Further Thoughts on Turning Road Traffic into Electricity

What a great concept! While I don't purport this as a "be-all, end-all" solution, I do question the accuracy of some of the critics' comments from the earlier post. What are the basis for some of those fuel stats? Is it not possible that Kenney has considered some of these ideas?

The fact that this may not be "the" perfect solution - as Treehugger eds point out in their second post - should be subsidiary to the fact that creative thinking about how to work within our existing system has the potential to produce real results. Constantly looking for new ways to harness power that do not involve additional fossil-fuel burning plants is essential. Great start on an innovative idea!

So the concept is vehicles bouncing up and down on the roadbed to create energy. What about the other end of the bounce? Shock absorbers that create electricity for the vehicle. Paddle blades under the vehicle to create electricity?

I tend to agree with these most recent posts and applaud the creative juices that are flowing. While it is necessary to ask questions to find the optimal solution, it is generally unproductive to criticize an idea that has the potential for great success... if not in this current version, then in updated and streamlined versions yet to come. I would urge the editors of Tree Hugger to take the high road when it comes to criticism. There are plenty of opponents out there who will make these negative arguments for you. No need to add more fuel to their fire.

This being said, has anyone considered the possibility of small wind turbines harnessing the gusts that happen when cars and trucks barrel down the interstate? Talk about a serious amount of energy!

I hesitate to comment again, but truly, people here are missing the big picture. All of these schemes tend to create drag on the vehicles, increasing their fuel consumption.

Unless the road surface already has movement equivalent to these plates, the plates will increase drag. If the road surface did have such movement, the money would be better spent making a more rigid road surface to cut down on the rolling friction.

Same for the "wind gust capture" idea. The vehicles moving along the road push air ahead of them. To some degree, this moving air decreases drag for following vehicles. Capture devices on the side of the road would increase turbulence in the air, increasing the air drag on the cars. Overcoming air drag is the biggest use of fuel by the car.

Better the money is spent to build partial walls along the road. Walls will help contain the air, allowing it to move smoothly forward, reducing drag for all the vehicles. If it was practical, a tight corridor completely enclosing each lane would be ideal - this would reduce drag for cars almost as much as if they were forming a train.

A lot more energy would be saved reducing drag on cars, not increasing it.

Michael -- yes, but it has the same issue: you're taking away energy from the car, so that needs to come from somewhere. On a downhill slope that's fine though -- the energy is going to be wasted anyway by braking.

Best of all is to switch to trains :-). Modern trains slow down by switching the motors to become generators, which takes the movement (kinetic energy) of the train and turns it directly into electricity for other trains to use.
(some very high speed trains even require this technology, otherwise the breaks would wear out / heat up too quickly.)

fascinating idea, but likely completely ineffective.

The law of Conservation of Energy indicates that it takes one form of energy to be translated into another form of energy. and the Second Law of Thermodynamics states quite clearly that some energy is always lost when energy changes form.

This proposal is using the energy of the trucks' engine and inertia to create power. Fine, but it will take more energy from vehicles to produce a much lesser amount of electricity. Almost certainly, using the extra fuel required of the vehicles and simply running a generator set would be much more efficient.

Once you calculate the additional wear and tear to vehicles, roadways, and extra health care caused by rough rides, there will be an enormous fuel and cost deficit created.

Michael is absolute correct. Motor vehicles are inefficient and are a bad way to generate power. so any power that you "steal" from them is unclean energy. You are also "stealing" from the owners of those vehicles, they will pay an additional fuel to power them. The only example that makes any sense is the downhill example, but, I would argue that even that is stealing from the owners of the vehicles.

Like Michael said, the best thing to do is to make the roads more efficient and the vehicles more efficient. What you want, is for all vehicles to have regenerative braking systems.

You always have to consider how clean of an energy source you are pulling from. In an ideal world all power would come from the cleanest possible sources. Just remember "recovering" energy is good, "stealing" energy is bad.

It doesn't seem like people here are actually reading the post. It mentions that it probably only works where a truck has to slow down anyway, so helping it slow down isn't taking away useful energy

If I drive an electric vehicle that gets 100 miles per charge in my normal driving and half of my driving is downhill and this system slows my vehicle down rather than allowing it to use its own regeneration system, my vehicle won't go as far. In theory assuming everything is 100% efficient ( which it's not) my vehicle could go as little as 50 miles. We don't want to steal from the vehicles.

