Slashdot Mirror


Energy From Raindrops

conlaw writes to share that according to Discovery.com scientists have found a way to extract energy from rain. A new technique could utilize piezoelectric principles of a special kind of plastic to generate power from falling water in rainstorms or even commercial air conditioners. "The method relies on a plastic called PVDF (for polyvinylidene difluoride), which is used in a range of products from pipes, films, and wire insulators to high-end paints for metal. PVDF has the unusual property of piezoelectricity, which means it can produce a charge when it's mechanically deformed."

144 comments

  1. I can't believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    we learned how to extract power from raindrops, and still no one is extracting power from gyms :P

    1. Re:I can't believe... by 32771 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are quite wrong, treadmills have been used in the past to power all sorts of things. Here is an example:

      http://www.uic.edu/aa/college/gallery400/notions/histories.htm

      "The hospital of Bicêtre, France boasts a prodigiously deep well underneath, dating from 1735. The horizontal wheel that pumped the water was turned
        initially by twelve horses, then, starting in 1781, by 72 men, taking shifts on a 24 hr day. These workers were eventually replaced by epileptic
        patients and "madmen" in residence at the hospital."

      I would also challenge the notion that fluorinated plastics can be produced energy efficiently enough to actually produce an energy surplus by collecting raindrops. I might be wrong
      though, but out of laziness I'll leave the proof to somebody else.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    2. Re:I can't believe... by ralph90009 · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first I've heard of using piezoelectrics to collect power from rainwater. The last one was actually using a separate piezo element under a plastic sheet. Maybe the two research teams aught to put their heads together and try to double their yeild? P.S. Even if it's not a massive surplus, every little bit helps!

    3. Re:I can't believe... by jyjjy · · Score: 1

      patients and "madmen" in residence at the hospital."

      Wasn't this kind of thing shown in the movie Midnight Express?

    4. Re:I can't believe... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1
      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:I can't believe... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My organic instructor was a serious mathaholic, in class she demonstrated on the board to the class that 1 inch of rain falling on Manhattan released the same amount of energy as a 15 KT nuclear explosion.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:I can't believe... by Superballs · · Score: 1

      I kind of like the idea of using gym equippment to generate energy. I'm no physisist by any stretch of the imagination but even though the energy, to my understanding, created by one individual may seem negligible, the collective energy produced could at least reduce something's power consumption.

      If I recall correctly wasn't a half an hour of the Superbowl's pregame show's energy produced by humans working out on stationary equippment?

      I wouldn't want to rely on this means of generation to power critical devices, but I do believe that we should start taking steps to optimize energy production and take every little bit we can.

      A penny saved is a penny earned so to speak...dig?

      ----

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....Ooh! That's a real Rolex you say?

      --
      Howe due yoo keap uh gramur natsee bizzy four ours?
    7. Re:I can't believe... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      British prisons used to do it. Though the amount of work you can get from humans is so low that they mostly wasted the energy by attaching vanes to the mill that made it harder for the prisoners to work.

      http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16322007.600-the-last-word.html

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:I can't believe... by BlackTarw · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much energy could be harvested from rain water flowing through drain pipes? Maybe little water wheels stacked one above the other?

  2. who is john galt? by superwiz · · Score: 1

    well, that's not exactly the galt engine, but it sure smacks of that sentiment.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:who is john galt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > well, that's not exactly the galt engine, but it sure smacks of that sentiment.

      A source of energy, thousands of times more powerful than conventional energy, had been developed. Some folks, like Galt, wanted to use it to power the world. Other folks had other plans in mind. Remember that other project that Ferris and Stadler of the State Science Institute were working on? The "non-profit venture"? Go back and re-read the description of both the project's output, rationale for funding, and ultimate purpose...

      The book was written in 1948. What source of energy had captured the minds of the public, thousands of times more powerful than conventional energy, had just been developed, and what product based on that energy, having been developed by an extremely expensive and secretive non-profit venture, and completely lacking in commercial value, had just been unveiled to the world as the means to end all war?

      Read between the lines. Galt's engine has existed, in the real world, for over 60 years.

      That's the subtext of the entire book -- if you have a mind, you have a choice: do you use it to build your world, or do you use it to subjugate your world?

    2. Re:who is john galt? by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (It's worth noting hydroelectric dams have been used for power generation for a long time now)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:who is john galt? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      The book was first published in 1957. She worked on it for 7 years. As for the claim of nuclear power being Galt's engine of the real world, I'd say it's a stretch. Having said, the perspective on the book that you point out is actually new to me. So thanks. Certainly examples can be easily constructed that show how it applies in the world of the Internet. I guess what struck me about the rain drops is the visual itself. Both Galt's engine and the the raindrops seem to draw on energy from essentially thin air. Of course, the analogy stops there.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:who is john galt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > The book was first published in 1957.

      Serves me right for not checking the copyright date; that's still about the time that atomic power came into vogue and captured the public imagination... at the time it was even regarded as pollution-free :)

      In the instant when he focused his lens, a goat was pulling at its chain, reaching placidly for a tall, dry thistle. In the next instant, the goat rose into the air, upturned, its legs stretched upward and jerking, then fell into a gray pile made of seven goats in convulsions. By the time Dr. Stadler believed it, the pile was motionless, except for one beast's leg sticking out of the mass, stiff as a rod and shaking as in a strong wind. The farmhouse tore into strips of clapboard and went down, followed by a geyser of the bricks of its chimney. The tractor vanished into a pancake. The water tower cracked andits shreds hit the ground white its wheel was still describing a long curve through the air, as if of its own leisurely volition. The steel beams and girders of the solid new trestle collapsed like a structure of matchsticks under the breath of a sigh. It was so swift, so uncontested, so simple, that Dr. Stadler felt no horror, he felt nothing, it was not the reality he had known, it was the realm of a child's nightmare where material objects could be dissolved by means of a single malevolent wish.

      If you haven't watched any of the old civil defense / atomic test footage, check it out. Most of it is public domain and all over YouTube, but if you want a real treat, throw Trinity and Beyond onto your Netflix. The deteriorating original stock (some of which was declassified for the movie) has been painstakingly restored by Peter Kuran -- who did the special effects for Star Wars, and you get get none other than William Shatner narrating. You'll see the goats (I'm working from memory, I'm pretty sure there were goats, they also used sheep and pigs) on chains, you'll definitely see the clapboard farmhouse fail exactly as described, and I'm pretty sure the footage of the trestle is there too.

