typical vehicle weighs 3000 lbs. Weight is a force. That FORCE is created by GRAVITY. The plates use this FORCE to create motion.
Hydraulics take a force and create a larger force simply by exerting the pressure on differently sized plates. It can also take a small amount of motion through a large orifice and transfer that to a large amount of motion through a small orifice.
The amount of energy that can me captured by using this FORCE due to GRAVITY is MUCH MUCH larger than the force required to move the car forward up the very minimal incline this system might produce.
They are not converting the car’s energy created by the engine. They are converting the energy created by gravity.
As far as the economical logic, I cannot say. All I know is that it’s important to be moving in the right direction. It's called progress.


RE: So le me understand
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 3
If you are really a mechanical engineer them I am truly scared. How about you ask one of your professors if you logic is sound.

They are not converting the car’s energy created by the engine. They are converting the energy created by gravity.

The energy created by gravity?
The only energy produced is when the vehicle moves downward. Maybe it doesn't move downward much but it moves downward.

Scenario 1:
Plate is above the road (like a speed bump). The vehicle needs to move AGAINST GRAVITY. To raise the height of the vehicle 1cm will require energy. This compresses the plate and the vehicle is back at road level.

Scenario 2:
Plate is flush with the road. The vehicle drives over the road. To transfer energy to the plate it will either need to move downward or be compressed. In either case the vehicle is now lower than the road. To get back "up" to the height of the road the vehicle will move against gravity. When it does it will use energy.

In both instances the amount of energy collected by the machine (@ 100% efficiency) would be equal to the amount of energy the vehicle uses to overcome gravity.

Imagine a flat plane with the plate on it. Either the plate is even with the road in which any energy transfered would be because the plate compresses/moves downward. The vehilces is now below the height of the road and to get back up there will require energy.

An object at rests has no usable energy form gravity. It only has potential energy based on how much can be converted into kinetic as it moves.

If an object sitting on the mat/plate could produce energy without using its own energy.... why even use a car?

Sit a 1 ton rock on the plate and it will produce energy until the end of time (per your "logic").

They are not converting the car’s energy created by the engine. They are converting the energy created by gravity.

Wow. If you are strong in your belief that your logic is sound show this to one of your professors. You might learn something before you graduate and kill someone based on implementing a flawed understanding of 7th grade physics as a mechanical engineer.


RE: So le me understand
By SimplyChaos on 6/25/2009 6:41:59 PM , Rating: 1
I've graduated, with honors.
The article mentions that the plate undergoes a rocking motion. While moving over the first half of the plate you're going slightly uphill. While moving over the second half of the plate you're going slightly down hill.
If you go up elevation to get onto the plate, you have to go down roughly the same elevation to get off of the plate.
I have a feeling that the plate displaces very little which is where the hydrolics come in.
How many times have you tracked your mpg in a parking lot? Most of what we do in these places is stop and start and speed up to slow down to stop in the end.

A stationary rock creating energy? Don't be silly.


Not green at all !
By GPSnoopy on 6/24/2009 10:21:00 AM , Rating: 3
Energy does not appear from nowhere. If most of the electricy is generated from cars passing on these plate, it means that the electricity will be indirectly produced by the car engines.

One does not have to be a genius to understand that such as system would actually end up polluting a lot more than a typical power plant as the latter is a lot more efficient.

In conclusion, the supermarket gets you to pay for their electricity bill via your fuel bill, and the whole planet ends up polluting a little more. Nice.

quote:
The plates will generate 30kw of green energy an hour [...]
That makes no sense. Looks like a common unit mistake.




RE: Not green at all !
By Rob94hawk on 6/24/2009 10:31:37 AM , Rating: 1
Your statement makes absolutely no sense at all. If people are going to shop there why not take advantage of the motion of the cars?

If you don't have the system there to begin with you rely on the power grid to run your store.

If you have it in place you don't have to be dependent on the power grid. The cars are going to be there anyway so might as well take advantage of it.

Fuel consuption will hardly change since your not driving over a long distance and no one has any business driving over 40mph in a parking lot to begin with.


RE: Not green at all !
By mattclary on 6/24/2009 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
Any time energy is converted from one form to another, there is a loss. You are converting the energy stored in gas to kinetic energy to move your car. These plates rob your car of kinetic energy and transfer the kinetic energy to the hydraulic fluid, the hydraulic fluid is robbed of kinetic energy to produce electrical energy.