What would want to do is encourage people to use clean energy not discouraged it.

Teaching people to tail bigrigs would be the biggest fuel saver.

While people claim it's dangerous, if close, but Mythbusters showed that even at 100 feet it reduces drag by 30%.

But still, it's a good idea. If you can figure out a way to harness energy that's lost from the cars... it's a definite plus. Obviously, unlike some commenters seem to think... we're not going to install a road and have cars drive up and down it to create electricity. It's going to create the ability to harness the energy already created.

And to anther commenter, yes, turbines along the side of the road would work as well... but I'd imagine it's not only impractical but against laws.

Another thing to look into would be harnessing the heat generated by the engine in some way.

I'm sure someone has said this, but isn't this useless? Won't it just take extra fuel to go over these things, which would mean that it's really gas that's powering these generators?

Using roadway pistons to slow vehicles at tolls and generate electricity was a topic in Popular Science circa 1970. The article was controversial re: the amount of energy that could be extracted. Regenerative braking externally mounted should work in principle but always the details . . .

Heyheyhey, you fools are missing something important.
It is true that these designs 'steal' away momentum from cars, but that is a feature, not a side effect. Obviosly it is not good idea to put these things on places where cars are trying to speed up or maintain the speed. Put THESE SHOULD BE USED ON LOCATIONS WHERE CARS NEED TO SLOW DOWN. Such as long downhill roads with steep curves, traffick lights, ramps leaving highways, and so on. There are plenty of good uses for these ones.

Like Jacob said, people don't seem to be reading the whole article. If they install the plates on a hill, it won't cause the trucks to use more energy. It'll simply absorb the energy that would otherwise go to "waste"

Another solution I've seen proposed for elevated trains is to line both sides of the track (or, in this case, highway) with K-rails that capture the wind from passing vehicles and use it to generate electricity. it wouldn't be cheap because it would require a very large number of these K-rails, but there are something like 4+ million miles of highways in the US alone.

Nice idea. I don't know if it would work or not - but great idea.

What about some sort a magnetic electricity generation? This is just a thought, and haven't thought about all the pros/cons. Just something I was thinking about while reading this.

It will cost trucks more energy to push these plates. They'll create that energy with their diesel, and we'll only get a portion of the energy due to the fact that no energy creation is 100% efficient.

Short result: This is an inefficient energy creation that will be created by the fuel of truckers. Not very fair, IMHO. And no, I don't know any truckers. This is asinine.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to run water pipes under the asphalt, and as the tire friction (and heat from the sun) warms the water, it passes through a turbine and then underground or to a water tower to cool?

This would cool the road temperature, reducing tire damage. It wouldn't "steal" anything but heat friction that was going to dissipate anyway. And running water pipes would seem to be far less expensive than building massive plates.

If the Feds required that any new section of interstate freeway include such a "water pipe generator," it's pretty easy to imagine millions of miles of such electrical generators being built fairly quickly, and at a reasonable cost because of economies of scale.

I think probably the best bet to go with the "harness energy from traffic" is to use magnets. Put a big magnet, or electromagnet, in the front of the truck, and when the truck passes through the coil of wire wound around the gate(through the road, and all around it), the change in flux will produce enough current that, when added to Kenney's idea, should provide huge amounts of power. The only problem is, becuase flux desires to be constant, there would be induced an opposing magnetic field, but the truck would overpower it. The truck would slow down, although slightly. Anyway, just an idea. Hope I get a chance to put it into action.

How about the up and down energy of bridges. They must flex to keep from destroying themselves. I've walked on many traffic bridges, and the big vehicles create a lot of movement.

Instead of a mechanical system, couldn't inductance be used? The same loops that are placed into roadways to sense when a vehicle is present to trigger a traffic signal should also be able to generate at least a minimal electrical flow when you have have many vehicles rapidly traversing the loop. This method would not place any form of drag onto the vehicles.

Geez, I had this idea years ago and even posted about it on the Web a few times .. years ago, I mentioned to my Mom that they should do something like this after seeing those hoses going across the street that count cars as you pass over them. It's an idea long overdue..