      It's beautiful engineering, and Rand and I would part company on the notion that no private enterprise would have funded it; although she's correct that no private enterprise could have funded the Manhattan Project (it was a material component of GDP and electrical consumption during WW2, entirely out of reach of any private company of the time, imagine a dozen Googles and a couple of Microsofts' worth of capital being dedicated to one task), without the technology that went into the Bomb, we wouldn't have the ability to enrich fuel for power.

      But to get back to the topic at hand, I'd had the idea since first reading about Galt's engine, but any doubts about Galt's engine and the link to Project X were erased by that paragraph.

  3. Ideas! by buanzo · · Score: 1

    One for the floor of your shower.

    --
    Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
    1. Re:Ideas! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      That gives you a nice buzz in the morning. Bzzzt!

      --
      Je me souviens.
    2. Re:Ideas! by buanzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh. How long until ThinkGeek start selling the ShowerBuzzer with Self-Power option? :P

      --
      Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
    3. Re:Ideas! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Fits right in between Jolt Beverages and Shower Shock Caffeinated Soap.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    4. Re:Ideas! by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Having the floor of your shower deform when you step on it might not be so nice...

  4. Lincolnshire could the power house of the world... by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 4, Funny

    The amount of rain we get here. :-)

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
  5. Portland will be King! by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, Portland is trying to gain the title of the renewable energy capital of the United States and this would be awesome in the whole Pacific Northwest as they slowly ween themselves off the major dam systems they build up over the past 80 years.

  6. Oblig Gene Kelly reference by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    These things don't generate much energy, but should be enough to power a perpetual tiny rendition of Gene Kelly' 1952 hit film.

    1. Re:Oblig Gene Kelly reference by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

      should be enough to power a perpetual tiny rendition of Gene Kelly' 1952 hit film.

      Would that be "Watching 'Singing in the rain' in the rain"? That would make a catchy song! "I'm watching Singing in the rain in the rain, I'm watching Singing in the rain in the rain, what a glorious feeling, I'm happy again!"

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  7. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or just collect the water and run it through a water mill. WTF??

    1. Re:meh by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because with this, you can just put them on the roof! Under the solar panels! Oh . . . wait, no. On top of the solar panels! No, that won't work either . . .

      Seriously, though, if it actually worked, it might be an alternative in a spot that gets enough rain / regular cloud cover to reduce the attractiveness of solar. I guess.

    2. Re:meh by mikael · · Score: 1

      You have a gutter below the solar panels on the roof. This collects the rain water and funnels it down a sprinkler onto the set of piezo-electric raindrop energy generators. This water then runs off down a couple of water-wheels before being collected into storage barrels, where it is gradually released and drives a micro-miniature water turbine.

      Imagine all the energy that is going to be created!!!

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:meh by fbjon · · Score: 1

      You can put it on the south side of the roof (for north hemispherians). Add a wind turbine or a few, and you've covered the majority of weather conditions.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    4. Re:meh by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Do both! Let the rain fall in a big pit lined with this, and let the water run off into a collection tank which feeds a watermill.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:meh by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's almost enough energy to hoist it up there in the first place!

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:meh by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Collecting the water and running it through a mill only takes advantage of the drop from the roof to thr ground, where this device takes advantage of the larger drop from cloud level. That said, there's no reason that you can't line your collection pan with this stuff and still use waterwheels in downspouts. I'm also guessing that a waterwheel can do a better job of extracting energy than this plastic, so for taller buildings (closer to the cloud/farther from the ground) I can see turbines winning out.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    7. Re:meh by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd be willing to bet that a raindrop reaches terminal velocity in a very short distance making the difference in height between a roof top and a cloud irreleveant.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    8. Re:meh by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 3, Informative

      Terminal velocity for raindrops is around 9 m/s (slower for smaller drops, like drizzle). Acceleration is 9.8 m/s/s. So big raindrops reach terminal velocity in 9/9.8 = 0.9 seconds, during which time they fall 0.5*a*t*t = 0.5*9.8*0.9*0.9 = 4 metres = 13 feet.

  8. B.J. B.J. Over there on Bass Guitar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Raindrops keep fallin' on my head
    And just like the guy whose feet are too big for his bed
    Nothin' seems to fit
    Those raindrops are fallin' on my head, they keep fallin'

    So I just did me some talkin' to the sun
    And I said I didn't like the way he got things done
    Sleepin' on the job
    Those raindrops are fallin' on my head, they keep fallin'

    But there's one thing I know
    The blues they send to meet me won't defeat me
    It won't be long till happiness steps up to greet me

    Raindrops keep fallin' on my head
    But that doesn't mean my eyes will soon be turnin' red
    Cryin's not for me
    'Cause I'm never gonna stop the rain by complainin'
    Because I'm free
    Nothin's worryin' me

    [trumpet]

    It won't be long till happiness steps up to greet me

    Raindrops keep fallin' on my head
    But that doesn't mean my eyes will soon be turnin' red
    Cryin's not for me
    'Cause I'm never gonna stop the rain by complainin'
    Because I'm free
    Nothin's worryin' me

  9. Let's think about this for a second... by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2

    Whatever happened to water wheels? We have been using them for thousands of years.

    1. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by FroBugg · · Score: 3, Informative

      We upgraded to hydroelectric dams, which provide a very significant amount of power both in the United States and worldwide. China's still working on the Three Gorges Dam, the biggest ever.

      Unfortunately, the US is tapped out on hydroelectric. There really is nowhere for us to put in additional ones, and the ones we already have are often cited as concerns with regards to environmental impact and municipal water supplies.

    2. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hydroelectric dams are not quite as good, in theory, as power from raindrops. The sun heats up water, which evaporates and forms clouds. These then fall a long way (lose a lot of potential energy, mostly turning it into kinetic energy and losing some as heat to air resistance) and are caught in a reservoir and lose all of their kinetic energy. They then fall a bit further over a turbine, but by this time they have lost most of their energy.