Electric plants are already more efficient at delivering power than cars, once you add all the losses in this system, it's not only NOT green, it is wasteful!


RE: Not green at all !
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 1:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Otherwise we'd have a perpetual motion machine.


RE: Not green at all !
By MrPoletski on 6/25/2009 6:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
we do!

If you induce an electrical current in a toroidal shaped piece of superconductor then that current will continue to fly around that superconductor... forever..

well, if you don't subject it to any magnetic field (d'oh, we're in one) you don't use too much current, you keep it cooled and you don't, actually, need any kind of verification that it is occuring otherwise that will stop it.

But yeah, I've got one right here, yours for $50. Cheques or cash only please.


RE: Not green at all !
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
If fuel usage "hardly changes" then the energy produced is "hardly meaningul".

YOU CANT GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING.

Otherwise imagine this setup.
One of these machines installed everywhere and hooked into the power grid. Everyone drives electric cars.

By your logic the cars driving over the machines produce electricity and then they recharge from the same electricity.

All cars everywhere run free on external source of power forever. Just a cycle:
Electric Car -> Power Machine -> Power Grid -> Electric Car

HOWEVER a couple hundred years ago we learned that is IMPOSSIBLE.

Every watt this machine "produces" is gained by increasing the gas consumption (by 1 watt+) of the vehicles.


RE: Not green at all !
By Wierdo on 6/24/2009 10:58:27 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds logical.

I see good justification for using this technology within the shop though, people dragging carts around generating power for the operation of the facility.

Since the same thing applies to people as well, then they could market it as a weight loss program as well, shop here and burn your burger calories away ;)


RE: Not green at all !
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/24/2009 11:40:59 AM , Rating: 1
Really? What if the cars were going to burn that gas ANYWAY, and you are just increasing the efficiency of the car by allowing it to output some power instead of heat? So you end up polluting less with this system. You burn as much gas as you were going to, your car produces more energy than it was going to, and the store does not have to burn any fuel into the bargain.

See, this is just the sort of article that Jason posts to get the comments going since they get paid by the comment. I am surprised I have not heard someone say that the energy cost of producing this system amounts to more fuel burned than if the store had installed a couple of Hummers on treadmills and ran them at full throttle all day to produce electricity. [/sarcasm]

The net result of this system is less fuel burned, no matter who is burning it.


RE: Not green at all !
By matt0401 on 6/24/2009 12:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
You meant to put that [/sarcasm] tag after your entire post right? If not, I don't see how you can still be so wrong after seeing the posts already made. Plenty of people have thought back to their high school physics and realized that this is simple conservation of energy, and that this system does NOT capture waste energy unless placed only in areas a car is always braking.


RE: Not green at all !
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/24/2009 2:29:44 PM , Rating: 1
See my posts to that effect below.


RE: Not green at all !
By tjr508 on 6/24/2009 9:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about fuel being burned anyway.
Its about more fuel being burned. Physics dictates that the energy transferred is less than that contained in the extra fuel (assuming a car enters and exits the pad at the same speed). Power plants are more efficient than ICEs and use less valuable fuel.
They could rig this up with one way streets where cars will exit the pad at a slower speed than they entered it and possibly achieve a net gain, but even that would probably be lost in sacrifices to an efficient parking lot layout where cars would travel less distance to park and idle less.


RE: Not green at all !
By Manch on 6/24/2009 10:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they could develop a side walk system, and would produce anything tangible? There are a lot of fatties that could generate electricity and the added resistance(I think some mentioned running in sand vs concrete)would help them lose weight! Forget turning lanes! Surround the entrances of all the McDonalds and KFC's! You could even cover the floor of the WAL-Marts.


let me post this agian
By Tigerwraith on 6/24/2009 11:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
You all are thinking about this wrong, its not from braking or slowing down the car. Its the car's weight that's doing this. The writeup says its from a hydraulic system. Ie as the car drives over, its weight will apply pressure to the plate, squeezing out the fluid through the pumps, and when the car is off the plate, the fluid comes back turning the pumps again. Its not stealing energy from the car, its using the car's weight and the force of gravity to get the energy. Yes you can't get something from nothing, but gravity does help play a lot in making energy.




RE: let me post this agian
By mattclary on 6/24/2009 11:43:38 AM , Rating: 3
The rolling resistance of the car is increased.