First, I agree with Matt. You need to really think about the laws of energy conservation when coming up with ideas. The previous idea is not bad with possibly setting up wind turbines next to the interstate where the trucks rumble through.

However, why not start where the problem originates. The trucks. Not getting rid of them, but creating a hybrid truck that restores energy through multiple methods. You can possibly replace brakes with mini-generators. You can do this for cars as well. This would save on energy consumption from the get-go. How about a possible hybrid/flywheel concept where energy is stored in multiple manners? This would allow for a backup system to whatever method is determined to be the primary energy source.

Bigger idea: can we set up man made floating islands in the ocean so that we have giant fields of solar panels? This idea would probably take a lot of energy to create, thus causing a negative energy balance. However, the main advantages of it would be that it would be a floating island that would be mobile and could be rented out by other countries or developing nations. This initial large investment may be worth it if the islands turn out to be sustainable for many decades.

I think we need to think about short term solutions as well as long term investments when it comes to energy solutions. Obviously, for whatever we come up with, the more efficient and durable, the better.

So what about how this will affect smaller vehicles, compact cars, motorcycles, etc... there needs to be a safety study done if not already.

This is indeed not the first time that some comes up with such an idea. In UK a similar project exists and another one exists in Egypt.

The problem is always the same: The energy doesn't come from nowhere. Even if there is only very little additional power consumption by the trucks, it's still just energy from diesel that is converted into electricity and this probably with a way lesser efficiency than a usual diesel generator.

This technology would be useful only on slops where generally breaking energy is dissipated into heat. Otherwise it wouldn't be an ecological solution at all.

Reading about these projects, I'm often astonished to find how many people don't understand that energy can not be created out of nothing, but that it very well needs a source. This is really basic knowledge.

Simon

magnetic inductance not causing any drag on the vehicles? What engineering school did you guys go to? None? That's what I thought.

Ever try to push two same-pole magnets together? It takes effort in the form of additional energy. Strapping big magnets to your truck is going to lower your fuel economy making the lossy combustion engine conversion even worse. The induction current generated will not make up for it, causing a net decrease in the total energy in the system, and more consumption of fossil fuels, and dirtier cars.

As long as cars use fossil fuels, harnessing energy from them during regular operation will increase fuel consumption by a larger factor than any amount of energy that can be reaped from them. The only exceptions are non-regular use, such as breaking, or going down a big hill where large amounts of energy is lost on purpose (either to stop your vehicle, or get back down that hill).

Those of you that feel that this will create drag on the car by energy transference neglect to realize that there are down hill areas that these energy capturing devices can be installed on as well as on ramps to expressways. Main arterial traffic routes especially can be utilized by this renewable pollution free resource, gravity. Brilliant Idea, I actually thought about this myself last month thinking I had an original idea.

Why couldn't you use the wind created by moving vehicles to move multiple mini wind mills? That way energy will not be taken away from the vehicles.

Even if the device is on a downhill slope, it still causes drag on the vehicle, which will reduce it's speed. The speed will be compensated by the driver pressing the gas pedal at the bottom of the hill. Net result is more gas usage.

This stuff is basic middle school science. It's always a net loss due to an overall efficiency of less than 100%.

Another side effect is the chilling effect of having the roads collect "waste" energy. It will discourage manufacturers from making their vehicles more efficient, since we are relying on the "waste".

Finally, since, as was said, only a small amount of energy is stolen from each vehicle, the limit of the recaptured energy is small. Even across many vehicles, I doubt the system could have a high enough efficiency to make it pay for itself.

"Even if the device is on a downhill slope, it still causes drag on the vehicle, which will reduce it's speed. The speed will be compensated by the driver pressing the gas pedal at the bottom of the hill. Net result is more gas usage."

No it won.t DOn't you people have any imagination?

Say you have a downhill lane with a stop sign at the bottom, or some other place where you have to stop no matter what.

You put the thing in the middle of the downhill lane, but not at the very end of it where the vehicles will be completely stopped. That absorbs some energy when people are on the brakes anywya, and when they hit back the gas pedal, they aren't on the thing anymore anyway, so it isn't harder to drive away.

whats the point? it only makes more CO2 emissions from the cars, to get to their destination AND provide this other enegy.
its also stealing fuel, unless you pay the drivers.. think about it.

Wind turbines and such also put drag on vehicles. This was discussed in detail in the previous post related to this.

Yes, these ideas might be of some use at points where vehicles need to slow down, such as off ramps. They could collect some of the energy that would otherwise be converted to heat by braking. But I doubt it would be worth the costs. Better that that the money be spent making the trucks more efficient.

But I really wish someone would vet these posts better. The poster of this article still seems to think that this invention might be making energy from nothing, although he threw in the braking concept to be safe.

Many topics posted in treehugger seem to show a basic lack of understanding of fundamental scientific principals. That's a shame when so many important issues need to be discussed. A lot of "magical thinking" seems to be going on.

Hello,
Sometimes we want to make a big fix like change the raditator of the car, when we should start with the fluid 1st. Adam had a point which living in SOCAL makes cents+volume makes $. Squirrel cage style fans mounted along the center divider hooked up to a small generator running is series, meter 'em at the overpasses and ship it to the grid. China can make 'em and sell 'em thru Wal-Mart.
thxs

How about forcing the owners of large vehicles to pay higher prices for fuel so they will learn to conserve. The gas prices are getting high. We all knew this was coming.

You people buy monster homes and monster trucks and when we start running out of energy and the economy can't sustain this kind of stupidity then you want me (the tax payer) to bail you out while you continue to buy your morning $5 coffee and subsidize prescription drugs, text books, software , and other things over seas with our high prices here in the US. (breath)

You want me to compete for jobs in a world market then charge me what they pay for the same goods and services.

I have an idea. How about a generator platform floor in aerobics centers for fat people. As they jump up and down burning off fat they can be adding to the power grid. I could call it human processed bio fuel centers.

I have an idea. If you need a bailout how about working off your debt in IRAQ for the US government.

thinkingbiggar.com - high tech for the rest of us

I like the floating island. lets use decommissioned ships espeicialy aircraft carriers that would be cool . What are some thoughts on the experimental wave generator off Maui . also can anybody shed some light on the water to fuel H20 to HHO process,and one more ? can we find a better way to store electrical energy? or some how recapture line loss off our extra high voltage transmission lines .We seem to use tramendous amounts of energy all with huge loss . Could it be related to" someones loss , is anothers gain"? We are a capitalistic country , maybe if we BALANCE out alittle and use less we will cut our losses also ,but this is counter to our belief as Americans to be as "productive as possible " Just some thoughts.Mahalo this is a cool page.

Seems overly-elaborate of a system considering the energy you get out of it. Rather than creating a system that extracts energy from traffic, why not make the vehicles themselves more efficient by using internal regenerative braking systems? It would eliminate the vast energy needed to build and install the road plates and road-side wind turbines.

I agree with posts that say you're stealing (yes stealing) a good chunk of energy from the vehicles in return for a smaller chunk of energy. It's already a net deficit of energy without factoring in the energy going into construction, not to mention the infrastructure you'd have to set up to transport that energy from the roads into the power grid. Remember that simply transporting energy is not 100% efficient either so there's even further loss.

I understand that these systems could take advantage of vehicles that have to slow down anyway (like at exit ramps) but regenerative braking would achieve the same thing. Internal regenerative braking systems would increase the fuel economy of vehicles that have them, which for all intensive purposes, translates into the same energy you are trying to extract! Only there's less overhead to be dealt with.

In addition, you could only install these energy extracting road plates at areas where people have to slow down, but regenerative braking systems on the vehicles themselves would take full advantage of all incidences of braking, regardless of location. This would maximize energy savings.

I applaud the creativity of the idea, but I think it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed in the grand scheme of things, nor compared to existing and emerging technologies which aim to achieve the same thing.

"Seems overly-elaborate" [...] "regenerative braking would achieve the same thing."

Make up your mind. either you want simple, or elaborate.

It's a lot more complex to put regen brakes on hundreds of millions of vehicles than put plates in a few spots.

Now I'm all for hybrids, plug in hybrids, electric vehicles, etc, but I will never claim they are a simple and cost-less transition.

