Slashdot Mirror


English Market Produces Energy With Kinetic Plates

Johnathan Martinez writes "Sainsbury's market in England has installed 'kinetic energy' plates in the parking lot of its store in Gloucester. The plates are an experiment with a newer energy producing technology. The plates create as much as 30 kWh of energy as cars drive over them. The weight of the cars puts pressure on the plates creating kinetic energy to run a generator. The current is used to power the store and will lower the energy consumption of the market."

60 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. useful energy is not free by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just an gas powered electric generator, the likes of which rube goldberg would be proud of. You'd be better off siphoning a thimble of fuel from each car, selling it, and using the proceeds to buy electricity from the utility.

    1. Re:useful energy is not free by fractoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Not to mention that's a crap ton of energy per car:

      The plates create as much as 30 kWh of energy as cars drive over them.

      30 kWh is 108 MJ. Say your car weighs 2 tons, well that's 18.1 kN of force it exerts on the ground. So your car would have to push one of these plates down a total of 5.9 kilometers to generate that much energy. Assuming that the plate only moves an inch, that's 238 thousand car/plate crossings to generate the quoted energy.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:useful energy is not free by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is just an gas powered electric generator, the likes of which rube goldberg would be proud of. You'd be better off siphoning a thimble of fuel from each car, selling it, and using the proceeds to buy electricity from the utility.

      True but if you are going to build speed humps and waste energy that way, this may make sense.

    3. Re:useful energy is not free by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are not stealing any energy from the car at all. This argument is ludicrous. It is using the force of gravity to push down the plates.

      The car has to climb on to the plate. It uses energy to do that.

    4. Re:useful energy is not free by Kickboy12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another Point: You ever driven in a parking lot? Count the number of speed bumps you go over. I wonder how "fuel" the stores are "stealing" from you by making you drive slow over these bumps. Replace those with plates. Might actually get some energy while making people drive slower at the same time. What a concept!

    5. Re:useful energy is not free by Unipuma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since this method converts potential energy into kinetic energy (the car pushing down), this means your car will be moving from a higher position to a lower position, losing it's potential energy.

      Since your car has to drive out of the 'pit' it was lowered into, when the plate came down, your car has to expend the energy necessary to climb back out of that 'pit'.

      So your car is directly providing the energy to power this plate system.

    6. Re:useful energy is not free by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd be better off siphoning a thimble of fuel from each car, selling it, and using the proceeds to buy electricity from the utility.

      Where the hell would you get all those thimbles?

    7. Re:useful energy is not free by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The numbers are bullshit, but so are all these suggestions that the plates are magically causing MORE gas/battery power to be wasted than would happen otherwise.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    8. Re:useful energy is not free by carou · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps they only install these at the entrances to the car park, where you expect everybody to be slowing down - the excess kinetic energy might as well be siphoned off somewhere useful rather than being wasted as heat in the brakes.

      However, I agree with your analysis that the numbers, as presented, make no sense (and the picture with illustrates the article is only a few mm thick, so 238,000 crossings is probably a rather conservative estimate). Another article on the topic says "The kinetic road plates are expected to produce 30 kWh of green energy every hour" (so that would just be 30kW, then) but I can guarantee you that a supermarket is not going to get a quarter of a million visitors in an hour (or to put that another way, more than 60 every second).

      It's all just meaningless posturing, and it takes attention away from anything which might actually be useful. Any journalist reporting this as a green initiative ought to be ashamed of themselves.

    9. Re:useful energy is not free by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it'd be the same as dropping a giant stone on the plate? Free perpetual energy? No? Then where is the energy coming from? Remember those pesky laws that keep perpetual motion machine from working?

      The energy doesn't come from gravity but rather from the potential energy of the car via gravity. The car has to gain that energy from the kinetic energy of it's engine somehow since nothing is free.

      Let's say the plate is 1cm above the ground with no car on it. The car's engine exert extra energy to raise the car onto that 1cm plate. The plate then falls and takes that energy from the car by dropping it back to it's previous height. Had the plate not been there the car would not have used the gas needed to generate the energy to raise it 1cm against gravity.

      Sort of sad how little physics is taught in school nowadays that people actually believe energy can come from essentially nowhere.

    10. Re:useful energy is not free by deroby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Although I agree with you and all posters above, from what I get from the article this is just (an expensive ?) way to /create/ energy in an extremely inefficient way.

      That said, I do wonder if it wouldn't be possible to somehow harvest some "free" energy from such a system, assuming the car-park is BELOW GROUND.

      => assuming the car-park is located below ground, the car will need to drive down a ramp anyway
      => if we replace that ramp with a series of 'steps' that are "pushed up" by an internal spring-system, when in 'neutral', each next step is 10 cm lower than the previous one.
      => the car will arrive at ground level (0), drive on the fist step and the step will "sink" say 10 cm.
      => as a result, the step is now level with the second step, and the car simply drives on it "horizontally"
      => again, step 2 will sink about 10 cm due to the weight of the car, while step 1 veers back up because of the internal springs

      rinse & repeat...

      I guess it'd probably be 'more efficient' to have 1 giant step that goes down the full 3m or so, but it would make the process more cumbersome (drive on, wait, drive off, wait for platform to rise again etc..), while the 'steps' in fact can simultaneously function as a speed-lowering device (if you drive down to fast, the steps will not have time to be pushed in completely and you're in for a 'shocking' ride).

      Off course this still 'steals' away some of the car's fuel as you now need to "drive the whole way down horizontally" instead of just coasting down, but then again at least some of the braking power would be converted to useful energy instead of heat.

      just my 2 cents...

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    11. Re:useful energy is not free by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They can get energy from the downward motion of the plate on the speedbump as the car drives over the top of it. The car is now a little lower, so that's energy it can't reclaim. This energy would be offset a little by the springs required to push the plate back up again.

      They might also be able to gain energy by absorbing some of the forward motion of the car when it hits the speedbump. That would be more in keeping with the usual purpose of speedbumps. Now all we'd need is a speedbump that could smoothly absorb & convert most of the excess forward velocity of the car (in excess of the speed limit, that is), then we could install them in residential suburbs everywhere and power all the streetlights with them.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    12. Re:useful energy is not free by terminal.dk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you put the plates on a downhill ramp, then the car need to move vertically anyway.
      So instead of having to use the brakes to convert energy into waste heat, they can convert it into electricity.

      A Parking house with multiple levels would be perfect if there are different lanes up and down. Or other descending roads.

      We have e=m*v^2 - So the faster the plate can be pressed down, the more enery we will get, but there will also be some impact force. So the number can be much lower.

    13. Re:useful energy is not free by fractoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, let's put the cars bumper to bumper at 15km/h (which is about usual for a car park) and assume they're 5m long and have a gap of 3m between them. Any given plate would then have a car moving over it every two seconds, or 1800 times an hour. They're going to have to have 132 plates to generate that amount of power per hour, and realistically they'll need at least twice that many.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    14. Re:useful energy is not free by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, it all comes down to how people brake and how much of the energy would have been wasted for braking anyway.

      On the other hand hybrid and electric cars have regenerative braking so they even reclaim that energy. Given that they're becoming rather popular there may soon be very few places such a system has any real overall advantage.

    15. Re:useful energy is not free by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference there is that the speed bumps don't sink under your car. The only lost energy from driving over a speed bump is the energy absorbed by your shockies as they damp the motion of your suspension. It's still a good point, though - the amount of energy they 'steal' per car is so trivial that no-one will notice. If you were driving on a road made of the things, it'd probably have a measurable effect on fuel usage, though.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    16. Re:useful energy is not free by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well maybe they can integrate it into the bazillion speed humps then. The energy may not be "free" but I certainly think all the arguments I've read on this article are ridiculous. The energy "Stolen" from drivers would be negligible, most of the energy would be coming from that wonderful thing called gravity!

      How can energy come from gravity, other than building a one way system when things up high (say asteroids) and moved to somewhere low (say Sydney) and the potential energy recovered in the process.

    17. Re:useful energy is not free by umghhh · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no magic there - energy comes from somewhere. Unless this whole exercise is done when vehicles break (speed bumpers?) then it is just a tax on those driving there. It may be small but it does not mean it is not there.

    18. Re:useful energy is not free by Sulix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      e=m*v^2

      Scale that down to ~half: e = 0.5*m*v^2

      (Assuming relativistic effects are ignored, of course).

      Either way, 30 kWh is ridiculous. You'd need the plates to move quite a bit.

    19. Re:useful energy is not free by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you put the plates on a downhill ramp, then the car need to move vertically anyway. So instead of having to use the brakes to convert energy into waste heat, they can convert it into electricity.

      Then it would be more efficient to build a conveyor belt or a lift for descending cars only... But still more efficient is to cut of fuel - all modern cars do that - AND use some regeneration - some more expensive/advanced cars do that already.

      BTW, e=m*v^2 has nothing to do with it, that's just the kinetic energy stored in a moving body, it can be converted to potential energy and back, as in a pendulum. What you are looking for is force x distance: F*s (or mass x gravitational constant x vertical distance: m*g*h)

      The original idea is silly from a thermodynamic point of view, but bright from ecological theatre point of view, I think.

    20. Re:useful energy is not free by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're wasting your time trying to explain this I'm afraid. Some people are so utterly clueless when it comes to basic physics that it would be funny if it wasn't such a sad reminder of the state of schooling these days.

    21. Re:useful energy is not free by siloko · · Score: 4, Funny

      Say your car weighs 2 tons

      Say that as loud as you want sunshine but the average car weight over here (Europe) is 1175 Kg, compared to 2000 Kg in the US. Of course this only adds weight to your argument . . .

      Sometimes I even crack myself up.

    22. Re:useful energy is not free by Peet42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The numbers are bullshit, but so are all these suggestions that the plates are magically causing MORE gas/battery power to be wasted than would happen otherwise.

      Add together the energy required to lift the weight of the car up onto each plate, then back up from the level of the plate to street level after the plate has sunk down - you'll find it's more than the car would have used traveling the same distance on the level. They're effectively making each customer pay a levy to use their checkouts, yet making themselves look "greener" by shrouding it in misdirection.

    23. Re:useful energy is not free by sentientbeing · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sainsburys Market sells them in packs of ten.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    24. Re:useful energy is not free by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Unless this whole exercise is done when vehicles break (speed bumpers?) then it is just a tax on those driving there.

      Wow, that's one hell of a speed bump if it breaks cars. I'd sue if a speed bump broke my car!

    25. Re:useful energy is not free by Fzz · · Score: 5, Informative
      The company that makes this system has some videos that explain how it works.

      From their FAQ:

      Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks?

      A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where vehicles are having to slow down, for example on downhill gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as replacing sleeping policemen and traditional traffic calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through other mechanisms.

      Seems to me like it probably works if it's deployed in the right place. So the idea seems OK.

      But what about the numbers? The website claims it can generate 5-10kW. Looks like at least one of the plates moves about three inches (7.5cm). So, lets use their numbers:

      10kWh = 36MJ. Taking your 18.1kN force from your 2 ton car, that requires a distance of about 2km. 2km / 7.5cm = 26700 crossings in that hour. Thats 7 per second. No, still doesn't add up.

      Best you could reasonably hope for is a car every two seconds. That would give a distance of 7.5cm * 1800 = 135m in an hour. Your 2-tonne car falling 135m would generate 2.4MJ in an hour, so that's about 670W average. And that's assuming 100% efficiency. Likely this thing can power a streetlight or two.

      But is it cost effective? Lets say it operates at that rate for 10 hours a day (pretty optimistic for a car park, but maybe on a busy road). 670W gives 6.7kWh per day, or 2400kWh per year. Electricity costs maybe 7p/kWh, so that's GBP171 (or $270). No, this doesn't seem cost effective anywhere where you can get mains electricity.

    26. Re:useful energy is not free by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to be informative, the average curb weight of US cars is 3,239 lbs, or 1,469 kilograms. So not quite two short tons (although you might make it with four average mid-westerners and their groceries on board), and definitely nowhere near two metric tons.

    27. Re:useful energy is not free by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...which can be used to do work. Otherwise you better hurry up and let the people over at the hover dam know their master plan isn't working.

      This scheme is obviously sapping energy from your car, but if it could be done in a place where you want to remove energy from your car (i.e. when you're braking) it could be a net positive. That said - I don't think this is ever going to pan out.

      On a somewhat related note, a while ago there was some work being done on placing a piezo insert into soldiers boots, and having the impact of marching to charge their batteries. It turns out, that walking on a piezo is a lot like walking on sand, and the soldiers performance suffered, and the whole idea was scrapped.

    28. Re:useful energy is not free by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not driving that's a problem.

      It's true that most parks have speed bumps - but the point is that I suspect many people find these annoying too. They simply accept them as a necessary evil, for those who might drive fast and cause an accident.

      But installing bumps for the purpose of stealing energy? That'd be much more unpopular. The fact that Sainsbury hide this fact, and instead claim that it's "green energy", and falsely state that the car doesn't lose any inefficiency from the systems, suggest that they are well aware what customer reaction would be if they knew the truth.

      Either that, or they also are just plain ignorant of basic scientific facts.

      Imagine someone going into the store and picking up a grape everytime they went in. It's only one grape right, they won't miss it, and there's always grapes that go missing or rotten or dropped at the end. So surely they can't disapprove, and isn't this a revolutionary system to create grapes that would otherwise be wasted?

      No, you'd be done for shoplifting. In fact, I remember when I worked there years ago, they explicitly warned us that even eating a single grape would be treated as theft.

    29. Re:useful energy is not free by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They claim "The system, pioneered for Sainsbury's by Peter Hughes of Highway Energy Systems, does not affect the car or fuel efficiency", which is impossible if this system is capturing any energy at all.

      Only true if your car has 100% efficient regenerative braking. The system is designed to be used in places where the driver will be breaking, and will apply an extra retardation force on the vehicle. In most cases, this will reduce the wear on the break pads by a very small amount, not steal any energy.

      For example, the supermarket nearest to my father has a car park elevated to about the height of a second story building. At the bottom of the exit ramp there are traffic lights. When you drive out, you need to keep your foot on the clutch and a little on brake. The clutch is fully depressed, so there is no energy going from the engine to the wheels (or vice versa). The brakes are partially engaged, so there is energy being turned from kinetic energy into heat. Add this system on the slope, and you can turn some of it into electrical energy instead.

      The situation is different if your car has regenerative breaking, but the efficiency of most forms of regenerative breaking is proportional to the speed of the vehicle, while this system has no such limitation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:useful energy is not free by clone53421 · · Score: 2

      ...which can be used to do work.

      Of course. I'm merely pointing out that the energy comes from the car, nowhere else... "most of the energy would be coming from that wonderful thing called gravity" is just plain wrong.

      This scheme is obviously sapping energy from your car, but if it could be done in a place where you want to remove energy from your car (i.e. when you're braking) it could be a net positive.

      We already do that. It's called "hybrids", and they put the energy back where it belongs: back in the vehicle of the person who bought the gas. Once everyone's driving a hybrid, your fancy device to remove the energy from a braking car will no longer be productive. A hybrid braking on it would impart very little energy to it; most would be recaptured by the hybrid.

      On a somewhat related note, a while ago there was some work being done on placing a piezo insert into soldiers boots, and having the impact of marching to charge their batteries. It turns out, that walking on a piezo is a lot like walking on sand, and the soldiers performance suffered, and the whole idea was scrapped.

      Ya don't say...

      Basically, what it all boils down to is very simple: You can't get something for nothing.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    31. Re:useful energy is not free by amorsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So your point is that it doesn't cost you much energy. My counterpoint is that then it doesn't provide them much energy -- unless energy out > energy in.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    32. Re:useful energy is not free by xrobertcmx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one said it was per car.

    33. Re:useful energy is not free by drolli · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hail to the imperial and other non-metric systems. Ideal for low mars flyovers.

    34. Re:useful energy is not free by robi5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The idea behind a series of speed bumps is nothing to do with braking before each (and then accelerate) but to keep a steady slow place throughout. It is interesting that braking before a speed bumper is taken for granted.

    35. Re:useful energy is not free by risk+one · · Score: 2, Funny

      So instead of having to use the brakes to convert energy into waste heat, they can convert it into electricity.

      So if I drive a hybrid, they're stealing my energy? Those bastards!

    36. Re:useful energy is not free by Workaphobia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kinetic energy is actually half m * v^2 - but it has nothing to do with this. You don't need to strike the plates quickly; the motion downward can in principle be arbitrarily slow, just as if you wind a crank you don't necessarily have to wind quickly.

      The energy that can be generated (or I should say captured) by the plate is limited by the energy lost by the car. The car loses potential energy, which as dna_(c)(tm)(r) says is m*g*h.

      The only reason kinetic energy would play a role is if we consider the force acting downward to derive from not just the weight of the car, but a component of its momentum - i.e., the car is going downhill and is being slowed down by *hitting* the plate, rather than smoothly riding over it.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  2. If I had an electric car by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I could put these in my driveway, use it to charge the car and never have to buy energy again!

  3. lame? vampiring other people oil? by Tei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is that energy extracted from the cars? then is not magically created, but just a inefficient way to suck energy from other people use of oil.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

    1. Re:lame? vampiring other people oil? by lxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no magic involved. They deliberately create a piece of bad road to steal energy.

      Of course this is a very small effect like a 'salami slice' financial scam, but it's still a scam.

  4. Re:No such thing as free lunch... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, the customers are using their fuel anyhow to drive in, I don't see what's wrong with making use of a kinetic generator which is also using the pull of gravity to generate the power.

    ***face palm***

    Sigh.

    Ok, that's like saying you increase your fuel mileage by driving down hill. What you are failing to take into account is that all your gains have been lost when it comes time to drive back up it! It's the same idea with these plates, but on a much much smaller scale.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  5. it reminds me by serbanp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of the anecdote about Franklin and his entrance door. When a friend complained about how difficult was to push that door, Franklin explained that the door was connected to a ground pump and every time someone opened the door, 2 gallons of water were extracted as well...

  6. Supermarket, doofus by jginspace · · Score: 3, Funny

    England market produces green energy ... Sainsburyâ(TM)s market of England has installed âkinetic energyâ(TM) plates in the parking lot of itâ(TM)s store in Gloucester.

    What atrocious writing. Sainsbury's is a supermarket.

    1. Re:Supermarket, doofus by BigZee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quiet true. And it also doesn't have a parking lot either, it has a car park.

  7. This is so stupid it hurts by Timo_UK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As many other commented, the energy comes off course from the petrol engine of the cars. 1. The efficiency of this system from petrol to electricity must be really low 2. It creates pollution right where you don't want it, in the city: Exhaust fumes plus tire wear

    --
    Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
  8. Re:leeching energy from cars by jginspace · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not leeching. The cars are slowed down at the point at which the cars should be slowing down anyway - they're coming into the car park. The 'kinetic energy' device helps where the vehicle's brakes would normally be doing all the work. Bin the TFA, see this insightful article from yesterday's Guardian.

  9. Re:RTFA by Barny · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wait, so the plate drops down and it makes some power, how does your car get out of the now slight pot-hole? Why it has to drive forward, which (considering you are driveing up a very brief and very small hill) uses a tiny amount more fuel.

    There is never, and WILL never be a free ride, all power comes from somewhere.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  10. it's not green by marvinglenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TFA calls it a "green energy project". The type of people who think this is green energy are the complete f-ing morons that side track the rest of us from real viable energy advancements.

    Further more, the TFA claims this will "lower the energy consumption of the market". At the inefficiency of this (which is already limited to being no more efficient than a car is itself), it will actually increase the energy consumption of the market.

    --
    The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
  11. Re:leeching energy from cars by nadaou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    rationalized leeching is still leeching. Perhaps you own a hybrid with regenerative brakes?

    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
  12. Re:It's not generation by david.given · · Score: 3, Informative

    Technically, you're right. Practically, cars waste such vast amounts of energy that the energy drain for this thing (about equivalent to driving over a small bump) probably couldn't even be measured.

    People don't understand just how much energy cars use, because car engines are typically measured in horsepower rather than in kilowatts. But it's the same quantity --- they're dimensionally equivalent. It's instructive to play with Google's units converter a bit: the Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car, has a crappy little engine producing 33 horsepower. That's 25 kilowatts, which is slightly more than the entire electrical supply to my house. A typical racecar produces about 400 kilowatts. A medium model wind turbine (with a 50m tower) produces about 600 kilowatts.

  13. Re:No such thing as free lunch... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except they wouldn't have since energy has to come from somewhere and car's don't magically use it for no purpose. The energy they're using comes from raising the car's height (ie: potential energy due to gravity) to the height of the plate. Without the plate that energy would not have been used period as there'd have been no need to raise the car's height.

    Had there been a natural downward slope present (say it was a speed bump, small hill, etc.) then the energy would have been partially reclaimed and converted into kinetic energy for the car. In other words going downhill makes the car go faster and that energy came from when the car had to go up the hill.