Picture yourself pushing a stalled car in a regular parking lot. Now picture yourself pushing a car across this parking lot. Do you think you will have it as easy on this device?


RE: let me post this agian
By Screwballl on 6/24/2009 11:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
I am seeing 2 different ideas and concepts here (one in the story, the other in the picture)...

The wording states that it is just a mat and as the car drives over it just pushes fluid around and through the generator to produce power as Tigerwraith stated...

The other (second picture) shows a larger device under the road where a car driving over it causes rocking motion (not fluid movement) which activates the generators to produce power.

Either way it is a good idea to help reduce the power needed from power plants and use existing vehicle's movement to produce this power.


RE: let me post this agian
By Schrag4 on 6/24/2009 1:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way it is a good idea to help reduce the power needed from power plants and use existing vehicle's movement to produce this power.


"existing vehicle's movement" comes from burning gasoline. What you're effectively saying is it's a good idea to import more foreign oil in order to reduce the power needed by electricity producing coal plants, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, and nuclear reactors (among others). Oh, and since we're converting energy from one form into another yet another time, efficiency is lost.

As has been posted several times already - if you were wanting to slow down anyway, these are a good idea. However, if they blanket the entire parking lot, it's simply stealing gas from customers, and in the grand scheme of things, burning more fossil fuels than would have been consumed otherwise (even at a coal plant).

The supermarkets would buy this because it's a win-win for them. They pay for less electricity in the long run (because they're stealing energy that customers paid for), and the PR is good. It's good PR because the masses who believe CO2 is a problem in the first place can't figure out why this would cause your car to burn more fuel (that's no coincidence by the way).


RE: let me post this agian
By Screwballl on 6/25/2009 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
How is it using MORE gas? It is 15 feet of a rubberized mat, its not like that 15 feet will cause every single vehicle to drop their mileage by 10mpg... since these vehicles are traveling at 5-15 mph, its not like they are driving at highway speeds on these mats for hundreds of miles. Even if it does cover a good chunk of their parking lot, it may cost customers an extra penny worth of gas, hardly the serious global impact some of you are stating.


RE: let me post this agian
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
15ft, 15 miles, 15 million miles.

Physics doesn't car.

Lets say this thing "transfers" only 1 watt per car.
Guess what that means the car will burn 1 watt more gasoline.

All you have done if use gasoline to power the store instead of highly efficient natural gas turbines.

The only place you can get "free" energy is if the energy would be wasted anyways. When you brake kinetic energy is converted into heat by the brakes. If this slows your car down some (1 watt, 10watt, 100watts) then that energy isn't "wasted" as heat and instead transferred to a useful device (such as the stores power requirements)

Once again you would need to install this somewhere you KNOW the device would be wasting energy (via breaking) anyways. Places like at a exit off ramp, or 100ft before a stop sign.

Kinetic energy of the vehicle is transferred to the device BUT the car is trying to lower its kinetic energy anyways.


RE: let me post this agian
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 2:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way it is a good idea to help reduce the power needed from power plants and use existing vehicle's movement to produce this power.


No, it's not for the 2 reasons below.

1. Conservation of energy
2. Power conversion efficiency of 100% is not possible.

The net result is a less efficient overal power production method.


RE: let me post this agian
By Screwballl on 6/25/2009 11:17:33 AM , Rating: 2
How is this not conserving energy?

1. It is using movement of vehicles and people which would happen with or without these mats.

2. at no point did anyone say anything about 100% or trying for it with this system...


RE: let me post this agian
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Please go back to highschool.

The LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY has nothing to do with Al Gore telling you to "conserve energy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energ...

If this machine transfers 30KWH of energy and it was a "perfect machine = 100% efficiency) then it increased the gasoline consumption of the vehicles by 30KWH.

You neither gained nor lost anything.

However NO MACHINE is perfect. So to transfer that 30KWH of energy required vehicles to burn 40KWH, or 50KWH of gasoline.

So you burn MORE gas than if they simply hooked a gasoline generator to the building. Even the gasoline generator wastes more energy (higher % lost as heat) than a natural gas turbine.


Let's be practical for a second here.
By postalbob on 6/24/2009 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ok guys, you get an A for effort, B for general knowledge in science but an F for real world application of theory. These guys are scientists and know what they are talking about.

Energy is always transferred in some way. That is true. It's a matter of how. You are all making the false assumption that more pressure is being put on the tires in some way with the new plates which is allocating energy which is already spent therfore making the benefit zero.

