Slashdot Mirror


Engineers Devise a Way To Harvest Wind Energy From Trees (vice.com)

derekmead writes: Harvesting electrical power from vibrations or other mechanical stress is pretty easy. Turns out all it really takes is a bit of crystal or ceramic material and a couple of wires and, there you go, piezoelectricity. As stress is applied to the material, charge accumulates, which can then be shuttled away to do useful work. The classic example is an electric lighter, in which a spring-loaded hammer smacks a crystal, producing a spark. Another example is described in a new paper in the Journal of Sound and Vibration, courtesy of engineers at Ohio State's Laboratory of Sound and Vibration Research. The basic idea behind the energy harvesting platform: exploit the natural internal resonances of trees within tiny artificial forests capable of generating enough voltage to power sensors and structural monitoring systems.

75 comments

  1. Or you could by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Slap a solar cell on the tree. (Tree has access to sunlight)

    1. Re:Or you could by BoogieChile · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not after you've covered it in solar cells, it doesn't.

    2. Re:Or you could by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh yea because it takes a tree's worth of solar cells to put out a few milliwatts

    3. Re:Or you could by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd exploit the "natural internal resonances of trees" by chopping them down, burning them in a furnace, boiling water to steam, and driving a turbogenerator with the steam. Then you're talking real power; none of this namby-pamby tiny artificial forest electron jiggling nonsense.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    4. Re: Or you could by ferret4 · · Score: 2

      Trees will grow canopy to cover your solar panel with shade though.

    5. Re:Or you could by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we've, uh, topped out with nuclear fission, technologically speaking, at the moment. Not that it isn't a bang for your buck, fantastic technology...and those scientists will get fusion up and running at some point.

      Now it feels like we're just running a science fair to think of any creative way to tap into energy..."Power via fluorescent slime molds!", etc. I don't know where I was going with this...someone find me a potato or a lemon and a voltmeter.

    6. Re:Or you could by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      After the birds have crapped on them for a a few weeks they won't be outputting anything.

    7. Re:Or you could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get less total energy that way.

      It takes roughly 80 years to get a tree to provide enough energy to warm you for ONE winter.

      With the tree providing you energy, you get 80 years of electricity all year round.

    8. Re:Or you could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Onceler?

    9. Re:Or you could by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Burning bird crap will produce some energy.

    10. Re:Or you could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80 years of micro watts *if* the wind blows. The burning tree provides much more. No reason you can't do both though. And trees reproduce.

    11. Re:Or you could by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Or just burn the wood. I like to take the long view.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    12. Re:Or you could by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Too many variables missing to calculate the difference. The average tree provides you what, 1 - 2 weeks of heating? If your winter is 20 weeks long that's a minimum of 10 trees burned. Include the energy required to cut the tree down, trim it down, cut it in pieces, hack it to manageable pieces, place it in it's storage location and then place it in the fireplace. In addition it produces toxic fumes (yes, wood burning isn't good for humans to inhale. All that aside, I doubt there's enough energy in 50 trees vibrating to keep any house warm for the winter.

  2. Harvesting energy from trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firewood burns pretty well, too.

  3. engineers devise dabbin' by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    oh, the horror.

  4. dateline 40,000 BC by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 0

    Engineers Devise a Way To Harvest Wind Energy From Trees

    Wow. I know Slashdot tends to lag behind the other news sites, but this is ridiculous.

    1. Re:dateline 40,000 BC by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 4, Funny

      Engineers Devise a Way To Harvest Wind Energy From Trees

      Wow. I know Slashdot tends to lag behind the other news sites, but this is ridiculous.

      Sorry, meant to make a smart remark about windmills there. It's ruined now. I suck. Sorry, everyone.

    2. Re:dateline 40,000 BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgive you, keep on truckin'

    3. Re:dateline 40,000 BC by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's all good, friend. Forgive yourself.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:dateline 40,000 BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOOD NIGHT

      I can't use all caps ? That's a lame filter. It's part of the joke.

  5. I saw ET too. by istartedi · · Score: 1

    If they can harvest enough energy to power a Speak-and-Spell hacked into a satellite up-link, they might have something.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  6. Too much theory, not enough practice by Dereck1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last paragraph pretty much sums it up.
    "It's mostly a proof of concept or rather a disproof of the assumption that wind vibrations can't be usefully harvested. Don't expect tiny metal forests to power cities, but it's still a cool idea."
    So this appears not to have any practical applications.