Great concept!! How many of you guys have ridden a bike with a dynamo fixed to the front tire. Sure it lights up the lamp, but you have to put a lot more energy peddling. This is where I learnt the concept that you can't get an output without an input, as a child. SImilarly if we're going to generate energy from traffic, one could ask the question "ok which one is the input?". Right now, fixing dynamos/generators to breaks, generating energy while going downhill etc. sound the most feasible. Anyway, probably our universities take a look at this, and hey...I see a pretty good PhD research project here

I don't think Anonymous really read my post, and if he/she did, they certainly started reading it ready to counter whatever I had to say.

I'm not sure why you quoted what you did. I was saying regenerative braking would achieve the same thing, minus the complexity of creating a new infrastructure. So how was I not making up my mind? The concept itself is simple: Building the infrastructure to extract power and release it into the grid would yield less energy from traffic and consume more resources in overhead than vehicles that increase their fuel economy through their own regenerative braking systems. Obviously regenerative braking would make a car more complex, but guess what? You're going to need more complicated technology in order to make greener vehicles.

And at least you're letting the driver control how much they slow down, rather than some independent system that takes energy away from their vehicle against their will.

You're also making an unfair comparison. You're comparing a few road plates on highways to retrofitting hundreds of millions of cars with regenerative braking. A few road plates would extract miniscule energy because, after all, you're saying there's only a few of them. Retrofitting every car would result in a massive energy savings because EVERY single car on earth that brakes would increase their fuel economy, regardless of where they are driving. If you read my post you would have come across this....

"regenerative braking systems on the vehicles themselves would take full advantage of all incidences of braking, regardless of location. This would maximize energy savings."

And also, introducing a new infrastructure is also very complicated and has far more red tape and environmental consequences than introducing a new technology into a vehicle. But my argument is less about how simple or complex a system is, and more about which system can extract (or save) the most energy overall.

Wouldn't the Solar Roadways idea be a better means of producing electricity? it's simple, modular, and generates electricity all day long whenever cars and trucks (or those damn clouds) aren't shading it. (Even in moderately heavy traffic there's generally more exposed roadway than shaded)

It would improve safety due to programmable lane definitions and hazard warnings that can be seen several times further at night than standard road paint.

But then... why would anyone want a roadway built out of solar panels in an age where electric cars are getting ready to dominate? If that happened, you might only need to pull over at the next roadside plug to juice up if you're running low on charge. the logistics of making sure you get properly gouged for that might be a little too tough. >_>

I am amazed by all of these ideas and i am only 13. It's great to know that so many people are into saving energy but i think the mini windmill idea is probably the best idea since it will not "steal" the energy from the cars.

And i have aquestion...
a teacher told me that we actually only used up only 8% of the total oil we have in the earth. and the peaople who take out the oil are just letting out very little oil at a time so they would get more money for the time they spent on geting them...is this true???
just wondering...

btw this is great site and we should try to xpand the amount of people that go on it...thx =p

If the Dragon station is just stealing energy from the trucks, it seems a lot more efficient to use a system optimized for the engine. A truck company in Oshkosh Wisconsin has worked on developing a hybrid diesel-electric truck that would double as a power generator when stationary. The individual motors at each drive wheel could also be used for regenerative breaking.
An optimized design for a generator connected directly to the engine would certainly be more efficient than converting the energy through all the hydro-mechanical steps in the Dragon power station.
The best benefit though is that the generator will be producing electricity while the truck idles in place as well as moving down the road. The excess energy could be stored in batteries like other hybrids. When the truck stops to refuel at a truck stop, they could connect to the grid to download the stored excess power.
Hybrid trucks would also give drivers more options. In traffic jams, they could shut off the diesel engine and just use the stored excess power. They could use the stored excess power at rest stops instead of idling the engine for heating, cooling, and electric appliances. The driver could even top up the batteries while refueling diesel and use either or both power sources on the road. Entering a city, the driver could switch to only electric drive to limit emissions in the congested downtown area. (Some European cities have Environmental Zones that restrict access to only low emission vehicles.)
Granted hybrid diesel-electric trains may always be more efficient for long hauls than the equivalent in a truck, but trucks will not go away entirely. They may as well take advantage of similar technology and do what they can to save money and the environment.

I WANT TERRY KENNEY'S EMAILADDRESS IF POSSIBLE THEN GIVE US IT .

Just out of curiosity, what do people think of being made to waste energy on deceleration and idling at toll booths? It seems to me that the entities that have installed and operate them are "stealing" energy from the vehicles, but instead of recapturing that energy, it just dissipates as heat. And we're being made to shell out cash to add insult to energy... er, injury. Seems like putting these 'Dragon Power Stations' to use at these toll stations could provide power to the stations while helping those vehicles without regenerative brakes (which is currently most of them on the road today) to preserve their brake pads somewhat. Then people would also have a choice as to how to perceive this energy exchange: 1) energy is being stolen from the vehicles, or 2) you are being taxed just a little bit more for the use of the toll roads.

The bottom line in all of this is the bottom line. Where are the money and materials coming from to implement these technologies (vampire blacktop, regenerative brakes, roadside solar and k-rails and whatever else), and who gets the benefits therefrom (who gets the money, who gets the electricity, and who ultimately gets shafted)? You can come up with all the nifty bits of technology you want, but if you can't pull the monetary, material, and political capital simultaneously then a whole lot of energy gets put into getting nothing done.

The most plausible answer is the one that uses the least and best available materials for the locality. What is best for one area won't always be best for another. Putting in these 'Dragon Stations' along certain exit ramps and downhill slopes with excessive grading (like in SW USA where you sometimes see brake-over ramps where the roads curve along a steep grade) seem like logical places for them, so long as there is something nearby for them to power. Putting geothermal piping beneath road surfaces works best in subdivisions where excess heat can be piped to help heat homes (keeps roads clear of ice in winter and lets scrapers concentrate on major thoroughfares), but wouldn't work as efficiently for major streets and highways (too much material infrastructure to bury when we're already predicting material shortfalls in the near-to-intermediate future).

The point is, there is likely a useful place for this technology just as there is a place for all the other bits of technology concerned. We just have to identify those places and then get the balls to implement them. Unless and until all vehicles on the road are equipped with regenerative brakes (and how many years/decades will it be before that really happens?), we should not completely dismiss the idea. And for those of you who resent the idea of bleeding a little extra juice at an off-ramp, toll booth, or similar deceleration-zone, you should think of it as a sort of safety tax that goes to subsidize some government project (stoplights, toll booths, billboards, or whatever). If there is something we can all agree upon, it has to be that taxation is also never 100% efficient, and not uniformly fair to everyone (including those with regenerative brakes).

I'm wondering if this idea can be used in homes, office buildings, aboard vessels, in warehouses, etc.?

I went through all the posts here and using an idea I thought about a couple years ago as my basis, I have determined that a decent idea would stem from a combination of almost every idea posted. So what if we retrofitted cars with magnets and roads with copper wire. Even smaller magnets would generate SOME electricity. Granted that copped is expensive but I think in terms of the long run. Theres a LOT of cars on the busier highways and it could definitely add up. Places such as the Grapevine in LA have hills which drivers are always applying brake pressure. Put copper wire in the top to mid-way down to allow for a gain in momentum after recouping the energy and allowing for slowing without the use of excessive braking. Regenerative breaking is a great concept... for hybrids or electrics. Looking at the dilemma we're facing right now, these types of cars should be taking over our roads within the next decade so it could be assumed that this idea is already being implemented by manufacturers. Using wind speed force through turbines placed at a strategic angle on the sides of roads could be implemented in the same spots.

All these ideas only need be placed in areas which could generate large amounts of electricity to make up for the cost of such projects. Our largest trouble spots at after all, the main priority... am I right?

This is a great thread and it seems we have accumulated many great thinkers to this board. Keep throwing out ideas but keep in mind that it takes teamwork to really get an idea rolling. No one idea is going to be the best. Start thinking in terms of multiple renewable resources and that is where we will find the key to success.

Love and regards.

-Nic

Recent articles have shown that scientists can now transfer electricity wirelessly. So, all we'd need to do is pop a wireless electricity receiver into a car. Car generates electricity by moving along the road. Car moves along the road by generated electricity. Granted, all roads would need to be replaced to do this. But if we could start over, and the technology was available. Seems this would be ideal for both saving gas, and a greener planet.