You are all in fact incorrect. Asphalt and all forms of roads actually are designed to be able to bend and mold with pressure and it is intentional so they are less likely to crack. This new method they are describing does NOT need a hill if it's simply transferring air or liquid from the pressure of being driven over. I submit the following for you all to think about:

The energy we usually spend driving on asphalt is transferred to the road when the road's elements push together as physics require the road to do. The same pushing and energy lost to the road while driving would instead be intentionally harnessed. What all of you are missing is that this new road would be taking advantage of the SAME pressure resistance asphalt has, only the pressure would push air around instead of asphalt chunks, which last time I checked air moves easier and more freely than asphalt. There is NO subtraction rule which you are all applying insanely wrong due to misinterpretations of "conservation of energy". This means as long as they created a chamber of air between plates which bended similarly to asphalt and balanced it in a way to push air while doing it, the energy transfer to us would be larger than that which we usually transfer to the road with no additional energy needing to be transferred from the car than we currently spend. It's really just optimizing current transfer to allocate more to be useable by us.

On another topic: We maintain roads and phone lines and every source of transportation and energy. If the cost is worth it we should do it and it looks like it may be.

This is actually the first good idea I've seen that makes sense to do as well as it would please green peace whackos.




RE: Let's be practical for a second here.
By postalbob on 6/24/2009 3:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that should say "the energy transfer to us would be larger than that which we usually RECEIVE (which is zero) with no additional energy needing to be transferred from the car than we currently spend."


By Schrag4 on 6/24/2009 5:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
While I think what you're saying is techinically true, that's still a pretty big "IF" in my opinion (the IF being that these will compress the same or less than regular asphalt). I bet these are tweaked for maximum energy transfer (while still not feeling like you're driving on speed bumps), which is probably orders of magnitude more than the compression that regular asphalt exhibits. However, that's purely speculation on my part. It would be nice if there were more details...


RE: Let's be practical for a second here.
By 91TTZ on 6/24/2009 5:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This means as long as they created a chamber of air between plates which bended similarly to asphalt and balanced it in a way to push air while doing it, the energy transfer to us would be larger than that which we usually transfer to the road with no additional energy needing to be transferred from the car than we currently spend.


You're off base here. For one, if they made the plates bend no more than ordinary asphalt, it wouldn't move much air at all, certainly not enough to generate much electricity.

Secondly, your claim that "the energy transfer to us would be larger than that which we usually transfer to the road with no additional energy needing to be transferred from the car than we currently spend" is just ridiculous. How do you really expect to get MORE energy out of this system than the car expends on the road?


RE: Let's be practical for a second here.
By postalbob on 6/24/2009 5:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is very possible.

You aren't considering that the exertion from the car is solely based on resistance while the energy absorption is not.

We are not Harnessing the amount of resistance the car creates. We are harnessing the amount of pressure from gravity which is forcing the air to move. See my other reply that you did not respond to for a method of which this could be done. The energy harnassed from that could easily be above that of the amount or resistance exerted by the car to move across one plate.

The amount of pressure created from gravity and the weight of the car pressing down outweight the amount of resistance from the wheels no matter which way you are going other than straight up.


RE: Let's be practical for a second here.
By 91TTZ on 6/25/2009 9:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are not Harnessing the amount of resistance the car creates. We are harnessing the amount of pressure from gravity which is forcing the air to move.


You are confusing potential energy with kinetic energy. You cannot make energy just by placing a weight on top of a plate. To make energy you must move the plate. And for a weight to move the plate down, it must return back up. That requires some amount of gasoline to raise the vehicle up as far as it just moved down.

Think of it this way: Imagine you had a plate that you wanted to generate electricity. You place a 1 ton rock on top of it. That in itself will not make it generate electricity. You need movement for that. So if the rock presses the plate down, the downward motion will enable electricity to be generated. But once the plate reaches the bottom of its travel no more electricity gets generated. You'd have to lift the rock back up in order to repeat the process. The act of lifting the rock back up requires energy to be input into the system. And this is where the problem exists, because that energy needs to come somewhere external.

The people who claim that merely the pressure (without movement) of the rock due to gravity will generate electricity don't understand the basic concepts of physics.


By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
+1.

This is simply an "energy tax". The store collects a couple cents worth of "free" (free for them) energy from each consumer.