    1. Re:Too much theory, not enough practice by beckett · · Score: 2

      So this appears not to have any practical applications.

      only if you lack imagination. could see something like this powering sensors (e.g. air quality sampler, barometer, photodetector) would be valuable for leaving self-powered telemetry and a small sensor package to study forest canopy ecosystems, individual tree performance, etc.

    2. Re:Too much theory, not enough practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is hard to find an application of this that would not be more easily solved with solar. Perhaps if you really wanted to hide your sensor as this could be completely inside the tree.

    3. Re:Too much theory, not enough practice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So this appears not to have any practical applications.

      It also doesn't do anything for theory. No one ever doubted that it was theoretically possible. So it was pointless from any perspective.

    4. Re: Too much theory, not enough practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In many wooded areas the forest canopy cover is dense enough to limit how much light can reach certain levels. This along with the changes in forest foilage, etc. can potentially limit the potential for solar.

    5. Re: Too much theory, not enough practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, knowledge is pointless

    6. Re:Too much theory, not enough practice by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, overall not very impressive. I mean you could tie a mini windmill, vibrating ribbon between two branches, or sail to achieve the same if not better results. I don't understand the purpose of this other than application of a known theory in yet another expected environment.

    7. Re:Too much theory, not enough practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the tree I can see a couple systems which would pull FAR more energy than even a few dozen of these things. The easiest would be a device like those shake flashlights which have a magnet in a tube and a coil of wire around the tube, as the magnet slides from one side of the tube to the other it generates electricity, a slight modification would allow the magnet to be "shaken" by a weight at the end of a wire. Suspend the device from a branch that moves quite a bit in the wind and you have a decent amount of power. Another modification of the concept would be to tie a rope/cable between either several branches or the tree and the ground with a similar device, only instead of a weight you would attach one side of the device to the ground/branch and one side of the magnet to the tree/other branch. The magnet would be bungee/springed to the device in a much longer tube, as the tree/branches swayed the magnet would be pulled through the tube, you could generate A LOT of electricity this way though it would require a decent breeze.

  7. Sheahh, right! by XB-70 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Quoting from the article: "...Yet for dynamic systems, studies show narrow operating regimes which exhibit internal resonance-based behaviors; this additionally suggests that the energetic dynamics may be susceptible to deactivation if stochastic inputs corrupt ideal excitation properties..."

    If you can read that techno-babble, you either wrote for The Big Bang Theory or you were a technical advisor.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
    1. Re:Sheahh, right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... read that techno-babble ...

      It works when chickens lay spherical eggs in a vacuum.

    2. Re:Sheahh, right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace stochastic with random. So basically if you tune something specifically random interference can fuck your shit up.

    3. Re:Sheahh, right! by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      Quoting from the article: "...Yet for dynamic systems, studies show narrow operating regimes which exhibit internal resonance-based behaviors; this additionally suggests that the energetic dynamics may be susceptible to deactivation if stochastic inputs corrupt ideal excitation properties..."

      If you can read that techno-babble, you either wrote for The Big Bang Theory or you were a technical advisor.

      Why would you need a technical advisor for a documentary?

    4. Re: Sheahh, right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you were an undergrad math major, but I guess technical advisor to PhD level work and undergrad are equivalent

    5. Re:Sheahh, right! by ProfMobius · · Score: 1

      I don't see the big deal. It means the resonance frequency is narrow and the system would stop to work if external factors move the excitation outside of this narrow band. The sentence is a bit weird, but perfectly comprehensible.

      --
      EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
    6. Re:Sheahh, right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you converted it halfway to something halfway respectable for science journalism. Get 2-3x better and maybe you'd be approaching something a real editor would allow to be printed.

  8. Why only trees? by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always wondered why nobody did this with the 'soundwalls' that parallel every urban highway today - all you'd be taking is sound energy, so essentially it would even perhaps improve their sound-deadening qualities, while powering a nearby street light or two.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Why only trees? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      piezo generators have less than a percent of efficiency is why.

      also, your 106 decibel noisy highway is hitting you with a massive 0.04 watts per square meter. can you see the issue here that these piezo dumbfucks can't?

    2. Re:Why only trees? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      piezo generators have less than a percent of efficiency is why.

      I thought it was closer to 80%, at least theoretically. Can you give me a reference for that "Less than 1%" number?