      Now, if you could build a completely frictionless waterwheel and put it underneath each raindrop, you would get a lot more energy than if you caught the same raindrop in a bucket and then let it drip onto the water wheel (which is effectively what a hydroelectric plant does). There are two problems with this idea. The first is that rain falls over a large area. The total energy from all of the raindrops is a lot, but the individual energy is quite small. The reason hydroelectric seems like a good idea is that, although you only capture a small fraction of the energy from each drop, water falls in to the reservoir from the surrounding hills, so you are capturing rain drops from a very wide area. Once you concentrate rain enough, your losses to friction become a lot less (try building a waterwheel that will spin when a single raindrop hits it, then try building one that will spin when you pour a bucket of water on it and see which is easier).

      This piezoelectric idea is quite neat, because it allows you to capture a significant proportion of the energy from each rain drop and convert it directly into electricity (although you'll probably lose a lot transforming it into anything that you can draw a stable current from). It has the same problem that the hypothetical rain-powered water wheel had, however, and the same problem solar power has: You need a lot of surface area to get a decent amount of energy out. If we assume that it is twice the power output per unit rain of a hydroelectric plant (water falling more than twice the height, but lower efficiency power conversion. Entirely made up number, but probably within an order of magnitude) then it will need half the area of the hydroelectric plant to generate the same amount of power. Note that this isn't just the area of the reservoir, it's the total area that rain falls.

      Some more back-of-an-envelope calculations:

      Annual rainfall where I live is around 1-3 metres (more slightly inland than on the coast). Let's say 2m as an average. Cumulous cloud (the kind that typically causes rain) forms at 2-16km. Picking a number somewhere in the middle, let's say 8km for the average distance rain drops fall. That means, every year, two cubic metres of rain fall 8km per square metre of ground. That's 2,000 litres, which means roughly 2,000 kg. The total energy in this is calculated as mgh, so: 2,000 x 9.8 x 8,000 = 156,800,000 J.

      That sounds like a big number, so let's break it down. Electricity is usually sold in kWh. One W is one J/s, so one kWh is 3,600,000J. That means this gives us 43.5kWh/year energy generation for every square metre of land we allocate for it (note: I am assuming 100% efficiency here, while I would be really surprised if it got 20% in the real world). The average household uses something in the range of 3-4MWh of electricity per year, so you would need 1,000 m^2, or roughly a 30x30m area of land per house. Assuming a more reasonable efficiency, you're looking at somewhere closer to 60x60m, which is still under an acre. Of course, you could probably combine this with solar energy, since solar power is pretty useless when it's raining and so you wouldn't need to supply the entire house's electricity with just this. If they can get efficiency to the 10-20% range, it seems feasible for a lot of uses.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you'd get more energy from this material by having strips of it fluttering in the wind.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    4. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Aaron+Isotton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Annual rainfall where I live is around 1-3 metres (more slightly inland than on the coast). Let's say 2m as an average. Cumulous cloud (the kind that typically causes rain) forms at 2-16km. Picking a number somewhere in the middle, let's say 8km for the average distance rain drops fall. That means, every year, two cubic metres of rain fall 8km per square metre of ground. That's 2,000 litres, which means roughly 2,000 kg. The total energy in this is calculated as mgh, so: 2,000 x 9.8 x 8,000 = 156,800,000 J.


      The calculation seems to be correct but the concepts don't hold.

      The *potential* energy of the rain can indeed be calculated using m*g*h as you said. The piezoelectric panels convert the rain's *kinetic* energy to electricity. The kinetic energy on impact is *not* equal to the potential energy, because most of it is lost to air friction.

      As others pointed out, the speed of a rain drop is around 8 m/s. This means that the kinetic energy of your 2t of water is E = mv^2 = 2000 * 64 = 128,000J. You're three orders of magnitude off.
    5. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Terminal velocity for raindrops appears to be about 20mph, or about 32km/h, or about 9 m/s and that's for extremely large drops in huge storms. They would hit that after falling for about 1 second.. so all that extra altitude wouldn't seem to be helping at all.

      Your calculation would the be 2000 * 9.8 = 19,200 J

      http://www.shorstmeyer.com/wxfaqs/float/rdtable.html

    6. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Why not both? Wouldnt a horizontal sheet have only a short list of vectors from which wind would cause no turbulence, so most winds would?

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    7. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Informative

      Annual rainfall where I live is around 1-3 metres (more slightly inland than on the coast). Let's say 2m as an average. Cumulous cloud (the kind that typically causes rain) forms at 2-16km. Picking a number somewhere in the middle, let's say 8km for the average distance rain drops fall. That means, every year, two cubic metres of rain fall 8km per square metre of ground. That's 2,000 litres, which means roughly 2,000 kg. The total energy in this is calculated as mgh, so: 2,000 x 9.8 x 8,000 = 156,800,000 J.

      Unfortunately, this is wrong. A raindrop doesn't keep on accelerating all of these 8 kilometers; it will reach it's terminal velocity, at which point the deceleration due to air resistance exactly cancels the acceleration due to gravity. Since raindrops are small, their surface area is large compared to their mass, so I'd imagine the terminal velocity to be rather small - which is a good thing, otherwise we'd get our skulls crushed to powder by rain, but sadly means that we can't extract all that much power from a single raindrop.

      Actually, I checked, and according to WonderQuest, the average speed of a raindrop is between 2 (for small ones) to 9 (for large ones) meters per second. Since kinetic energy is mv^2, this works out to between 2000kg * 2m/s * 2m/s = 8000J (= 0.002 kWh) and 2000kg * 9m/s * 9m/s = 162 000J (= 0.045 kWh) per square meter per year.

      Since the price of electricity is about 0.07 euros per kWh where I live, and a square meter of this thing would need about 22 years to produce a single kWh under optimal conditions and assuming a 100% efficient conversion, I don't think that it is a good investment.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hups ! That should be 0.5*mv^2. So the above figures are twice as good as they should be - it's going to take 44 years to produce a single kWh per square meter :(.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The distance that the raindrop falls is irrelevant when calculating the energy available when it hits the ground -- the velocity is what matters. You are imagining that you can capture the entirety of the potential energy that the raindrop contains before it starts falling, when in reality, you are limited to capturing the kinetic energy it contains when it lands. So if air resistance happens to slow the drop down, you are losing energy well before the drop ever gets to your system. Googling says that the terminal velocity for a drop of rain is generally less than 10 meters/second.

      From velocity=acceleration*time, you can infer that the rain drop is reaching that velocity in about a second, after falling about 10 meters(OK, so it would be going slightly slower than 10 m/s and have fallen somewhat less than 10 meters, whatever). So your availability calculation should be 2000*9.8*10=196,000 J, a factor of 800 less than what you stated. So if your device is 100% efficient, my still generous estimate is that you would need 800,000 square meters, not 1000, which is more like 900 meters on a side, and more like 200 acres.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Problem: not all of the GPE will get converted to kinetic. A raindrop is pretty small so it will, I think, have a low terminal velocity. Hence after a relatively speaking short distance, it will lose GPE to friction rather than increasing its speed.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    11. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but what if we took all the water flowing out of hydroelectric dams... or hell all the water flowing EVERYWHERE... through pipes... in storm drains... anywhere water flows... and use a technology like this: http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=5117 ... to "exploit the natural electrokinetic properties of a liquid such as ordinary tap water".

    12. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      A better idea, perhaps, would be a massive cascade of these things, angle slightly downwards, so that rain would hit, drip off, fall for about a second, hit another, drip off, etc. That distance is about 9/19.6=.45m. So for approximately each additional half meter, you are gaining another unit area.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    13. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      The only reason this is better than one is because the rain that hits it has less drag force on it (D=1/2 rho Area v^2). You could cascade them so that the drops reach 8 m/s each time. That might be cool.

    14. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since air is not frictionless, raindrops are traveling at their terminal velocity of 20 mph or so after a few meters' drop. So your multiplication by 8000 is way off -- most of that energy is lost to friction with air.

    15. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Dulimano · · Score: 1

      I didn't check your calculation, but if it is correct, that would mean that you need a 4800mx4800m area to permanently provide energy for one 60W lightbulb. (sqrt(60.0/0.045*365*24*2))

    16. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I'd like a shirt made of this stuff. It could probably provide enough to charge a cellphone, or a soldier's communications device.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    17. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      I think that's what the parent meant...
      .
      Either way - for a given size, would that generate more or less power than funnelling it all through a hydro-electric dam?

      The original premise was "This is better than a dam, as the rain falls farther".. but that's not the case.. so where's the benefit?

    18. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by aevans · · Score: 1

      Your typical rain falls from 2000-4000 feet, or approximate 1km about the surface.

    19. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Well it might be more efficient than a dam depending on how much friction other water generates vs air (although I think I could argue that it's more). Also, depending on the efficiency of the plastic vs frictional losses by the generator, it might be more efficient per a dollar spent. In any case, unless the mass production of this plastic would be egregiously harmful, you wouldn't need to make dams and screw up rivers for this solution. I'd like to see the numbers on this.

    20. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      No - you'd need to cover square kilometers with multiple sheets of plastic in layers stacked up for kilometers.

      Also note that the point is to drive kinetic energy into the plastic - putting the plastic at an angle to allow a cascade necessarily means less energy extracted at each level.

    21. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by ErkDemon · · Score: 1

      or use it as a lining for sports shoes! :)

    22. Re:Let's think about this for a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you could probably combine this with solar energy, since solar power is pretty useless when it's raining...


      Extra nice if the material was produced as a transparent film that could cover the solar cells. Making power rain or shine!

  10. Our Worries Are Over by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they put this stuff on the floor around the urinals at my local bar, we could meet Canada's energy needs for the next hundred years.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Our Worries Are Over by COMICAGOGO · · Score: 1

      I tip my hat to you sir, I was just going to post the same thing. I read the summary and thought to myself, "does this work with piss?" I am sorry that you managed to post about it first.

      Seriously, though, this could be a very revolutionary technology for areas that have a lot of rainfall and not much sun. I my area you could put rings of this stuff under the trees and power the whole place.

    2. Re:Our Worries Are Over by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Ah, a Left Coaster, I'm guessing. I have friends and relatives out there. Pale, stoned people who seem to have a lot more fun than me.

      This does seem to offer some promise. It would take quite a while, I'm thinking, to slow the planet's rotation by making use of the kinetic energy of raindrops.

      And I don't doubt you'd have beaten me to the post if I hadn't noticed just last night how nice it was to have worn waterproof winter boots to the pub.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Our Worries Are Over by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "If they put this stuff on the floor around the urinals at my local bar, we could meet Canada's energy needs for the next hundred years."

      If they trapped the runoff from under the urinals at your local bar, they could sell it as American beer.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  11. everything produces energy by xzvf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything that moves can produce energy. The point is how much and at what cost to capture and reuse or store. I can solar panels on my roof for about 15K that averages about $120 a month. About a 10 year payback. A wind turbine that generates about 20% of my needs would cost 5K and have a payback of 15 years. Strapping a motion generator to myself and family to produce enough power to charge cell phones doesn't appear to ever justify the initial cost. Raindrop system.... call me when it costs the same as a shingle.

    1. Re:everything produces energy by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Anything that moves can produce energy. The point is how much and at what cost to capture and reuse or store."

      Mod parent up. He's exactly right. I'm tired of hearing about all these hairbrained schemes to find new sources of power, only to read it costs thousands to implement and only creates a couple kilowatt an hour (if that much!), compared to just buying it at the rate of 7 to 10 cents per kWh.

      That's why we don't have water wheels on all our drain spouts because you'd never recoup the initial investment even though water wheels have been around for over a thousand years. You have to store the energy in batteries and convert it to work with a standard AC household. All of that is very expensive.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    2. Re:everything produces energy by Presence2 · · Score: 1

      ROI is not the only consideration for alternative energy. Quit asking "what's it in for me" while looking at your wallet and go visit a stream near a coal plant, or take a deep breath in a city, or look at the evening news about Iraq and ask yourself what the ROI really is. You sir, are exactly why we have these problems in the first place; cheaper is not always better.

    3. Re:everything produces energy by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Anything that moves can produce energy. The point is how much and at what cost to capture and reuse or store. I can solar panels on my roof for about 15K that averages about $120 a month. About a 10 year payback. Yeah, about that. Does that include your opportunity cost, where you could put that $15k in a very very safe FDIC-insured 4% savings account / CD / money market account, and make $50 a month off it? Then that's more of a... 18-year payback. (Longer if you can get a better return off of riskier investments. Like stocks, and bonds, and such.)
      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:everything produces energy by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Clean energy was killed by the very environmentalists who tout it. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.

      Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of curiosities such as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that didn't.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon.

      Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!

      If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them, drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.

      -Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil.
      -We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether.
      -We could have electric cars.
      -Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year).
      -Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what little they do produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)

      --
      The government can't save you.
    5. Re:everything produces energy by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Yeah! World peace through nuclear pacification!! That'll teach those tree huggers! (Yes, that is someone's sig. I hope they don't mind me borrowing it.)

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    6. Re:everything produces energy by aevans · · Score: 1

      Paying some guy with a turban on his head to drill a hole in the ground, and then paying another guy with an eastern European accent to drive a big boat halfway across the world, and paying everyone else in between, including paying the CEO of Exxon-Mobil to bribe the president of the United States into prosecuting a war and paying another guy with a turban on his head to pump your gas actually turns out to be cheaper, and will pay itself off a hundred times over in the typical day's commute. Oil is just chock full of energ isn't it? It would be a shame to throw it away for something as compatively inefficient as the rain-o-tran is compared to solar panels and wind turbines.

  12. Let's sink about this for a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Unfortunately, the US is tapped out on hydroelectric."

    Would that be pre or post global warming after the ocean levels have risen?

  13. Definitely vapourware ... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    ... but whether this means it really produces power from water vapour, or is an idea they cannot implement is unclear.

    1. Re:Definitely vapourware ... by normuser · · Score: 0

      Nonono, Water vapour is the gas form, TFA is talking about the liquid form falling from the sky.
      see Precipitation wiki for more.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      XXX#######
  14. Hey I've got one too! by skulgnome · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's build a very large vat. I mean it has to be huge. Then collect lots of rainwater in it, and stick a mechanism that changes outflow into something that can be used to spin a generator. Boom, electrical energy from rain!

    Of course this is still just indirect-indirect-indirect solar power, as always. But jeez, do you have to make things so complex by default? Is this the "innovation-promoting" effect of patenting?

    1. Re:Hey I've got one too! by foxxer · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but didn't you just build a dam on a nice canyon-y river?

    2. Re:Hey I've got one too! by skulgnome · · Score: 1

      Of course I'm not sarcastic. Would you not buy a used car from someone named "skulgnome"? Hm? Do you have something against gnomes? "Diminutive jews", I heard someone say.

      The device I described is of course known as ELECTRORAINIMATOR in the civilized (i.e., non-US) world. It has been the trade secret of my family line for the past four centuries.

    3. Re:Hey I've got one too! by p4ul13 · · Score: 1

      Let's all give Foxxer a big round of applause. If there's anything that's funnier than a science joke, it's somebody explaining a science joke to everybody who already got it.

      Take a bow sir!

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    4. Re:Hey I've got one too! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Is this the "innovation-promoting" effect of patenting?
      This thing captures (some of) the kinetic energy of the falling raindrops; this energy is lost in your vat.

      I wonder how this material stacks up, in terms of cost and surface area per generated Wh, against a vat up on a pole with a water wheel and a generator. Hey, you can even combine the two: shingle your roof with this new material, and put a small generating turbine at the bottom of the drainpipe. Even so I doubt that you can generate significant amounts of energy from it, a solar panel + battery is a better choice if you need power off the grid. Even in overcast conditions a solar panel generates a little electricity.

      Anyone did the math on this, something like average nr of drops / (s . m^2) * weight of an average raindrop * velocity of an average raindrop ^2, to get an idea of the power you can generate from falling rain.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  15. Great! Now I need to buy another cell phone! by tsjaikdus · · Score: 1

    I have one powered by a generator attached to my knee joint. One to a string vibrating in the wind outside. One to my hamster. I'm seriously running out of cell phones by now. I'm starting to feel guilty not using more of this green energy.

  16. Re:Ohhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey asshole, it's spelled "loser". Looser is the opposite of tighter. Jackass.

  17. Energy from ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... my arse. I can collect the power of farts and even patent the method.

  18. why rain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sew it into flags and power your house by being patriotic. make it into windows on skyscrapers and power them from wind turbulance. pave the streets with it and recoup energy from vehicles passing by. replace windmills that kill birds with fluttering strips of it in pretty colors. make strips of it that look like kelp and line tidal areas and river bottoms with it to help the fish and generate power at the same time. there are lots better possibilities than waiting for it to rain.

    1. Re:why rain? by jrmcferren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not put into floors of buildings, that way the building get energy from people walking around. Also put in in sidewalks that way the same principal would work for people walking on the street.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    2. Re:why rain? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Actually, considering that large buildings are designed to sway, it would indeed be possible to generate power at the top by putting a heavy weight there and generating power as it moved with respect to the building.

      Of course, the problem is that a weight that could generate a meaningful amount of power would unbalance the building as it slide from side to side.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  19. Let's do the math on this one by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Informative
    Hmm, raindrops... Why didn't someone think of this before? For a good reason:

    • Let's be generous and assume it's raining all the time.
    • And it's a real gully-washer, say an inch an hour.
    • And let's be really generous and assume this gadget captures 50% of the energy of falling water.
    • And each raindrop is at maximum terminal velocity, about 10MPH.
    • So that's about 700000 gallons of water per day per acre falling at 10MPH.
    • Which works out about 6 million pounds per acre per day at 10MPH.
    • Which is about 100 million foot-pounds per day per acre.
    • But that's only 1157 foot-pounds per second, barely 2 horsepower.
    • Roughly 750 watts at 50% efficiency.
    • Or roughly 17 milliwatts per square foot.
    • Or at ten cents a kwh, it's making almost 100 watt-hours a year, or almost a penny.
    1. Re:Let's do the math on this one by baadger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another way of looking at it is a 1 inch puddle of of water covering 1 acre is going to weigh approximately 100 tonnes. Falling at 10 MPH, (~4.5 m/s) and using E = 0.5mv^2 the maximum amount of kinetic energy here is approximately 1 Megajoule, which over an hour is about 280 watts.

    2. Re:Let's do the math on this one by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      It would be better to collect all this 700 000 gallons of water with some roof installed several meters high and run water turbine with water falling down. Of course you have then 700000 gallons of water per day, which you can slightly filter and you hve drinking water. Pure profit, and no ???.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:Let's do the math on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wow, I'm still unsure whether you intentionally mixed the largest amount of different not easily convertible units together, or that's just the way it is when calculating with antiquated measures.