It would be no more green than if they hooked a gasoline generator to the building (horribly inefficient) and charged each consumer a $0.02 gasoline tax for shopping which was used to keep the generator filled.


Clever
By Smilin on 6/24/2009 9:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
Very clever.




RE: Clever
By Spivonious on 6/24/2009 10:10:59 AM , Rating: 1
Very clever indeed. I wonder what our energy requirements would be like if we replaced all of the interstates with this technology?


RE: Clever
By mattclary on 6/24/2009 11:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
They would go through the roof because your 20mpg car would now get 15 if you were lucky.


RE: Clever
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/24/2009 11:43:27 AM , Rating: 1
They have to be strategically located at off ramps and intersections where the energy is lost anyway. In that case, this would make your brakes last longer, so you recover the savings from fuel you were p*ssing away on braking anyway - even if you have regenerative braking.


RE: Clever
By Spivonious on 6/24/2009 4:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your car already depresses the asphalt. Why not capture this compression and use it to generate power? Or am I misunderstanding what Sainsbury's is doing here?


RE: Clever
By Smilin on 6/25/2009 9:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
When I said clever I meant clever of them getting free electricity. Not so clever for the drivers to generate it with a sh1tty internal combustion engine.

It's good for the store but bad for overall energy consumption. Doing this on a widespread basis would be bad. A toll booth or something where traffic is already trying to slow down might be ok though.


re
By Tigerwraith on 6/24/2009 11:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
You all are thinking about this wrong, its not from braking or slowing down the car. Its the car's weight that's doing this. The writeup says its from a hydraulic system. I as the car drives over, its weight will apply pressure to the plate, squeezing out the fluid through the pumps, and when the car is off the plate, the fluid comes back turning the pumps again. Its not stealing energy from the car, its using the car's weight and the force of gravity to get the energy. Yes you can't get something from nothing, but gravity does help play a lot in making energy.




RE: re
By RandallMoore on 6/24/2009 11:30:33 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, you would think the guys developing this are engineers or something. They probably went to school too...

/sarcasm disengaged

DT comment section is always filled with the worlds foremost experts in every field lol


RE: re
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 2:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, in this case I am one of those, a mechanical engineer.


RE: re
By s12033722 on 6/24/2009 12:04:25 PM , Rating: 3
It's you who are getting it wrong... Yes, gravity pulls the car down onto the plate, causing pressure which in turn pushes fluid. Then the car drives onto the next plate, which is higher than the first plate because the car pushed the first plate down. It then pushes down plate #2. After it pushes down plate #2, it has to climb up onto plate #3, etc. This system works by creating a small artificial hill in front of the car and capturing the extra energy needed by the car to climb that hill. The store gets electricity, but all the cars in the parking lot get increased gas consumption, which is where the energy comes from. It is indeed stealing energy from the car.


Good idea,
By ice456789 on 6/24/2009 10:10:09 AM , Rating: 5
Now just put one of those on Kirstie Alley's couch and we could power most of the Northwest.




RE: Good idea,
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/24/2009 11:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
That is the first sensible post I have seen here today, including my own.


Wait a minute
By wookie1 on 6/24/2009 12:08:08 PM , Rating: 5
There are a couple of problems here:
1) do I get a discount on groceries now, or is this a free donation by me to the store? Or maybe this is the perpetual motion machine we've been waiting for?

2) How do they calculate payback in 6 years? $2.5M initial cost resulting in savings of $300,000 per year would break even at 8.33 years assuming that there is no time-value of money (no interest paid on a loan or opportunity cost of better returns elsewhere with the money), and no maintenance or repair.

3) Isn't power generation from a power plant more efficient than an automobile? Using this system shifts energy production from an efficient power generating source and shifts it to the much-maligned automobile, with all of it's nasty pollution and what-not. Maybe only electric cars should be allowed to drive on the mat.




RE: Wait a minute
By Jimbo1234 on 6/24/2009 2:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) How do they calculate payback in 6 years? $2.5M initial cost resulting in savings of $300,000 per year would break even at 8.33 years assuming that there is no time-value of money (no interest paid on a loan or opportunity cost of better returns elsewhere with the money), and no maintenance or repair.


Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that they're factoring in a significant rise in cost of utility produced electricity.


Cali
By Proxes on 6/24/2009 10:03:53 AM , Rating: 3
There you go Mr. Governator. Add this to a few of your many high traffic roads and your power woes are gone forever.




