Poll: What energy source do you prefer?

['Oma Tirea]

Manpower.  Or horsepower.

Fì'u.  I've always wondered about producing our own power.  I have had the idea of excercising to produce and store power for a home.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

IIRC a while ago on Popsci there was an article about some city (in Europe, I believe) that was theorizing about possibly putting special flooring into subway tunnels and other high-traffic areas, and getting energy from people's footsteps. Maybe I can find the article again later.

[Ningey]

That would be great if you found it.
I think I have heard about that, too, but I don't know any details any more.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Manpower.  Or horsepower.

Fì'u.  I've always wondered about producing our own power.  I have had the idea of excercising to produce and store power for a home.

Ultimately it is biomass power from food. Which pollutes a lot! (you exhale tons of carbon dioxide)

[Ningey]

Manpower.  Or horsepower.

Fì'u.  I've always wondered about producing our own power.  I have had the idea of excercising to produce and store power for a home.

Ultimately it is biomass power from food. Which pollutes a lot! (you exhale tons of carbon dioxide)

Well, if that were true, we wouldn't be alive any more since CO₂ levels would have risen to such levels that the entire ecosphere would have been all messed up by now, but it all worked out. Taken for itself this would be a closed circuit: CO₂ from the atmosphere is taken in by plants and with the aid of photosynthesis is converted to carbohydrates. In turn some animals eat the plants and convert the carbohydrates stored therein as source for their energy, thereby releasing CO₂ to the atmosphere (some of these animals are again eaten by others, and those that actually die are eventually decomposed, thereby also releasing CO₂).
Additionally there are other means of taking CO₂ out of the atmosphere: Some of it is solved in the water of the oceans where corals and certain types of algae are able to convert it to calcium carbonates and the likes, thereby taking it out of this circuit.

However, things have gone haywire with ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels being burned (be it for energy production, be it for mobility, etc.) and the CO₂ getting released into the atmosphere (in fact, these fossil fuels have been taken out of the atmosphere a long time ago when CO₂ levels have been rather high - the paleozoic coal age has its name for a reason), thereby throwing everything out of balance.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

If people-power would be used on a massive scale, it would be the same. People powering generators by pedaling, for example, would require lots of energy to keep going, which translates into a lot of food. A lot of food = lots of carbon dioxide from combustion. People do not move by magic and in fact are less efficient than coal burning generators.

[Eichhörnchen]

Kaltxì ma smuktu

IIRC a while ago on Popsci there was an article about some city (in Europe, I believe) that was theorizing about possibly putting special flooring into subway tunnels and other high-traffic areas, and getting energy from people's footsteps. Maybe I can find the article again later.

I'm not really sure, but maybe you mean this thread? 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/13/tech/innovation/pavegen-kinetic-pavements/index.html

Hope the link is correct.

Eywa ayngahu,

Eichhörnchen

[Ningey]

If people-power would be used on a massive scale, it would be the same. People powering generators by pedaling, for example, would require lots of energy to keep going, which translates into a lot of food. A lot of food = lots of carbon dioxide from combustion. People do not move by magic and in fact are less efficient than coal burning generators.

Well, the food they would have to consume would initially take the CO₂ out of the atmosphere which would in turn be released back into it. So that would make it a closed circuit.
Nevertheless there are two problems with this: First of all, where would you get all the food, and second, where do you get the people to get the job done? I don't think you are going to find that many volunteers (if any), and as far as slave labor is concerned... I guess I don't have to go into further detail on the latter...

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

If people-power would be used on a massive scale, it would be the same. People powering generators by pedaling, for example, would require lots of energy to keep going, which translates into a lot of food. A lot of food = lots of carbon dioxide from combustion. People do not move by magic and in fact are less efficient than coal burning generators.

Well, the food they would have to consume would initially take the CO₂ out of the atmosphere which would in turn be released back into it. So that would make it a closed circuit.
Nevertheless there are two problems with this: First of all, where would you get all the food, and second, where do you get the people to get the job done? I don't think you are going to find that many volunteers (if any), and as far as slave labor is concerned... I guess I don't have to go into further detail on the latter...

You can't make it a closed circuit. Something MUST go - that's the 1st law of thermodynamics. Or else, it would overall be a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Why does "people power" have to be like the proverbial "hamsters on wheels?" Where there are facilities where people take the job of running on treadmills or bikes to make power? (Sorry if that's not what you guys were talking about, that's what it seemed like to me). Why not simply incorporate infrastructure that takes advantage of human activity in our everyday lives? Such as that step energy system Eichhörnchen posted (and yes, that's the one )? Or maybe even using human waste as biomass? There's so much energy that we waste on a daily basis, such as the kinetic energy we put into walking down the street, or what we flush down the toilet, why not simply capture this energy?

