Wind Turbines Powered by Traffic?

[Forbisher]

Interesting video.

Congrats for 2nd place posting this video today.

Wind Turbines Powered by Traffic?

Wind turbines powered by traffic sounds like another brilliant idea by the people who came up with solar roads. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/onshore-wind-turbines-powered-by-traffic/

diysolarforum.com

 

[Bud Martin]

Yeah, I am second place.

 

[svetz]

The traffic turbines were merely stupid. The idea of Electrodeposition of perchlorates onto existing road surfaces is positively retarded. I'd agree if it was breaking thermodynamics (e.g., free energy). Otherwise, like most new ideas, it's just awaiting someone to figure out how to do it safely, technologically, and/or economically. For example, the fuel cell was invented in 1839; almost 200 years later and we still haven't found an economic niche for it.

I've learned to never say never otherwise. History is replete with examples of very smart people being completely wrong about technology in their field of expertise:

1. "You'll never need more than 10 mb of storage" IBM.
2. "To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." -- inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926.
3. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.
4. "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932.
5. "The cinema is little more than a fad." -- Charlie Chaplin, actor, producer, director, and studio founder, 1916.
6. "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. " -- Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.
7. "The world potential market for copying machines is 5,000 at most." -- IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, 1959.
8. "How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense." -- Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat.
9. "[Television] won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." -- Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.
10. "When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it." -- Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson.

So to all those that would dare to dream, go for it.

 

[Diysolar123]

why oh why have schools stopped teaching math, sigh...

its a simple math problem for most of these ideas to show the "real" energy available is not a fraction of what the marketing people say it is.
Then there is the flip side where math shows there is enough energy, but the environmental factors make the idea all but impossible (I am looking at anybody that thinks solar roadways will work until somebody can deploy diamond roads, the forces on a roads surface are massive).

Too many people graduating with marketing degrees, not enough scientists and engineers..or maybe I should say todays scinetists and engineers often spend too much time in marketing classes

as to your list of "very smart people being completely wrong about technology"...
Notice many of those items (#1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10) are about how people would REACT to the invention, not if its possible/practical.
Item #3 was not his actual quote,not even close, common phalacy, dig deeper and you will find what he really said.

#8..napoleon bonaparte was a military strategist with no education beyond that; much like ghenkis khan; a powerful personality is not the same as "very smart". Sadly we see this a lot today; people confuse good actors with being smart, powerful media personalities with intelligence, oh well.

That said, yes, if you have an idea you should go for it, why not.. if you want to dream about wind turbines...study fluid dynamics and material science hehe
However, if you want to bilk a lot of people out of tons of cash, study marketing!!

 

[reg]

To me, this is wait and see.

The people behind this aren't flakes. The Chairman of Alpha 311 was a serious player in telecommunications internationally. It's why he was knighted. The company has a demo project going at London's O2 Arena, and New York City's Green Asphalt, a for-profit company involved in paving roads with recycled asphalt, is installing Alpha 311 turbines this summer. If this works, there are a lot of roads in the New York City area where it might make sense. The city's perimeter roads along the Hudson River (think wind) would be an obvious place to start. Between Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island there's a lot of roadway on the Hudson and the Ocean.

Worth keeping in mind that this is intended for busy roadways and not the long stretches of low-traffic roads that exist in parts of Canada and the U.S.

I don't understand what the issue is with pedestrians and wildlife. In any event, I spend part of the year in a place where there are over 600 car and truck accidents a year with moose. A motor vehicle/moose collision is no laughing matter. If this helps keep moose off roads, bring it on

 

[BiduleOhm]

The main problem (even assuming it would work technically) is that it's far better and more economical to put wind turbines where we currently put them.

Same with solar roads, it's far better, easier, economical, efficient, ... to put the panels above the road (or any other building) than in it. Even if putting them in the road would work in a magical world, it would still not be practical nor economical so no one would do it anyway.

 

[reg]

The main problem (even assuming it would work technically) is that it's far better and more economical to put wind turbines where we currently put them.

Let's take the New York City area as an example. The State owns the roadways. It doesn't own the land beside the roadways. Indeed, a good part of the waterfront is privately owned. What are you going to do? Expropriate private property to put up your giant windmills?

Of course, we could construct wind turbines up and down the Hudson River. This would no doubt go over real well with the shipping and flight traffic for which the Hudson is a busy roadway.