RE: Cali
By Ryun on 6/24/2009 10:11:08 AM , Rating: 1
I know you're posting in jest but how cool would a system like this be on major highways? It's completely unrealistic to be sure, but it'd still be pretty amazing.


RE: Cali
By sliderule on 6/24/2009 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
I can imagine it would be a royal pain in the ass to repave roads if these things were in place.

This is cool tech though. I love stuff like this.


opps sorry
By Tigerwraith on 6/24/2009 11:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
didn't mean to double post, at first my post was deleted, then after i re-posted it was back sorry




RE: opps sorry
By Maroon on 6/24/2009 11:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
It does take energy from the car passing over it, but it's a small amount. It's not like, "OMG, I went to the supermarket with a full tank and now I got 3/4 tank!"

Anyway, like another poster said I wonder if the system can perform six years without significant maintenance which would set you back even further.


RE: opps sorry
By Schrag4 on 6/24/2009 12:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It does take energy from the car passing over it, but it's a small amount.


Yeah, as long as you only steal 10 or 15 cents from each customer then it's ok!!!


Potential Energy
By yomamafor1 on 6/24/2009 2:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
If the device uses the weight of the cars to produce energy, isn't the generator using the potential energy rather than kinetic energy?




RE: Potential Energy
By 91TTZ on 6/24/2009 5:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the device uses the weight of the cars to produce energy, isn't the generator using the potential energy rather than kinetic energy?


No. You can't generate power with potential energy. It's only potential, no work is being done. You can't place a rock on a load cell and have it generate current the entire time the rock is on it, movement is required.


RE: Potential Energy
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
IF you could imagine all the clean energy we would have.

1 million ton rock sitting on top of one of these replaces a 1000 MW nuclear reactor. No moving parts, no motion just unlimited energy until the end of time.

However of course you are right. To produce energy the rock would need to compress the mat. Compressing the mat means the rock has MOVED downward. Maybe it is a tiny bit (1/200th of an inch) but it has moved. To produce more energy you would need to RAISE the rock and repeat the cycle.

RAISING the rock would require more energy than is produced when the rock compresses the mat (moves DOWNWARD).


Specifications Please
By schrodog on 6/24/2009 10:15:29 AM , Rating: 4
While in concept this is a great idea, I'd like to see more specs on actual size of the device, cost to maintain, etc. before I'm actually convinced this is a reasonable alternative energy source.




By jbreezy on 6/24/2009 11:57:23 AM , Rating: 4
Hydraulics 101 not offered




down slope
By fic2 on 6/24/2009 8:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
Living in Colorado it would be great to put these on all the downhill road lanes. We could power the entire state. Downside, of course, would be maintenance and installation costs, but we are already blowing billions on a new coal plant anyway.




RE: down slope
By tjr508 on 6/24/2009 9:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
Good point indeed. I like to stop half way down Wolf Creek pass at the overlook just to watch all the idiots who haven't driven over a pass before try to throw cups of water on their burning brakes.


How about this?
By theinnkeeper on 6/25/2009 9:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
We add something like this to a car's suspension? Everytime a car hits a bump, we capture a tiny bit of energy. That energy can be used to power electronics in the car, and the gas can be used to move the car.




RE: How about this?
By namechamps on 6/25/2009 2:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
That would work. Shock absorbers convert kinetic energy into heat. The heat is wasted.

The real question is would such a system generate ENOUGH power in its lifetime to be economical.

If such shocks cost $50 more than a regular shock but generate $2 worth of power it would "work" but it wouldn't make sense to use them.


Stealing Energy
By SpaceJumper on 6/24/2009 10:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
According to the physic's law of conservation of energy, in this case, the motion energy converted to electrical energy; the vehicles will slow down when driving on the pad. It means the drivers will have to step on the gas peddle more to compensate for the lost of the motion energy. This is stealing from the drivers.




O Rly?
By fishbits on 6/24/2009 10:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
"England Supermarket is Powered by Shoppers Kinetic Energy"

Funny. From the article it sounded more like the supermarket gets SOME of its power from shoppers' CARS' kinetic energy. And let's not even think of the "environmental impact" of making and installing these devices. That could be compared to the efficiency of using electricity generated on a (likely) more economical scale at the plant, and without the extra gasoline sipped by this scheme. It's not like the issue could have been approached from a tech angle.




so
By tastyratz on 6/24/2009 10:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
Would they thank me for the money saved if I blew donuts in their parking lot?




low oxygen levels
By invidious on 6/24/2009 11:14:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A system of 20 of its plates can generate 10,000 to 12,000 kWh per day and costs approximately $2.5M USD to deploy. With power in the U.S. at over $0.10/kWh, that's a a savings of over $1,000 a day and over $300,000 per year. At that rate the system will repay itself in just over 6 years.