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Why does "people power" have to be like the proverbial "hamsters on wheels?" Where there are facilities where people take the job of running on treadmills or bikes to make power? (Sorry if that's not what you guys were talking about, that's what it seemed like to me). Why not simply incorporate infrastructure that takes advantage of human activity in our everyday lives? Such as that step energy system Eichhörnchen posted (and yes, that's the one )? Or maybe even using human waste as biomass? There's so much energy that we waste on a daily basis, such as the kinetic energy we put into walking down the street, or what we flush down the toilet, why not simply capture this energy?

If those tiles are used too much, they will absorb too much kinetic energy and make walking strenuous. Any way, capturing the energy would do pretty much nothing, since it is very little. I seriously doubt that those floor tiles can generate enough energy in their lifetime to cover even 10 percent of the energy cost of making them.

For example, capturing your daily kinetic energy will not do any more than simply burning your lunch as fuel for the power plant and sleep the afternoon away. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!!! Just as nobody ever thought of running cars into little Merry-go-rounds to generate electricity. The reason why that wouldn't work is because gasoline->thermal energy->engine->kinetic energy->turbine->electrical energy is much more efficient than gasoline->thermal energy->engine->kinetic energy->wheels->rotational kinetic energy->merry-go-round->turbine->electricity.

Biomass power: food->engine->turbine->power
Human power: food->digestive system->people walking->90 percent walking, 10 percent converted->inefficient generator->power

1st trumps 2nd. And overall the chemical reactions are pretty much the same = equally polluting.

[Ningey]

You can't make it a closed circuit. Something MUST go - that's the 1st law of thermodynamics. Or else, it would overall be a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible.

If you looked at the energy flow, you are right. However, I have left that out of the equation since I haven't been interested in the flow and transportation of energies (here the energy would come from the sun, is taken up by photosynthesis to generate carbohydrates which in the final stage are converted to whatever other form of energy).
Instead I've had a look on the carbon cycle which is nevertheless a closed circuit (since no matter is actually destroyed the amount of matter in this circuit stays the same).
Since what you exhale as CO₂ is taken in by plants and converted to carbohydrates, the gas is effectively taken out of the atmosphere and bound in another form. With everything being balanced there wouldn't be any great fluctuations in CO₂ levels. It may be seesawing around some average value, but that's about it.
However, by using up fossil fuels (also CO₂ that had been in the atmosphere a very long time ago, but since some of the plants that had bound it and some of the animals that had consumed it didn't actually decompose but have been subjected to high temperatures and high pressure by closing out oxygen at the same time they eventually converted to oil, coal, and the likes) you are reintroducing CO₂ that has been taken out of the atmosphere a long time ago (as far back as the paleozoic) when the carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are now, thereby raising CO₂ levels again and causing the greenhouse effect.
The measurements taken by the NOAA and other entities speak volumes.

Back to the issue with nuclear power plants, one only has to look at recent events what disasters can happen. Take Chernobyl, that disaster has been due to faults in the plant's construction, thereby causing block 4 to outright explode.
Another source of disaster is a complete loss of power and backup systems being put out of order (as happened in Fukushima).

Both caused a dramatic increase in radioactivity in the vicinity and also spread the contamination across a large area (especially Chernobyl which got large parts of Northern Europe). Large areas around Chernobyl still remain uninhabitable.

Furthermore, when you have a look even at modern reactors there's still enough room for disaster, and someone with sufficiently malicious intent could even use them as a means of attack.

Sorry, in my eyes this entire thing is and will remain a gamble va banque.
The chances may not be high that anything happens - the aftermath of any such catastrophe is much more disastrous.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Why does "people power" have to be like the proverbial "hamsters on wheels?" Where there are facilities where people take the job of running on treadmills or bikes to make power? (Sorry if that's not what you guys were talking about, that's what it seemed like to me). Why not simply incorporate infrastructure that takes advantage of human activity in our everyday lives? Such as that step energy system Eichhörnchen posted (and yes, that's the one )? Or maybe even using human waste as biomass? There's so much energy that we waste on a daily basis, such as the kinetic energy we put into walking down the street, or what we flush down the toilet, why not simply capture this energy?

If those tiles are used too much, they will absorb too much kinetic energy and make walking strenuous. Any way, capturing the energy would do pretty much nothing, since it is very little. I seriously doubt that those floor tiles can generate enough energy in their lifetime to cover even 10 percent of the energy cost of making them.

For example, capturing your daily kinetic energy will not do any more than simply burning your lunch as fuel for the power plant and sleep the afternoon away. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!!! Just as nobody ever thought of running cars into little Merry-go-rounds to generate electricity. The reason why that wouldn't work is because gasoline->thermal energy->engine->kinetic energy->turbine->electrical energy is much more efficient than gasoline->thermal energy->engine->kinetic energy->wheels->rotational kinetic energy->merry-go-round->turbine->electricity.

Biomass power: food->engine->turbine->power
Human power: food->digestive system->people walking->90 percent walking, 10 percent converted->inefficient generator->power

1st trumps 2nd. And overall the chemical reactions are pretty much the same = equally polluting.