  14. Put plates at the bottom of an exit ramp by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 4, Interesting



    For those who are rightly saying this energy isn't free...
    If the plates are positioned at the bottom of a downhill exit ramp, they will aid drivers braking, prividing kinetic energy without "stealing" drivers fuel. Somehow, I doubt this is where they will be positioned though :-)

    (Incidentally... a similar idea was to build tram / light-rail stations on the top of small hills. Thus gravity assists the train in braking and accelerating away from teh station)

    Oh and Sainsburys is a British Supermarket, not an English Market..... Big difference !

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
    1. Re:Put plates at the bottom of an exit ramp by Fzz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If the plates are positioned at the bottom of a downhill exit ramp, they will aid drivers braking, prividing kinetic energy without "stealing" drivers fuel. Somehow, I doubt this is where they will be positioned though :-)

      Agreed. Sainburys seems to care about looking green, rather than being green. At their Kingston store the large Sainsburys sign has a smallish wind turbine and a solar panel attached to it. Trouble is the wind turbine is positioned between buildings, so it never gets a clear airflow, and the solar panel is positioned facing East. East? What were they thinking?

  15. Just converting kinetic energy into electrical by theodicey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably 2/3 of the comments so far seem to think this is some kind of perpetual motion machine con. Those people should be embarrassed.

    It's not. It's simple. It's just slowing cars by converting kinetic energy into electrical, instead of dissipating it as heat in the brakes or converting it to potential energy like a speed bump.

    There was a discussion a while back, I think here on Slashdot, about a device that used a revolving door to generate energy. It prompted exactly the same comments. What these people didn't seem to realize is, revolving doors have brakes, and that device replaces the brakes. Same damn thing.

    Do you really think the engineers who designed this device didn't think it through? This reminds me why it's never a good idea to discuss physics on Slashdot. I leave it to psychologists to explain why there are so many kneejerk contrarians.

  16. Re:It's not generation by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny
    Better yet, CHARGE folks for ride:

    -Get to the top of the parking garage.
    -Worker attaches giant bungee cord with peizoelectric transducers to rear bumper.
    -Drive off edge.
    -Bungee stops car just before ground, bungee cord stretches, peizoelectric transducer produces jolt of electricity.
    -Driver gets charged for fun ride, car park gets some kilowatts.
    -Profit.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. Cars waste 95% of gasoline energy when cruising by slashbart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I once measured my cars efficiency (an old Renault 5).
    I drove 100 kph (28m/s) on a flat freeway, with no wind, and set the gears in neutral. It took the car about 30 seconds to slow down to 90kph (25m/s). The car weighs about 900kg.
    So we have E0=0.5*m*v*v = 353kJ and E1=281kJ. The car lost 717kJ in 30 seconds or 2.4kW
    So it takes just 2.4kW to keep a small car cruising at 100kph on a freeway. The stated gas consumption of that car is about 1 liter/18 km at 90 kph so 1.3 ml/second of gasoline. Gasoline has ca 32MJ/l energy content, so 1.3ml/s is equivalent to 44kW.
    The system efficiency of a car cruising on a flat freeway is about 5%!
    Do the experiment yourself and see what numbers you come up with. It's also a really good highschool experiment.

    1. Re:Cars waste 95% of gasoline energy when cruising by profesor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that for this calculation to be reasonable you need to know the actual fuel usage while maintaining 100kph on a flat highway with no wind. I suspect that it is higher than 18 km/l, that sounds more like a rated highway fuel efficiency number which probably includes a lot more than just maintaining speed on a flat level road.

    2. Re:Cars waste 95% of gasoline energy when cruising by slashbart · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're probably correct, but I have no other data. I presumed that the manufacturer spec: 1 l/18km at 90kph meant flat road and such.
      That's the only problem data that I can see in my little experiment.

    3. Re:Cars waste 95% of gasoline energy when cruising by slashbart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My 0.1 m/s^2 deceleration for a 900kg car shows a drag force (wheels + air + differential + bearings + exit shaft of gearbox) on the car of 90N. I don't need to know where that 90N is coming from.
      So I don't see why I can't do what I did. I think it's completely valid.

  18. Re:No such thing as free lunch... by BeardsmoreA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. But afterwards, if you didn't give the engine any gas during the process, it would be moving slower. As lots of people have tried to point out, this might be desirable (see speed bumps). If the driver is just going to accelerate back to speed however, you have gained nothing.