It must be hard to breath with your head being so high up in the clouds. I mean seriously, $2.5 million tech hardware that is somehow not going to break down or require any maintainence over a 6 year period?

It would be out the in elements constantly. Have you ever looked at a pavement road? They are in constant need of maintainence. Pavement is a lot cheaper than semiconductors and most cities still don't have the budget to fix their roads. Using this technology on top of or as a replacement for pavement is idiotic.




Hmmm.
By RandomFact on 6/24/2009 2:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Virtually every plaza near me has speed killing, gas eating speed bumps already. Replacing the speed bumps, which would be there anyway, with this system seems logical, and might even SAVE gas.

And no one here currently knows what the rolling resistance of the system vs asphalt is.

As far as stealing energy from regenerative breaking system: How many cars are really out there with regenerative breaking vs traditional breaking? What is the total benefit if you slow down one million traditional cars vs causing 10,000 regenerative vehicles to loose roughly 10 additional feet of recharge time? Come on now.

And for those who don't know cars, most modern vehicles shut their fuel injectors down as you slow, so no fuel is wasted while slowing. The system actually slows your car for you, so you don't waste as much of your brake lining. Yes, you do use more gas on acceleration, but if the system is in a place that cars would be breaking anyway, such as a speed bump or stop sign, you're probably helping provide relatively clean power.




How long will they last
By WW102 on 6/24/2009 3:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the article states that it would take 6 years to break even on these plates. I hope that number includes maintance too. I would like to see a road that lasts 6 years let alone a moving plate, even if its only a small motion.




meh
By Jalek on 6/24/2009 5:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the story would be about moving shopping carts with magnets over an embedded grid in the floor of the store to induce a current or something.

This isn't nearly as cool. They could still put this system inside the store, but not many people would like feeling like they'd just gotten off of a stairmaster after shopping.




Commitment?
By excelsium on 6/24/2009 8:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
Has the supermarket committed to rolling this out too all stores?




erm
By MrPoletski on 6/25/2009 5:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
Now I don't mean to make the author out to be some sort of club weilding neanderthal...

...But shouldn't that be 'Engl ish ' supermarket?




By applianceofscience on 6/25/2009 6:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
There has been plenty of discussion about how this impacts the cars fuel economy or not but so far no one has asked if the numbers being quoted are reasonable.
The supermarket is quoted as being able to generate 30kw of energy an hour with this. We can estimate how many cars are driving over the plates by guessing how many customers the supermarket has. If the supermarket has 20 checkout tills running and it takes on average 3 minutes for a customer to pass through the checkout this gives us 400 customers an hour so we can equate this to 400 cars per hour generating the electricity. A kilowatt hour of energy is 3600000 joules so to produce 30kw these 400 cars are producing 108 Megajoules of energy which is 270 kJ per car. The average car in Europe weighs 1175kg. The formula for kinetic energy is 0.5 M V*V which makes V=21.4 metres/second. So to generate that power assuming 100% efficiency (wow!) an average car going at that velocity would be brought to a standstill. 21.4m/s is about 48mph. Just imagine driving into the car park at nearly 50mph and being brought to a dead stop by these road plates. I don’t believe it.




The real way this WILL work
By donxvi on 6/25/2009 9:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
I've read other articles (must not have been here on DT or someone else would remember it) about using this IN PLACE OF SPEEDBUMPS. I know my local grocery store shopping center has speedbumps already installed. Replace those speedbumps with these and the concept can make sense because the goal is to slow the car down. I think that you can get net (useful) energy gain by making these new speedbumps gentler than the ones you replace, so the driver will hit it a little faster, then still wind up at the speed you wanted to encourage. I'm sure you can all relate to the difference between a 3-4 MPH speed bump and a 7-8 MPH one... I may hit this at 7 but finish at 3. Then I'm still at the 5 MPH desired speed at the crosswalk.

P.S.- it's truly disappointing to see people typing such long, involved arguements for violating the first law of thermodynamics.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki