backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by rudy.. on Jul 26 at 6:10 PM

  (Source: Creative Boom)
Concept turns waste water into harvest power

If Tom Broadbent had his way -- no one would need worry about flushing money down the drain.

The UK Leicester’s De Montfort University (DMU) student has come up with a money-saving concept that would help utilize wastewater as an energy source.  It's called "HighDro Power" and it would be used to harvest power in hi-rise buildings, according to Creative Boom.  

Broadbent began working on the concept after learning that the British government was looking for ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and dependency on fossil fuels for energy production.   

Broadbent's idea can be compared to a miniature hydroelectric dam, inside a building's pipes.  As water drains from a plumbing device like a toilet, tub, sink or other plumbing-based appliance, it would then move down sewage pipes and through a four-blade, spinning turbine device. 

This device would then convert the energy and power a generator. 

Broadbent said that coming up with the design was inspired. 

"The inspiration for HighDro Power was literally a ‘Eureka!’ moment that came when I emptied a bath in a hotel and found that it cleared very quickly and with a large amount of force. It seemed logical that this energy should be harnessed in some way to create green electricity and help governments meet targets and it filled an obvious gap in the market."

Broadbent used laser sintering, CNC milling machinery, and vacuum forming to develop the prototype and is a contender in the James Dyson Award competition.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Quick Request
By philosofa on 7/26/2010 1:02:32 AM , Rating: 5
Without wanting to be a muppet about this, I don't know quite how everyone in the US makes this mistake, but could you PLEASE try and learn the difference between England and Britain? It's a British Government policy you're talking about. England is a constituent of 'Britain', Along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.




RE: Quick Request
By tank171 on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Quick Request
By dark matter on 7/26/2010 2:03:49 AM , Rating: 5
It's about being factually correct. Some people actually have integrity, be they US citizens, UK citizens or from elsewhere.

I guess we know not to come for you for knowledge in the future.


RE: Quick Request
By SSDMaster on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Quick Request
By Quadrillity on 7/26/2010 8:00:06 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, I think his response to the comment was justified seeing as how it was yet another bad attempt of someone taking a stab at the American stereotype.

If American's do not care about anything overseas it's probably because we don't revolve around your country; yours revolves around ours :D


RE: Quick Request
By TSS on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Quick Request
By BBeltrami on 7/26/2010 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 5
What is it with DT comments over the last week or so? I mean, we usually see an entertaining variety of posts that include some ignorant doozies. But suddenly there are posts all over the place where people are proudly declaring that they are stupid at the top of their lungs.

This is a tech site, and you're actually arguing that facts aren't necessary and that people who think they are have superiority complexes.

That's SO FAR beyond moronic it's breathtaking. I can only assume you're a public school teacher or a reporter for MSNBC.


RE: Quick Request
By Azure Sky on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Quick Request
By rudy on 7/26/2010 6:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ya but this is daily tech....


RE: Quick Request
By Galcobar on 7/26/2010 2:50:38 AM , Rating: 3
Indeed, and when someone says the Arizona government is doing something, such as challenging a state immigration law, when it in fact is the federal government issuing the lawsuit, that too is simply splitting hairs.


RE: Quick Request
By Zeppo72 on 7/26/2010 5:59:20 AM , Rating: 5
How can you expect them to understand when they are misinformed by idiots like you? Britain is make up of England, Wales and Scotland but not Northern Ireland. There is no such entity as a "British government". There is a UK government with jurisdiction over Britain and Northern Ireland.


RE: Quick Request
By invidious on 7/26/2010 7:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who means Scotland or Ireland will say Scotland or Ireland. Anyone who says GB/UK/England is talking about you.


RE: Quick Request
By Lonyo on 7/26/2010 9:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Except there is a Scottish government, and a Northern Irish government, and effectively an England+Wales government, and then there's also the UK government, so it is important to make a distinction.


RE: Quick Request
By Da W on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Quick Request
By Redwin on 7/26/2010 9:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
2 things:

First, it's the United States of America . If you wanted a shot at being called Americans, the first thing you should have done was put "America" in the official name of your country. You're "Canada", so don't be shocked at being called "Canadians". In our case, "United Statians" sounds idiotic, so we were wise to quickly lay claim to "Americans".

Second, we have the strongest military and largest economy in the world, so we claim the right to call ourselves whatever we want. Wanna fight us for the name? ;)


RE: Quick Request
By tastyratz on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Quick Request
By Redwin on 7/26/2010 11:10:54 AM , Rating: 1
GDP:
US - $14.2 Trillion
China = $4.9 Trillion

Military:
US - $667 Billion per year (2006 figures)
China - $32.8 billion per year

..and those are absolute numbers, if you do it per capita its even more lopsided. You and I must have different definitions of "run for our money"


RE: Quick Request
By topkill on 7/26/2010 4:43:15 PM , Rating: 1
It's gotten much worse than that Redwin. If you count all military spending including indirect stuff (like interest on the money we borrow to finance the wars), the total for the US in 2010 will come to about $1.03TRILLION!!!

We can throw away our money better than any country in the history of the planet and despite what we think, it won't last forever.


RE: Quick Request
By tank171 on 7/26/2010 1:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ha. Having millions of soldiers doesnt cut it, as Russia has shown us time and time again. Training and technology are two things the Chinese will never have over the US. They would hardly give us a run for our money in a war.


RE: Quick Request
By Da W on 7/26/2010 2:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, we have the strongest military and largest economy in the world, so we claim the right to call ourselves whatever we want. Wanna fight us for the name? ;)


Bring it on. you will find the jungles of north Vietnam were paradise compared to acres and acres of frozen boreal forest and only 1 inhabitant for every 2 square miles, and no more oil from Alberta to fuel your tanks. Finaly we may claim back Alaska as ours:-) The michigan lake also for that mather...


RE: Quick Request
By Ammohunt on 7/26/2010 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 3
It would take a weekend and a couple hundred tons of Back Bacon and a few thousand kegs of Moosehead..."We surrender eh!"


RE: Quick Request
By topkill on 7/26/2010 4:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can have Alaska back, but you have to take Sarah Palin as part of the deal and promise to keep her North of the border!!!


RE: Quick Request
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/26/2010 11:54:20 AM , Rating: 3
Do you mean the United States of Mexico, or the United States of America when you say "United Statians?" Please don't equivocate while accusing others of doing the same.

Similarly, if you want to call yourselves Americans (fair enough), then you should call yourselves "North Americans," since you could equivocate there as well. I suppose an Argentinian could call himself an American, but had better say South American to prevent confusion.

Come to think of it, since we Americans don't qualify our association with a particular part of the American continent, most other people of the world seem to know who we are talking about. Perhaps you should, too.


RE: Quick Request
By topkill on 7/26/2010 4:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Da W, That is simply not true! We love our 51st state (Canada) and consider it part of America too! ROFL

Sorry, I just couldn't resist a straight line like that.


Lots of things like that
By asuffield on 7/26/2010 12:48:39 AM , Rating: 5
Basically, these sort of devices all attempt to reclaim some of the energy lost to inefficiency in the way we do things - typically based on heat or height. The problem with them is that they usually cost more energy to create than they ever generate in their lifetime. There are a lot of hidden costs in manufacturing, and few people ever account for them all correctly.

Has this guy come up with a practical one? I'm betting that nobody has even tried to figure it out.




RE: Lots of things like that
By hadifa on 7/26/2010 2:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
You sound a bit pessimistic. This process can easily be optimized by building taller towers and encouraging people to do their .. hmmm ... business at the very top and if you think elevators use energy, well, they can be forced to walk the stairs. fitness and free energy. :-)


RE: Lots of things like that
By kyleb2112 on 7/26/2010 5:43:33 AM , Rating: 3
Ssshhh, please, I live in California! The Democratic legislature here would absolutely consider a state-mandated "Hike to Poop!" program. I'm so not kidding.


RE: Lots of things like that
By Chaser on 7/26/2010 7:33:33 AM , Rating: 4
And give HOV lane passes to occupants on the 9th floors and above.


RE: Lots of things like that
By FH123 on 7/26/2010 7:15:15 AM , Rating: 1
Don't forget the energy needed to pump water to the top of the building. To really make this work people would probably have to carry a bucket of water up the stairs with them.


RE: Lots of things like that
By marvdmartian on 7/26/2010 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 4
Not to mention that, being a turbine, all it's going to take is (excuse the expression) one person's "power dump" to clog this thing up, and render it useless! ;)


RE: Lots of things like that
By Chernobyl68 on 7/26/2010 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, that's what I'm thinking. how easy would it be to jam this with a big...dump?


RE: Lots of things like that
By nafhan on 7/26/2010 10:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
These may be practical in situations such as high rise apartment buildings where the "waste" would have more energy from a longer fall, and installation and energy transfer would be more efficient as more than one would be used in the same place.

Anyway, there's no need to account for all the "hidden" costs in manufacturing. Those hidden costs tend to show up in the final bill for the item. All you need to do is determine the cost to manufacture + a small profit. Then Determine the average cost of energy and the amount of energy generated by the device. If you can make the money back in a relitively short time - and certainly before the device wears out and needs to be serviced or replaced, it might be worth getting.

If I had to guess, this probably doesn't pass that test, but with enough government subsidies, it might be worth getting anyway (sarcasm)!


RE: Lots of things like that
By Ammohunt on 7/26/2010 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 3
I agree its a good thought but in practice it will fail miserably. Why would any building owner want to add complexity and a potental maintenace money sink into their building. Thye would be better off capturing the methane of the sewer pipe and burning it for heat in the winter.


RE: Lots of things like that
By geddarkstorm on 7/26/2010 3:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Of course that's so. It's called the second law of thermodynamics. It's impossible to get more energy out than went in to something. With coal and gas, we get net positive returns only because the Sun and Earth did most of the work in producing it.

That said, when it comes to the energy we directly spend, a smartly designed device integrated in from the getgo as a building is constructed probably would give considerable energy savings. It cannot ever -generate- new energy, it's just saving on energy. Remember, the water has to get aaallll the way up there via energy, and this device is just reclaiming some of the potential energy that went into pumping the water way up to the top of a building, or to a reservoir that then feeds a house.


Its the amps which hurt the most.
By NuclearDelta on 7/26/2010 4:02:21 AM , Rating: 4
Playing with numbers.

2000 people top of 200m office building.
~200 gal a month.

Avg height of drain point = 100m if people and consumption spread evenly.

2,000*200 = 400,000 US gallons = 1,514.16471 cubic meters

1 m^3 water = 1000kg

Mass water = 1,514,164.71 kg * 9.81 m/s^2

14,853,955.8051 N * 100m = 1,485,395,580.51 J

1000 watt load

(1,485,395,580.51 J ) / ( 1000W * 60 * 60 * 24) = 29.227 days of power

I imagine with losses since it all isn't a straight drop, water turbulence, pipe wall friction, "sediment", etc, that it would probably eat 50%. The generator itself is probably 92-97%.

So about 14 days of power with some 1000W load.

I guess it helps if it were a residential building with that many people since water usage would be much higher. If the return is lower, say 10% efficient I am not so sure this would be worth it.

I'd wager conserving water would be better since it is 100% efficient in saving energy. Retrofitting would probably be a waste over just passing out tack hammers and suggesting that if you think about wasting water to use the tack hammer. Then we would revitalize the once sprawling tack hammer empire. Ok...well I made that up. Regardless, I am curious how efficient this is in the best REAL implementation.

Anyone have any ideas?




By NuclearDelta on 7/26/2010 4:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
Also, curse you Tracie McDaniel! You are throwing off my "I bet I can guess Jason Mick wrote this by the name of article" senses! :)

I wish I was gifted a better superpower, but this is all I have to work with.


RE: Its the amps which hurt the most.
By AnnihilatorX on 7/26/2010 5:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
So it can run 1000W for 14 days in a month, that's actually better than any 1kW Micro Wind Turbines

The one in our university averaged continuous 60W power output over one year. That's hardly a light bulb!


RE: Its the amps which hurt the most.
By NuclearDelta on 7/26/2010 5:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
Aye, but it was pretty generous for an office building.

I wish I had better numbers to play with. It may end up under 10% mark when you consider it eats excess energy going up and down, energy cost of product creation and support infrastructure installation vs lifetime output. It may be a waste if the building were not built with it in mind.

Anyone know how common 2k+ resident complexes around 150m are?


By AnnihilatorX on 7/26/2010 7:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
I know for one Hong Kong has highest concentration of high-rise residentials in the world.

40 floors is the norm in HK aparment buildings. The average height of a level is around 13 feet (4 m) high.


By Chernobyl68 on 7/26/2010 12:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
average residential shower would use much more than that.
Onboard my aircraft carrier back in the 90's the goal was 50gal/day/sailor. That accounts for all usage - showers, water for cooking, cleaning, etc.
even if you use that conservative a number, you're looking at 3 million gallons easily, per month (at your 2000 resident example)


RE: Its the amps which hurt the most.
By Solandri on 7/26/2010 12:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt you'll get anywhere near that much energy from this thing. To reap the full benefit of a 200m fall of water, the sewer pipe would need to be able to contain water at about 20 atmospheres of pressure. Typical plumbing can only designed to withstand 3-4 atmospheres. So you'd either have to install one of these every 3-4 stories of sewer pipe, massively reinforce the sewer pipes, or attach some sort of bypass to insure pressure never gets that high.

The photo seems to indicate they went with a bypass about 30 cm above the turbine to handle overflow and prevent excess pressure buildup. So instead of multiplying by 100m, you need to multiply by 0.15m.

14,853.955.8 N * 0.15 m = 2,228,093.4 J
2,228,093.4 J / 1000 W = 37.1 minutes.

That gives your scenario about 37 minutes driving a 1000 watt load per month.


By NuclearDelta on 7/26/2010 4:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Aye. But I rather like multiplying by the average height is spread evenly then putting an efficiency tax on it to knock it down.

The original example was for some office building. I can't image people spend nearly the amount of water at work that they do at home. This also prods back at my concerned that this might not be worth it unless the building's plumbing and supply was specifically constructed with this system in mind.


Maintenance
By Hypernova on 7/26/2010 12:11:42 AM , Rating: 5
Maintenance and servicing is going to be a shitty proposition.




RE: Maintenance
By AnnihilatorX on 7/26/2010 5:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. If some shit (pun intended) is stuck down there with the turbine, itd cause *massive* blockage with the whole building? Mr, plumber will be happy


RE: Maintenance
By FH123 on 7/26/2010 7:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
The picture looks like there's a bypass in case the turbine gets blocked.


RE: Maintenance
By Chernobyl68 on 7/26/2010 12:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine its also to take the turbine out for servicing without blocking the pipe completely.


www.urbandictionary.com
By Archibald Gates on 7/26/2010 5:31:17 AM , Rating: 4
1. When things get chaotic or uncontrolable, shit has hit the fan.

2. When the critical moment occurs, usually involves the culmination of some sort of crisis or scandal.

3. When shit is literally slung into a fan. (See the movie Airplane.)

4. The point at which "the shit hits the fan" is the point at which an already unstable situation devolves into utter chaos, often in spite of--or even due to--a higher authority's attempt to control it.

5. Creating ecological "green"(brown) energy from gravity powered shit.




RE: www.urbandictionary.com
By Archibald Gates on 7/26/2010 5:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
Also somebody should probably change the headline to:
quote:
Student Invention Uses Shit to Generate Electricity!

Now that's something new!


By homerdog on 7/26/2010 12:57:56 AM , Rating: 5
just move a Taco Bell into the area ;)




sh1t hits the fan
By Smilin on 7/26/2010 9:32:08 AM , Rating: 3
No way this will work. First time someone does ass-jihad and lets fly an epic log this thing is gonna jam.




"Brown"ian Motion
By choadenstein on 7/26/2010 9:43:53 AM , Rating: 3
Gives a whole new meaning to "Brown"ian Motion. Maybe perpetual motion devices can exist!




UPS - Going Green, err, Brown
By CarbonJoe on 7/26/2010 1:35:04 PM , Rating: 3
What can Brown do for you?




high cost
By Murloc on 7/26/2010 5:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
cost of production
+
maintenance costs (remember that shit, hair, cottoned sticks for ears and condoms go in there too sometimes)
>
money got from produced energy

=> nice learning experience but not economically feasible.




Year 2067...
By Archibald Gates on 7/26/2010 5:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
... Honey, the Prius is outta charge again. Gotta take a dump...




So thats what
By Kefner on 7/26/2010 9:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
So that's what Judge Reinhold has been up to!!!




Maintenance
By SnakeBlitzken on 7/26/2010 10:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how they will keep the tampon strings from getting all tangled on the turbine? No more flushing those. Imagine cleaning that off.




This is brilliant!
By moenkopi on 7/26/2010 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
It takes electricity to pump the water to the higher levels, so you are retrieving it back when pumping it back down (potential kinetic energy relationship) ; however, you can work with that by using it as a battery by pumping the water up into storage tanks during times of inexpensive electricity like at night, and then when it comes time to bringing the water down then it can bringing in a higher value. trading less expensive potential energy for more expensive kinetic energy!




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs











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