'Outside the box' ways to generate electricity....

[Smilin]

here, slap these keywords into google and hit the lucky button:

solar power australia world's tallest

I'm still digging around to find a more technical document on it. I can't remember the exact speed of the air near the tower and that's the part that impressed me most.

 

[Fencer128]

How bout this idea... for airplanes to be more fuel efficient. I know they burn fuel to turn the engines and I am not sure HOW but I would assume they run some form of 'alternator' off those engines in order to provide the electricity needed for the cabin, instruments, etc. Why not have a bunch of smaller 'windmils' along the body of the airplane that would generate the electricity for the plane? This should take SOME load off the engines allowing them to burn less fuel. The drag brough on would be minimal I would think provided they are properly designed ( it could look like a mini jet engine on the top of the body, and be shaft driven to the generator below the body so it has minimal exposure with an air outlet through the back.

I would imagine that any saving on fuel due to the lack of alternator would be more than compensated for by the drag/turbulence introduced by the windmills. I don't share your optimism that with careful design drag could be kept to a minimum - for the windmill to work efficiently it must "catch" air, to do that it must promote drag on the aircraft.

The big generators in power plants must be putting off some heat I would think right? Could that heat be used to boil even more water using some of it's own wasted engergy to be a bit more efficient and use less coal?

I'm interested to see how this is currently handled (I guess it's more an issue of turbine cooling than steam generation at the moment).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Smilin]

One more link I found. The photo on the opening page is not an "artists concept" drawing - it's an actual photo of the prototype they built in spain some time ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

How bout this idea... for airplanes to be more fuel efficient. I know they burn fuel to turn the engines and I am not sure HOW but I would assume they run some form of 'alternator' off those engines in order to provide the electricity needed for the cabin, instruments, etc. Why not have a bunch of smaller 'windmils' along the body of the airplane that would generate the electricity for the plane? This should take SOME load off the engines allowing them to burn less fuel. The drag brough on would be minimal I would think provided they are properly designed ( it could look like a mini jet engine on the top of the body, and be shaft driven to the generator below the body so it has minimal exposure with an air outlet through the back.

I would imagine that any saving on fuel due to the lack of alternator would be more than compensated for by the drag/turbulence introduced by the windmills. I don't share your optimism that with careful design drag could be kept to a minimum - for the windmill to work efficiently it must "catch" air, to do that it must promote drag on the aircraft.

The big generators in power plants must be putting off some heat I would think right? Could that heat be used to boil even more water using some of it's own wasted engergy to be a bit more efficient and use less coal?

I'm interested to see how this is currently handled (I guess it's more an issue of turbine cooling than steam generation at the moment).

Cheers,

Andy

Precisely. If one was to take power from the air for generating electricity in an aircraft, conservation of energy demands that there is no free lunch. The aircraft would have to produce more power to compensate, by the same amount generated under ideal circumstances. Anything siphoning of energy from the airflow IS drag.

 

[Shalmanese]

Originally posted by: BoogieQ


How bout this idea... for airplanes to be more fuel efficient. I know they burn fuel to turn the engines and I am not sure HOW but I would assume they run some form of 'alternator' off those engines in order to provide the electricity needed for the cabin, instruments, etc. Why not have a bunch of smaller 'windmils' along the body of the airplane that would generate the electricity for the plane? This should take SOME load off the engines allowing them to burn less fuel. The drag brough on would be minimal I would think provided they are properly designed ( it could look like a mini jet engine on the top of the body, and be shaft driven to the generator below the body so it has minimal exposure with an air outlet through the back.

Darn, this whole conservation of energy thing does get annoying sometimes doesn't it? The problem is the energy you gain from putting windmills on your wings is coming directly from the energy you are using to make the plane move forward.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

How bout this idea... for airplanes to be more fuel efficient. I know they burn fuel to turn the engines and I am not sure HOW but I would assume they run some form of 'alternator' off those engines in order to provide the electricity needed for the cabin, instruments, etc. Why not have a bunch of smaller 'windmils' along the body of the airplane that would generate the electricity for the plane? This should take SOME load off the engines allowing them to burn less fuel. The drag brough on would be minimal I would think provided they are properly designed ( it could look like a mini jet engine on the top of the body, and be shaft driven to the generator below the body so it has minimal exposure with an air outlet through the back.

As stated before, the drag created by the generators will offset any parasitic energy gain. However, commercial jets are equipped with small retractable Ram Air Turbines (RATs) for use in an emergency. When power is lost to all of the main engines and the plane is coasting, the turbine extends from the fuselage. That turbine powers the emergency hydraulic systems for the control surfaces, brakes, and landing gear, as well as emergency electrical power to the intercom system, emergency lighting, and essential cabin electronics.

Just a little FYI for all of you who are afraid to fly...