      To recap: inch/hour, miles/hour, gallons/(day*acre), pounds/(acre*day), (foot*pound)/(day*acre), (foot*pound)/second, horsepower, watts, kilowatt*hour, watt*hour/day

      Sure, with metric measures the list would be just as long, but you would find the same units used everywhere instead of switching between inches, miles, feet, etc.

    4. Re:Let's do the math on this one by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Furlongs per fortnight?

    5. Re:Let's do the math on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you pedantic twit. If you couldn't understand it then maybe YOU need to go back to school.

  20. But by cyofee · · Score: 0

    Can it be used to run Linux?

  21. Obvious Application by Is+It+Obvious · · Score: 1

    I would think the most obvious application would be as a lining for highway and rail beds, maybe even sidewalks and streets in some places. True, the variations in traffic load would determine your capacity for a C/B analysis to decide where to install the systems but if the carbon cost to manufacture the material is offset by the by the "carbon-less" power generated (discounting vehicle consumption), then why not take advantage of all that free vibration? I can see where this might be able to generate substantial amounts of power in major metropolitan areas either for direct consumer consumption or to run latent and ubiquitous powered infrastructure like traffic signals (with a grid back up, natch).

    1. Re:Obvious Application by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Snicker. What ever energy you could leach from passing traffic, just gets added to the power requirement of the traffic. Would you reduce gas mileage by 0.5% just to make a couple hundred of watts? You're likely to expend more energy creating this magic material than it will ever produce in its lifetime.

    2. Re:Obvious Application by Is+It+Obvious · · Score: 1

      Like I said, if the C/B analysis passes muster. Snicker. Here's a hint. Don't reply like a smartass and I won't treat you like one.

  22. Missing something much larger? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    This energy is just drops in the bucket compared to what they could get from lightning.

  23. If at first you don't succeed... by p4ul13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...this breakthrough comes after failed attempts to generate power from roses, whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens.

    These are a few of those researchers favorite things.

    --
    Paul Lenhart writes words!
    1. Re:If at first you don't succeed... by LuxMaker · · Score: 1

      Actually the researchers were tired of singing the same old song, "Raindrops keep fallin on my head." and decided to convert their irritation to energy.

      --
      I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
  24. The Rain (poem) by sjbe · · Score: 1

    THE RAIN
    --found in Architect's Creek Hut, Westland Nat'l Park, New Zealand

    It rained and rained and rained
    The average fall was well maintained
    And when the tracks were simple bogs,
    it started raining cats & dogs

    After a drought of half an hour
    We had a most refreshing shower,
    And then most curious thing of all,
    A gently rain began to fall!

    Next day but one was fairly dry
    Save for one deluge from the sky
    Which wetted the party to the skin
    And then, at last, the rain set in.

    1. Re:The Rain (poem) by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that sounds like the town I grew up in, which had an annual rainfall of 1000 mm.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  25. Some Back of The Envelope Calculations by Grond · · Score: 4, Informative

    A typical raindrop has a fall velocity of about 8 m/s. Assuming a pretty healthy rainfall of 10cm (4 inches) we get 100 liters of water per square meter of land. 100 liters of water weighs 100kg, of course, and plugging that into the equation for kinetic energy gives us 6400 joules. Spread out over 2 hours, that's a whopping .89 watts per square meter.

    All of that assumes 100% conversion efficiency and no losses due to standing water absorbing the impact of the drops. If the overall efficiency is, say, 50%, then you'd need something like 30 square meters to light a single compact fluorescent bulb. To generate a megawatt would require over 2 million square meters (over 500 acres).

    Given that in most places it rains less often than the sun shines, this seems like an astonishingly inefficient way to generate electricity. There just isn't that much energy in rainfall.

    1. Re:Some Back of The Envelope Calculations by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that in most places it rains less often than the sun shines, this seems like an astonishingly inefficient way to generate electricity.

      But it's a great way to generate research money.

    2. Re:Some Back of The Envelope Calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big does it need to be to power an electronic flood gauge?

  26. Pigeon Power! by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

    Just imagine: if this stuff panned out, it would not only be rain that could deform it. It could be deformed by say birds walking on it (toughen it against claws). So instead of cities trying to actively chase pigeons away (some places chase them on the ground with dogs and in the air with falcons, etc.) and the "don't feed the pigeons" signs - you would instead see "feed the pigeons right HERE." (where the special plastic is). Hopefully they get some of that rain working for them to, to wash the pigeon poop off the plastic though.

    1. Re:Pigeon Power! by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget self-powering In The Groove cabinets :)

      (Or for the other 99.9% of you who don't know what ITG is... Dance Dance Revolution cabinets)

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  27. Golly, one whole microwatt? by gregor-e · · Score: 1

    This is more newsworthy as an arcane Rube Goldberg method of extracting energy than as anything remotely practical. You could extract more power by implanting braces of dissimilar metals in the mouths of two teens, then forming a battery when they kiss.

  28. More effective way to get energy. by boombasticman · · Score: 1

    Collecting the heat energy of the gasious output of your local politicians would gain much more energy for free. You only have to convince them to speak into the pipe of your selfmade heatcollector instead of the microphone.

  29. Floors? by haeger · · Score: 1
    Obviously I didn't read the article, what kind of slashdotter would I be if I did that, but what's with the focus on rain? Why not put something like this where there are lots of people moving about? Shopping malls, trainstations, airports... I'm not sure how much energy it produces but it might be enough to justify the cost. Also it would be locally produced electricity, something that's very high fashion right now.

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  30. who tagged this vaporware? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Now, if they could get energy from steam, THAT would be vaporwa... oh wait, nevermind.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  31. Can I make raincoats out of this? by mrs+clear+plastic · · Score: 1

    This stuff would be great for my lighted clear plastic raincoats!

    www.clearplastic.com

    --
    Cleara
  32. Already done? by Edgester · · Score: 1

    Um, don't we already do this? I mean hydroelectric dams harness the power of rain as it flows from higher elevations to lower elevations.

    1. Re:Already done? by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      Well yes, but _if_ it could be done efficiently and on a sufficient scale, wouldn't it be a second bite at the cherry? First you could get the piezoelectric effect as the rain hit the 'ground' then secondly, once it had been channeled get the second bite at the dam itself? OK all it may ever be (due to those laws of thermodynamics) is an offset rather than a net gain in our energy requirements but maybe that is better than nothing? Personally I think we have the technology (which will improve in efficiency over time) but I wonder how much space it will take up on the surface of the earth forcing more and more of us to city-like urban dwellings as the rest of the natural world is taken up with the kit we need just to keep those city dwellers alive..?