 

[Ampster]

The people behind this aren't flakes.

You don't have to be a flake to make a mistake. Even brilliant, succesful people can ocassionally be wrong. For example George Schultz and Theranos. He went to his grave believing the myth despite the fact that his grandson was one of the whistle blowers.

 

[BiduleOhm]

Let's take the New York City area as an example. The State owns the roadways. It doesn't own the land beside the roadways. Indeed, most of the waterfront is privately owned. What are you going to do? Expropriate private property to put up your giant windmills?

Of course, we could construct wind turbines up and down the Hudson River. This would no doubt go over real well with the shipping and flight traffic for which the Hudson is a busy roadway.

Why put wind turbines here? put them a bit away from the city or even better: off shore.

 

[reg]

You don't have to be a flake to make a mistake. Even brilliant, succesful people can ocassionally be wrong. For example George Schultz and Theranos.

What I actually wrote was "To me, this is wait and see. The people behind this aren't flakes."

Seeing as how you've apparently already decided that this is a mistake, I can see why you'd find that first sentence inconvenient and omit it from your quote. Myself, I applaud the people who are investing their time and money in this to find out whether it's a mistake.

 

[reg]

Why put wind turbines here? put them a bit away from the city or even better: off shore.

In New York, there is no "a bit away from the city"

New York State is already entering into agreements for offshore wind farms. I don't know why that means that we shouldn't build capacity elsewhere, including along the roadways that the State already owns. As I said above, a New York City asphalt company plans to run a test this summer. What do you want to do, stop them, or evaluate the results of the test?

 

[Forbisher]

Let's take the New York City area as an example. The State owns the roadways. It doesn't own the land beside the roadways. Indeed, most of the waterfront is privately owned. What are you going to do? Expropriate private property to put up your giant windmills?

Of course, we could construct wind turbines up and down the Hudson River. This would no doubt go over real well with the shipping and flight traffic for which the Hudson is a busy roadway.

I doubt if there is enough wind in Any of the areas that you list to be viable.
Wind is not almost everywhere like sunlight.
In California wind turbines are located in constantly windy passes where nobody would want to live.

 

[BiduleOhm]

In New York, there is no "a bit away from the city"

New York State is already entering into agreements for offshore wind farms. I don't know why that means that we shouldn't build capacity elsewhere, including along roadways. As I said above, a New York City asphalt company plans to run a test this summer. What do you want to do, stop them, or evaluate the results of the test?

Oh no, not stopping them, I'm good for any "green" solutions to the power problem, I'm just saying this solution will not go farther than the test phase as it'll not be economical. Everything is led by money these days, it's as simple as that.

 

[Diysolar123]

In New York, there is no "a bit away from the city"

New York State is already entering into agreements for offshore wind farms. I don't know why that means that we shouldn't build capacity elsewhere, including along roadways. As I said above, a New York City asphalt company plans to run a test this summer. What do you want to do, stop them, or evaluate the results of the test?

and here is the problem with politicians wanting to "virtue signal" that they are doing green energy things...
solar roadways, been tested, ALWAYS fail.. and yet governments still want to spend money on these things because the want to believe it will work.
Faith based science never works out well.
How many people fall into the trap of "lets stop all fossil fuel use and just go with solar and wind for everything"...and have absolutely no clue how much power is actually being consumed, power density of various fuels, etc.

I think its great to test out a new idea..but why not wait for the tests to finish? Governments are gambling with a lot of money which could go to something useful. If the idea is still in the research phase, then let universities get involved. If its a commercial product then let the companies provide a product with a warranty and performance specs.
Vertical turbines, microhydro, etc. are not anything new. That this is a working vertical generator is a certainty; its the viability as producer of power to offset the cost of production, maintenance, and deployment that is the issue.

I am sure most here have been within several yards of a car going 60mph, and you know what, that air displacement sure drops off fast so that 20ft away its just a tiny breeze; and with a cross wind you may not feel anything hehe

 

[reg]

I doubt if there is enough wind in Any of the areas that you list to be viable.
Wind is not almost everywhere like sunlight.

Huh? New York City consists of islands on the Atlantic Ocean. Specifically, Manhattan Island, Staten Island and part of Long Island. That isn't a list of all of the islands that are part of the city, either.

 

[reg]

and here is the problem with politicians wanting to "virtue signal" that they are doing green energy things..

I think its great to test out a new idea..but why not wait for the tests to finish? Governments are gambling with a lot of money which could go to something useful.

What government is gambling money on Alpha 311?

Here's what we know for a fact.

Last month, AEG, which Wikipedia says is the world's largest owner of sports teams and sports events, entered into an agreement with Alpha 311 to install its turbines at the O2 Arena in London, which AEG also owns. This is The Guardian's story about the transaction (The Guardian is a major U.K. newspaper that also has editorial offices in the U.S. and Australia): https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-wind-turbines-that-can-harness-even-a-breeze

As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the City of London or the U.K. Government. By the way, I can think of a couple of reasons why AEG might be interested in this. One of the points made in the Guardian story is that the O2 Arena is on the River Thames (wind). Also, the idea of erecting a conventional wind turbine at the O2 Arena, or anywhere else in London, is divorced from reality.

Yesterday, Alpha 311 announced an agreement with New York City's Green Asphalt. Green Asphalt is a for-profit company that is involved in asphalt road construction. It intends to install 54 of Alpha 311's turbines at its plant. Guess where the plant is. It's in Long Island City, which is on the Hudson River, where there's a lot of wind.

If the City of New York is involved in this, you can bet that Mayor Bill de Blasio would be talking about it. He isn't.

Indeed, I haven't come across any statements from politicians peddling this, let alone "virtue signalling".

 

[reg]

Oh no, not stopping them, I'm good for any "green" solutions to the power problem, I'm just saying this solution will not go farther than the test phase as it'll not be economical. Everything is led by money these days, it's as simple as that.

In this case, led by money from AEG, for one. Given how successful AEG is as a business, I figure there's a chance that it knows what it's doing. I find AEG's actions more persuasive than your evidence-free bald assertions.

 

[Diysolar123]

In this case, led by money from AEG, for one. Given how successful AEG is as a business, I figure there's a chance that it knows what it's doing. I find AEG's actions more persuasive than your evidence-free bald assertions.

wow... perhaps decaff, you know, could help.

 

[svetz]

why oh why have schools stopped teaching math, sigh...its a simple math problem...

It would folks to understand the problems with the technology if you'd show some of that math. To me, the concept looks like it might be possible someday.

...Then there is the flip side where math shows there is enough energy, but the environmental factors make the idea all but impossible (I am looking at anybody that thinks solar roadways will work until somebody can deploy diamond roads, the forces on a roads surface are massive).

If it's that impossible, why are there demonstration sites of the working technology?
AFAIK, it can be done, just isn't economical/practical yet to do so.

Same with solar roads, it's far better, easier, economical, efficient, ... to put the panels above the road (or any other building) than in it.

70 years ago it wasn't economical to put solar panels on residential properties. That didn't mean solar panels were a bad technology. Same for solar roads, it's not a ridiculous technology as far as I can tell, it's just waiting for someone to figure out how to make it economical.

Myself, I applaud the people who are investing their time and money in this to find out whether it's a mistake.

I agree. People get the mistaken idea that they're fraudulent get-rich schemes when really they're little more than pilot projects designed to learn more. For example, there are working solar roads (see above for link), but will they last 20 years? How much maintenance is actually required? Without a testbed you can't know for sure. For example, Bill Gates funding liquid batteries. It gives the technology a chance to be explored in the real world.

 

[Diysolar123]

It would folks to understand the problems with the technology if you'd show some of that math. To me, the concept looks like it might be possible someday.


If it's that impossible, why are there demonstration sites of the working technology?
AFAIK, it can be done, just isn't economical/practical yet to do so.

70 years ago it wasn't economical to put solar panels on residential properties. That didn't mean solar panels were a bad technology. Same for solar roads, it's not a ridiculous technology as far as I can tell, it's just waiting for someone to figure out how to make it economical.


I agree. People get the mistaken idea that they're fraudulent get-rich schemes when really they're little more than pilot projects designed to learn more. For example, there are working solar roads (see above for link), but will they last 20 years? How much maintenance is actually required? Without a testbed you can't know for sure. For example, Bill Gates funding liquid batteries. It gives the technology a chance to be explored in the real world.

quick look on youtube for a video to show what is happening with "solar roadways"... and this always happens.