 

[PrinceXizor]

Originally posted by: Shalmanese

Originally posted by: BoogieQ


How bout this idea... for airplanes to be more fuel efficient. I know they burn fuel to turn the engines and I am not sure HOW but I would assume they run some form of 'alternator' off those engines in order to provide the electricity needed for the cabin, instruments, etc. Why not have a bunch of smaller 'windmils' along the body of the airplane that would generate the electricity for the plane? This should take SOME load off the engines allowing them to burn less fuel. The drag brough on would be minimal I would think provided they are properly designed ( it could look like a mini jet engine on the top of the body, and be shaft driven to the generator below the body so it has minimal exposure with an air outlet through the back.

Darn, this whole conservation of energy thing does get annoying sometimes doesn't it? The problem is the energy you gain from putting windmills on your wings is coming directly from the energy you are using to make the plane move forward.

Not quite true. Now, I'm not saying that there will be some large energy boost from wind technology. But, the energy of the moving wind (i.e. the friction) is being translated into 1.heat energy 2.linear force acting against thrust (drag) 3.radial acceleration of the turbine blade. So, not ALL of the friction force is being converted into a linear force acting against forward movement. Usually, it is significant enough to override any gains. But, theoretically, there is room to reduce (never offset) overall energy output necessary to sustain a specific velocity, once that velocity has been reached.

P-X

 

[RayH]

Massive composite kite flying in the jet stream with fans and generators anchored to the ground with carbon nanotubes which double as superconductors.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: RayH
Massive composite kite flying in the jet stream with fans and generators anchored to the ground with carbon nanotubes which double as superconductors.

I've seen a slight variation on the tehtered power concept - albeit using a different source. Not so long ago NASA was experimenting with satellites in orbit. The satellite was to have a long (km) conductor tethered to it that would be dragged through the earth's magnetic filed as the satellite orbitted. The change in magnetic field --> electric filed generation --> power for the satellite.

I don't know hopw efficient this process was to be, but in theory at least the satellite could be tethered to the earth (i'm guessing even geostationary satellites will move through the eartch's dynamic? magnetic field) and power generated and transferred along that line.

EDIT: What do you know, just seen this story right now on the BBC news site. I quote:

So too is so-called tether technology, which involved dragging an electrically conducting wire, possibly several kilometres long, through the Earth's magnetic field. The interaction produces a propulsive force that can be utilised.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Def]

Originally posted by: Evadman
what about a device that is 1000m long out in the ocean. (strung depthwize, not along the surface) then bring the hot water above and cold below, and use the temp difference to generate steam? then just use a regular steam generator. (albet a low pressure one)

I did a problem in Thermodynamics a while back that used ammonia in a liquid-vapor Rankine cycle powerplant. Assuming complete irreversibility(no losses from friction, or pressure drop from your evaporator, condensor or turbine - ideal conditions) and everything is adiabatic(no heat transfer except in evap and condensor), and somewhat generous values - the power generated wasn't all that much. A few HP if I remember correctly.

There just isn't enough of a temperature differential to get a large amount of power.

The entropy change times the temperature change of the substances gives you a very rough idea of the amount of work possible - the entropy change is going to be largely constant given any substance, so you really have the temperature differential to work with. It needs to be VERY large to be useful.

 

[kpb]

Yeah the turbines/windmills on an airplane is a loosing idea. Simply put even if things where highly efficient in this design it would at best me about equal to current generation methods. The engines have to generate the forward motion thats would be turning the turbines so all your doing is taking and replacing the chain, or what ever they currently use to drive the alternater and replacing it with wind and a turbine to recapture it. Theres no free lunch to be had here anything your capturing on the turbines is going to have to come from an increased drag on the plane. Some how i just can't imagine any design where a windmill on the plane is more efficent than a chain hooked straight to the generater.

As for the other sugguestion the reason that most power plants vent so much heat in one form or another is that you need a certain amount of temperature differential to effectively drive the turbine that they use to generate the electricity and you need air moving from your high tempature to the low temp to turn the turbine. If someone could come up with a way to effectively and simply convert smaller temperature differentials to electricity there would be all sorts of uses. Power plants could suddenly generate more power and have less environmental impact (the waste heat around the power plant changes the climate in the imidiate area). Cars could gerenate electricity from thier exhast heat and use a smaller alternater.

 

[Cashmoney995]

LOL to the Super Giant Capacitor thing, problem is dude that lightening will just blow that shiz nit up, its just way to powerful and you cannot keep the charge very well. Plus a 25 gigawatt battery has to cost SOOOOOO much.

About water and paddles....theyve kinda already done it...now now...dont say DAMN it...say DAM it. Rivers provide CFM much more steadily. Problems with ocean are basically same mentioned above, and that the Cost to energy gained ratio is just horrible.