  33. Is this sarcasm or irony? by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Portland is trying to gain the title of the renewable energy capital of the United States and this would be awesome in the whole Pacific Northwest as they slowly ween themselves off the major dam systems they build up over the past 80 years

    Do you mean hydroelectric power isn't renewable? Hydro power *is* energy from raindrops, where do you think the water in the rivers came from?
    1. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by jdray · · Score: 1

      We in Portland are (as a group) typical of the "think green" group, wherein we want to consume energy, feel good about where it comes from, and not think too deeply about the sensibility of it all. Oddly, solar and wind energy are good (this makes me happy, because I work for a wind energy company), but hydo is bad (think of the fish!). Few people stop to think that they're all forms of solar power. Furthermore, natural gas is okay for heating your home and making hot water, not to mention the popularity of gas fireplaces here, but gas fired power generation is viewed with suspicion, and there's a huge movement to keep someone from building an LNG terminal on some fallow industrial land down river from here. And, while we have several large low-sulphur coal-fired power plants East of the Cascade mountains doing a fair job of supplying large amounts of cheap power, no one likes those at all.

      So, if this plastic generates electricity when it's deformed mechanically, why not hang sheets of it cut into strips somewhere that a breeze blows regularly? Seems to me like the wind blows a lot more than the rain falls, even here in Portland.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Do you mean hydroelectric power isn't renewable?

      No, hydro is renewable, but it isn't cool. You can't have an old reliable tech and not expect treehuggers to bitch about it. I consider treehuggers a very small portion of the environmentally conscious population, treehuggers will only be happy when everyone lives in crappy mud brick communes and conserving water by only showering weekly. These are the very same people who bitch about wind farms disrupting the birds. I'm sure even solar furnace towers will be bad once some rare bird tries to roost in the tower. The dams in the Northwest make lakes where there didn't used to be lakes (how unnatural!) and make it impossible for salmon to spawn up river. After 80 years, I think the parts of the river ecosystem that could adjust adjusted and the rest died a long time ago.

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      where do you think the water in the rivers came from? Cow piss. Cow farts being the second greatest contributor to global warming, they gotta balance it out somehow.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The wind thing is pretty silly, I agree. That said...

      Those folks aren't wrong about hydro being bad. Hydro power creates lakes that end up burying lots of plant matter on the floor, which then rots and gives off lots of greenhouse gasses (methane, primarily). In fact, IIRC, at least one study concluded that many hydro power plants are less green than coal power plants because of the sheer quantity of methane released by those lakes.

      That's not saying that all hydro power requires creating huge lakes. You could do a small turbine even on a stream without creating any significant backup. However traditional large-scale hydro power plant designs (with dams, lakes, etc.) are anything but green, and we shouldn't kid ourselves by pretending that using hydro is saving the environment....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by mangu · · Score: 1

      IIRC, at least one study concluded that many hydro power plants are less green than coal power plants because of the sheer quantity of methane released by those lakes.

      No, I don't think you remember quite correctly. At least, it's not "many" dams. That case you mention has been made for only one dam in the world, AFAIK.


      And do you know what would have been the simplest solution for that one? Let loggers cut the trees before the dam is filled. And burn the remaining brush, CO2 is not as bad as letting it rot to methane. I guess not even the tree huggers would object to cutting a forest that will soon be flooded.

    6. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gods tears, right?

    7. Re:Is this sarcasm or irony? by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

      Or just let the loggers in after it's been flooded. Underwater Logging

  34. Meteorelectricity by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    It seems quite possible to harness power from rain. We can harness the sun on a sunny day for solar energy. We can harness the wind on a windy day for wind energy. We can harness the ebb and flow of the oceans based on the moon's position for tidal energy. So why not harness the rain on a rainy day, the snow on a snowy day, or lightening on a stormy day?

    Two things to consider is location and time of year. Imagine solar and wind energy powering much of Arizona during the dry season and weather energy ("Meteorelectricity") durring the monsoon season.

    It sounds good in theory.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  35. piezo and raindrop energy by rnojonson · · Score: 1

    I thought about using piezo material years ago. Weather dependent energy devices are iffy at best, wind and solar are too intermittent. Why not harness all the sidewalks, roads, dance floors where vehicle and foot traffic abound. Feet pounding the pavement seem more reliable that raindrops.

  36. Re:Lincolnshire could the power house of the world by mrtonic · · Score: 1

    Oh Amen to that one!

  37. tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somebody tag this story "watervaporware"

  38. Actually it's Inverness... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    The rainiest place in Europe is near Inverness - that's why Loch Ness is so big.

    Going back to the story though, wouldn't it be much better to put this stuff in the sea? Somewhere where waves crash a lot...

    --
    No sig today...
  39. Not so unusual by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    "the unusual property of piezoelectricity, which means it can produce a charge when it's mechanically deformed"

    What, never had a crystal radio? Kids these days. Piezoelectricity isn't so unusual. You can go buy many products using it. Even at outfitters (read: outdoors and camping stores) you'll find plenty of devices using piezoelectricity. Given that we've known about it from the late 1800's that isn't unusual either. Some sugars, bones (let them dry first), ceramics, and many crystals are piezoelectrical. Oh and get this we can reverse it. Maybe we can use it to make ... microphones and speakers. Oh wait, been there done that. Or use it to light natural gas/propane stoves. Oh nevermind.

    A while back someone (MIT?) tried to use this precise method (and material IIRC) to make power from floors at subway stations.

    I could go on, but perhaps you should try Wikipedia. If they don't already have a nice article on it, I'm sure one will follow fairly quickly.

    Nothing unusual about either piezoelectricity or the material used in the story.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  40. nothing produces energy by mattcoz · · Score: 1

    Everything has energy, and that can be converted to electrical energy.