How would it make walking strenuous? All you are doing is replacing current flooring with tiles that absorb the energy put into them when they are stepped on. It would be no more strenuous to walk on than walking on current hard floors or sidewalks.

The car analogy is not a very good one, because in that situation you are constantly putting energy into the system solely for the sake of running the system, and processing it once it had already been used (movement from engine). The floor-tiles are a one-time energy input (construction, maybe occasional maintenance), which collect ambient energy from the people that step on them. They're not a "hamster on a wheel" scenario, as you seem to think they are. Rather, they are capturing energy that would otherwise be wasted from everyday movement. People are always going to be walking, and will be walking regardless of the tiles (in contrast to the car merry-go-round which is using cars FOR THE SOLE SAKE of the system), the tiles are simply added to recover the currently lost energy put into regular flooring.

As for whether they will make up their production energy? I think they will, given how many people walk down...say...Times Square, everyday, over a 20-30 year period.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

20 people STOMPING on the tiles for an hour will generate about as much energy as burning the lunch of ONE of the people. Conversion of kinetic energy from food's chemical energy by humans is INCREDIBLY inefficient.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

I think you underestimate just how many people pass over these tiles in an hour, and again, expand that out over years. Of course these tiles won't become a major energy source for the world, but every little bit within buildings/downtown areas helps. Each footstep is able to keep an LED charged for 30 seconds. If put in a place like Grand Central Station or the Mall of America, with high foot traffic, the energy could be used to supplement the grid or take certain appliances off the grid. Another important thing to remember is that the tiles are made from recycled materials, so their production energy is lower, and thus the energy-payback time for when they reach an "energy profit" so to speak, will be lower.

Let me ask you this. If this is really as bad an idea as you say it is, why are people investing in it in the first place? Or why did they receive an innovation award from Ecobuild 2010?

http://www.building4change.com/page.jsp?id=295

['Oma Tirea]

Why does "people power" have to be like the proverbial "hamsters on wheels?" Where there are facilities where people take the job of running on treadmills or bikes to make power? (Sorry if that's not what you guys were talking about, that's what it seemed like to me).

In fact, that is not what I was talking about.  I was thinking something small-scale (i.e. at the home), and perhaps also supplemented withsome other form of energy to compensate for inefficiencies.  Interesting job idea though...

[ExLibrisMortis]

The way it would cause walking to be more strenuous is that because this item is absorbing a force in a certain direction, for a human to maintain its current walkin habits, that human will need to exert even more force to overcome to loss in static friction. Simple physics with forces really. Fnet=M*a
If you add a negative force, aka an absorption, you have to add more force exerted to maintain the equality in the equation.

EDIT: All things considered, Nuclear energy is the safest, most eco-friendly power generation system, proportionally weighing the pros and cons.

Just an FYI, there are a total of 432 nuclear power plants worldwide. Only 3 have had major failures, those being Three Islands, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. Yet, even the latter one was overly done out to be a lot more devastating than it really was.

But I digress, to have a failure rate of .0069% is honestly quite acceptable. Nothing that we will ever do will come without risk. And in comparison to all others, the risk here is very low.

I posted this in another thread a while back. It's very enlightening when you think about the hard facts. Also, consider the sociological and technological impact that the use of the atom has done for humanity. It has brought to pass so many things that we enjoy today. We honestly could not have advanced as fast as we could without harnessing the power of the atom.

[Tsmuktengan]

Additionally, those tile would use far more ressources and energy in building, conception and maintenance than it would produce. There would be a lot of waste, far more than the energy we would produce by stepping on those tile.

[Ningey]

The way it would cause walking to be more strenuous is that because this item is absorbing a force in a certain direction, for a human to maintain its current walkin habits, that human will need to exert even more force to overcome to loss in static friction. Simple physics with forces really. Fnet=M*a
If you add a negative force, aka an absorption, you have to add more force exerted to maintain the equality in the equation.

EDIT: All things considered, Nuclear energy is the safest, most eco-friendly power generation system, proportionally weighing the pros and cons.

Just an FYI, there are a total of 432 nuclear power plants worldwide. Only 3 have had major failures, those being Three Islands, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. Yet, even the latter one was overly done out to be a lot more devastating than it really was.

But I digress, to have a failure rate of .0069% is honestly quite acceptable. Nothing that we will ever do will come without risk. And in comparison to all others, the risk here is very low.

I posted this in another thread a while back. It's very enlightening when you think about the hard facts. Also, consider the sociological and technological impact that the use of the atom has done for humanity. It has brought to pass so many things that we enjoy today. We honestly could not have advanced as fast as we could without harnessing the power of the atom.

However, one thing still remains unanswered: What to do with the nuclear wastes?
Since these waste products remain dangerous over extended periods of time you cannot just dump them anywhere, and out of sight, out of mind is also the wrong approach.
So what now?

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Store them away is NOT a bad solution. After a long time they are not radioactive anymore, and we can throw them out of the storage vessel and make things out of them.

And do note that a lot of radioactive uranium is down there anyway from natural sources.