Best thing is Nuclear Energy, it provides Sooooo much and sooooo cheaply and is virtually 110$ safe. Those idiots who riot are exactly that. You let Naval Carriers and Submarines which are MENT to be sunk, blown up and completely exposed which have Nuclear Reactors go away unscathed and nive big Land one's that arent ment to get attacked a hard time. Gimme a break, if your willing to risk the pollution of the entire ocean which produces like 75% of the oxygen we breath...exactly. Same bs with this global warming...One forest fire caused by lightening puts up as much carbon dioxide and other chemicals in the tree's and shrubs in the air as much as the whole united states in one calander year. Now, factor in that we prevent and stop forest fires and that the Earth has been warming up for a longgg ass time, who melted the ice in the ice age? Earth always does warmin and coolin, to think that we cause it is almost arrogant.(I do however believe that nuclear winters are possible by man's hand)

 

[Fencer128]

Best thing is Nuclear Energy, it provides Sooooo much and sooooo cheaply and is virtually 110$ safe. Those idiots who riot are exactly that. You let Naval Carriers and Submarines which are MENT to be sunk, blown up and completely exposed which have Nuclear Reactors go away unscathed and nive big Land one's that arent ment to get attacked a hard time. Gimme a break, if your willing to risk the pollution of the entire ocean which produces like 75% of the oxygen we breath...exactly.

Well, most people who oppose nuclear power do so because of the nasty long-term waste it produces, not because of Chernobyl type risk. I wouldn't go labelling them all "idiots" as that's not very complementary nor does it show that you've taken their very valid views into consideration.

Same bs with this global warming...One forest fire caused by lightening puts up as much carbon dioxide and other chemicals in the tree's and shrubs in the air as much as the whole united states in one calander year. Now, factor in that we prevent and stop forest fires and that the Earth has been warming up for a longgg ass time, who melted the ice in the ice age? Earth always does warmin and coolin, to think that we cause it is almost arrogant.(I do however believe that nuclear winters are possible by man's hand)

Well, consider you don't list the size of the forest fire - I find your numbers a little difficult to believe. Not only that, but a good proportion of expert opinion does believe that the warming we're are/will be experiencing is outside of that which naturally occurs on geological timescales - and so your "brush off" of global warming as bullsh*t shows itself to be more wishful thinking than scientific logic. You can sit in one particular camp, but you can't say you're conclusively right at this point in time (hence the need for cautious action...)

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wave power is a demonstrated commercially viable alternative. There is a project (Scotland I believe) that has been working quite nicely. The principle can be used in the US, and I would wager that if the money spent on the war in Iraq were devoted to that, we would be oil free in relatively short order. Of course the US and other major nations don't really want to do that, but that's another topic. Literally, the entire US power needs could be from harnessing a few square miles of ocean. Now what about power away from the coastline? Pipelines carrying hydrogen produced at the coastal generator sites. This same fuel could power a new generation of fuel cell powered vehicles. No more pollution from power generators or autos.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Wave power is a demonstrated commercially viable alternative. There is a project (Scotland I believe) that has been working quite nicely. The principle can be used in the US, and I would wager that if the money spent on the war in Iraq were devoted to that, we would be oil free in relatively short order. Of course the US and other major nations don't really want to do that, but that's another topic. Literally, the entire US power needs could be from harnessing a few square miles of ocean. Now what about power away from the coastline? Pipelines carrying hydrogen produced at the coastal generator sites. This same fuel could power a new generation of fuel cell powered vehicles. No more pollution from power generators or autos.

Scotland generates a fair proportion of it's electricity from hydroelectric power. I know that there have been several wave power projects undertaken in the last few years.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[BoogieQ]

This is a great discussion! I like the ideas and thoughts coming out in this thread.

It is neat to see that some of these ideas ARE being implimented in some form or another around the world.


What I am starting to see is that there are SOOOO many ways for us to generate electricity from the energy that is in nature that there is basically no need for our current methods of electrical generation. I DO hope they eventually sway away from conventional means for things like this power tower in the Outback and underwater generators run off of ocean currents.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: BoogieQ
This is a great discussion! I like the ideas and thoughts coming out in this thread.

It is neat to see that some of these ideas ARE being implimented in some form or another around the world.


What I am starting to see is that there are SOOOO many ways for us to generate electricity from the energy that is in nature that there is basically no need for our current methods of electrical generation. I DO hope they eventually sway away from conventional means for things like this power tower in the Outback and underwater generators run off of ocean currents.

Well, at the moment it comes down to cost - how much are you willing to pay for your energy? Once this is decided, alternative technologies go mainstream when they hit that magic price. Most of them are not there yet.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Smilin]

Folks I don't think any creative energy solution short of cold fusion is going to help us.