  41. Or cow farts? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Hydro power creates lakes that end up burying lots of plant matter on the floor, which then rots and gives off lots of greenhouse gasses (methane, primarily). Where would the plant matter otherwise go? Into the mouth of a herbivore, who eats it and passes greenhouse gas? All this tells us is that the operator of the plant needs to recover this methane somehow.
    1. Re:Or cow farts? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a little of it would get eaten, but not much. If the plant died normally, unless it fell into a river, the majority of the byproducts of decay would be CO2 because it would be digested aerobically by bacteria, etc. While that's still a greenhouse gas, if I understand correctly, the impact of methane on global warming is greater.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  42. Re:Lincolnshire could the power house of the world by ZeroFactorial · · Score: 2, Funny

    Electricity and water.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  43. Oh, Yeah? by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    YEAH??? Well... shit, you're right. U.S. beer *is* like making love in a canoe: Fuckin' close to water. Damn it, the truth hurts.

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  44. Barking up the wrong tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This technology has wonderful implications for tapping previously wasted energy sources, but rain isn't the place they should be looking to harvest that energy. They should be looking towards the oceanic coasts. The currents, waves and tides of the ocean move astronomical volumes of water constantly and the energy of those movements is lost as waves on the shore. If you were to set out an array of piezoelectric generators (i'm assuming they are in some sort of panel form) at an angle to the horizon just a couple meters below the surface at high-tide, you could have a continuous supply of energy from the action of waves and tidal shifts throughout the entire year, regardless of weather. Sure, there might be the issue of storm damage, but if you put it low enough, they would be entirely unaffected but the extreme turbulence of the surface and merely harvest the increased, directional flow deeper down.

    You could even anchor them below the surface in deeper water and harvest energy over humongous areas. I don't pretend to be able to do even approximate math for this since i don't know even rough figures related to current volumes and magnitudes, but this seems like an excellent (and more realistic) application of this technology.

  45. Re:Lincolnshire could the power house of the world by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    No way. Vancouver or just about anywhere else no the Pacific Northwest would have unlimited power.

    And by the way, my Dad is from Lincoln.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  46. Re:Lincolnshire could the power house of the world by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    Vancouver or just about anywhere else no the Pacific Northwest would have unlimited power.

    If you mean the westernmost part of the Pacific Northwest, that's true. But inland, across the mountains, the Pacific Northwest is very dry, with some parts seeing less than seven inches of rain per year.

    Remember what they say about generalisations: they are generally wrong.

  47. polyvinylidene difluoride? Yum... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    Let's see - I smell vinyl, I smell flourine, I smell all kinds of crap in there. Generate a few hundred square miles of that crap, and I wonder what the slag, pollution, run off, waste, and other toxic crap making polyvinylidene difluoride would require.

    Oh, but that's right: electricity for my 52 inch plasma screen is more important.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  48. Just wait till it hails! by miracle69 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Power Surge, baby. Power surge.

    --
    Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    1. Re:Just wait till it hails! by softdevs · · Score: 0
  49. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what would happen if a bird poops on it?

    1. Re:hmmm by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      A bird flying into a clear one would be better.

  50. Keep It Simple, Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a bit far fetched? How would one go about using this kind of thing practically, roll out the plastic sheet when it starts to rain? Why not just collect the rain from your roof, let it fall for a few meters through pipes and then run it through a small hydro turbine. At least that WILL produce some usable power. :)

  51. Energy from rain. Dam! by InFire · · Score: 1

    What will they think of next?

  52. It sounds like... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    ...it would be far much easier to just build a dam and a waterwheel to harness the energy of rain.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  53. All 3! by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the pressure of the wind (assuming flurries of wind instead of a constant wind) do pretty much the same thing as the pressure of a rain drop? Put it on an angled roof and you'd get solar power, rain power, and wind power all in one. Use these things instead of shingles. If we could make these things tough enough then we could replace all sidewalks with these things and also make use of walking energy.

  54. Hospital Falling Wastewater Toilet Flush Energy by ImitationEnergy · · Score: 0, Interesting

    That's very interesting. Thank you for mentioning that. I actually designed a system for using falling hospital toilet flushes and all that to drive a generator, submitted it to the Department of Energy in the early 1990's, and they turned it down. It would have also worked for high-rise offices and other tall structures, towers but the reason I chose hospitals because they release a massive amount of water every day. They still turned it down. They said the horsepower being spread out over time defeated the waterfall equation based process. So I sent it back to them with an adjustment, having the falling increments of energy slowly raise a larger weight to the top, then dropping it all at one time, about 3 times an hour. The D.O.E. still turned it down. I guess that's why your teacher had to remain a teacher.

    I remain convinced that all 3-story and up hospitals could turn a generator, saving one month a year worth of electric bill. But this is where everybody makes the big mistake, thinking the electricity produced has to be regulated and purified to main power grid-acceptable electric current. It does not! You don't send the electricity into the power grid; you run a straight wire carrying the variable current directly over to the hospital's water heater element. Hmm, as a picture this makes a good Record of Invention Update for 2/10/2008.

    --
    Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
    1. Re:Hospital Falling Wastewater Toilet Flush Energy by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I call dibbs on rain-gutter downspouts :)

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  55. Silly by Eivind · · Score: 1

    This is extremely silly. There's not much energy there, larger amounts can be gathered trivially.

    Falling raindrops reach terminal velocity after aproximately 5-10 meters, assuming they're the large type. Tiny raindrops reach terminal velocity after something like -1- meter.

    So, if you could somehow collect the entire energy (not possible most of it goes into heating the drop as it's vigorously stirred on impact) you'd have collected the same energy as for the water falling perhaps on the average 3 meters.

    Let's say your house has a 100square-meter roof, and you install this magical capture-all-energy stuff on the entire roof. Let's furthermore say it rains 1000mm/year. You have now collected the energy of 100 cubic metres of water falling 3 metres. That is 100*1000*9.8*3 = 3000KJ. Or sligthly less than -1- Kwh.

    Market-value for this power at grid-prices ? $0.10.

    Market-value for this power from a solar-cell ? (say if there's no grid available) $2.00

    Price for a wind-turbine that will deliver 1Kwh/year ? You'd take the smallest one you can get, probably one from a kids toy. We're talking an average of 0.1W here....

    Adding insult to injury, the power comes at semi-random impractical times, not when you need it.

    Conclusion: Even *IF* you wanted this tiny amount of power, and it MUST be from rain, you'd be better off installing a tank at your roof, and a small turbine in the downspout. That way you could drain the same power (assuming your roof is 3 meters up) and it'd cost less and work better.

    Extra-conclusion: Everything is in reality atleast 10 times worse than I state here, because this all assumes the material can magically convert 100% of impact-energy to electricity, which is obvious nonsense, I'd be impressed if it could do 10%...