Mother nature only puts so big of a filter in the fishtank we live in. We've just got too many fish! We could go to 100% wood or coal as an energy source with no emission controls whatsoever if we could bring the earths population back in line to say 2-3 Billion. As it stands were going to hit 10 Billion pretty soon and that's just too many houses to light regardless of the fuel source.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Folks I don't think any creative energy solution short of cold fusion is going to help us.

Mother nature only puts so big of a filter in the fishtank we live in. We've just got too many fish! We could go to 100% wood or coal as an energy source with no emission controls whatsoever if we could bring the earths population back in line to say 2-3 Billion. As it stands were going to hit 10 Billion pretty soon and that's just too many houses to light regardless of the fuel source.

A rather pessimistic view! I don't share that - if existing renewable energy technology was massively exploited and people were prepared to spend more on their electricity bill, then population would not be the barrier to our current energy needs.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[GridOner]

This whole power talk has reminded me of an idea thats been cropping up in my head for a while now.
I keep comming back to the fact that everything contains a certain amount of energy, even the individual molecules vibrating (unless you believe in the 'absolute zero' theory).
So although not very practical, I keep wondering how one could make a device able to generate electricity from sonic vibration. Could be useful in offsetting some power consumption in noisy areas (power plant, train station, urban city)
It would perhaps be a large grid of many tiny cone/flat shaped speaker drivers that would abosorb vibration as opposed to creating vibration.
Just one of those ideas that you think about when you're bored. It derives from a very interesting conversation i had with one of my sound savvy friends who told me that, if adjusted correctly, any speaker can be made into a microphone and vice versa; smaller 'speakers' are used in microphones because the small vibration created by a person's voice affects a smaller, lighter surface much better than a large, heavy surface.

 

[GridOner]

There is also a method of creating power from the sun (forget what the name of it is) by setting up hundreds-thousands of magnifying mirrors focused on a large container of water. The heat caused by the magnification of the sun's rays on a single area causes the water to boil and create steam. The steam can then power a steam driven generators.
Simple, effective, cheap, abundant.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: GridOner
This whole power talk has reminded me of an idea thats been cropping up in my head for a while now.
I keep comming back to the fact that everything contains a certain amount of energy, even the individual molecules vibrating (unless you believe in the 'absolute zero' theory).
So although not very practical, I keep wondering how one could make a device able to generate electricity from sonic vibration. Could be useful in offsetting some power consumption in noisy areas (power plant, train station, urban city)
It would perhaps be a large grid of many tiny cone/flat shaped speaker drivers that would abosorb vibration as opposed to creating vibration.
Just one of those ideas that you think about when you're bored. It derives from a very interesting conversation i had with one of my sound savvy friends who told me that, if adjusted correctly, any speaker can be made into a microphone and vice versa; smaller 'speakers' are used in microphones because the small vibration created by a person's voice affects a smaller, lighter surface much better than a large, heavy surface.

An interesting idea - but I can imagine that compared to the area you'd have to cover with speaker cones, the power derived from ambient noise would be miniscule.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Shalmanese]

The vibrations form molecules is known as heat. A heat engine is basically translating those vibrating molecules into something useful. However, we can only do that for large temperature differentials or the efficiency is not practical. Basic part of the 2nd law and cannot be broken. As for all the other suggestions, people have already thought long and hard about all of them its not for lack of will that they havent been implemented. ALL current forms of energy have their drawbacks. Its just a balancing of priorities.

Personally, I think the biggest problem will not be energy generation but energy storage. Simply, theres nothing even close to fossil fuels for the energy/gram and energy/second that we can practically put in cars and planes. Batteries are grossly inefficient and fuel cells might be slightly better but in the end, fossil fuels seem the only alternative for a long time.

 

[Kntx]

Now, the best thing to do would to have these in areas where storms happen most. The paddle would be HUGE, so that if you have 100 foot waves it is hitting only one half of the paddles. You would have multiple generators with multiple paddles such as it would look like this:

The thing about waves is that they don't really move side to side so much as they move up and down.

What you're saying is sorta similar to tidal generation. I remember reading years ago about a tidal power generation project somewhere in Nova Scotia Canada. The variation between high and low tides in this bay was something like 18 m (or 18' i dont remember). I'm not sure if it has built already, is being built, are plans for it being built, or was just talked about being built.... But the jist of it was dam sorta thing that would hold part of the tide back and force the flow thru some turbines or something.

 

[Kntx]

Here's an idea... make this big pully thing around the circuference of the earth... then put a rope around it and tie both ends to the moon, then as the moon spins it would turn the pully. The pully would be attached to some gears and stuff... which would connect to some rods and shafts, which would spin some lazy susan muffin display in a cafeteria.

then people could ask " I wonder what makes it turn" to which another persone could reply... "pshh. who cares"