      Whether this maps into anything like that number in a practical device for converting "found" mechanical power - such as tree sway or vibrations - is another matter entirely.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Why only trees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a word you've obviously never heard of. Check it out.

    4. Re:Why only trees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an ideal environment, they are fairly efficient in very specific axis of movement over very short movement vectors. In the real world, things are messy. Sor Rubycodez is right and wrong. Real world efficiency is crap horrible. Ideal condition efficiency is remarkable. But this is seriously old physics.... I agree that this is dumbfuck physics in general though it is entertaining to read when people are still wasting grant money on "wind / tree / walking / driving" typs of "leech" harvesting. Laws of thermo dynamics and all.

    5. Re:Why only trees? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Okay, so sound hits a material. If the material is brittle and hard, it won't vibrate, it might even ignore the sound. This solid and brittle material, like glass, would most likely repel sound.
      So what is the soundwall built out of? Either vibrating material in many layers to absorb the vibration, or a brittle hard material to avoid sound waves passing trough it.
      In the first you could get something, if its installed into the wall.
      In the second case, no, there won't be any gains.

    6. Re: Why only trees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said anything about powering a city with it, but even if it really was only 0.04W/sqm, over a year it's a nice amount of energy. Enough to power emergency beacons or call boxes or something.

    7. Re: Why only trees? by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      Build the wall out of trees derf red...
      all it really takes is a bit of crystal or ceramic material and a couple of wires and, there you go, piezoelectricity!

    8. Re:Why only trees? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's because the technology is only now getting cheap enough, and even then there is still some development work to do for large scale installations spread over long distances like that. It all needs to be cabled together, there needs to be a plan for dealing with failures, an easy way to install and maintain it must be developed for the non-technical guys who will be doing the actual work etc.

      I'm sure it will come, it just takes a frustratingly long time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Why only trees? by JSC · · Score: 1

      Find a way to bind it to or build it into the skeletons of skyscrapers during construction. Calculating wind sway is part of the design process so optimizing placement for max power generated should be a fairly minor additional exercise. Admittedly the power generated is low but you could use it to charge the batteries in the emergency lights or run the pump in the lobby fountain or some other lower power background task. Yes, I'm aware that those aren't cost effective suggestions. They're just the first examples that came to mind. But any technology that is in common use becomes more cost effective and more efficient over time.

      --
      Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
    10. Re:Why only trees? by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1

      http://www.greenoptimistic.com...
      2012 increased efficiency in PZE design by 25% by reducing coating area.

      And, then it says, you just put hundreds of thousands of these things under highways, and start reaping a non-trivial amount of electricity

    11. Re:Why only trees? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      And, then it says, you just put hundreds of thousands of these things under highways, and start reaping a non-trivial amount of electricity

      And cause a non-trivial increase in rolling resistance and reduction in mileage of the victim vehicles. That energy had to come from somewhere, and collecting it has side-effects.

      TANSTAAFL: The first law of thermodynamics as well as economics.

      The trees, on the other hand, may appreciate some energy-absorbing sway damping - especially in a storm. (As long as it doesn't interfere with pumping the water up the trunk to the leaves, of course.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    12. Re:Why only trees? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      one damn wind turbine on that skyscraper could generate orders of magnitude more power, so why bother with the horribly expensive LCD clock backlighter?

  9. tiny deer by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Will the tiny forests have tiny herds of deer romping through them.

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  10. Inefficient, Low Yield, Totally Impractical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power yielded from this is tiny. You'd spend more energy installing the system than it would ever return. The cost to install is more than the value of power generated. Hell, where do you think piezoelectric materials come from? They need to be mined out of the earth. This brainless scheme would have us spend tons of energy to mine and manufacture worthless micro-generators to stick on trees. Idiocy.

    Some dumb engineer from the University of Calgary had this idea last summer. Hooked up a bunch of these to sound stages at a local festival. Total energy yield, less than 10 cents worth of electricity. Said engineer was mentioned in multiple news articles and boasted of expecting to put the system on city roads and bridges. Total math failure.

  11. when a tree falls by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    exploit the natural internal resonances of trees within tiny artificial forests capable of generating enough voltage to power sensors and structural monitoring systems.

    so they invented self-powered Life Alert system for trees? ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:when a tree falls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exploit the natural internal resonances of trees within tiny artificial forests capable of generating enough voltage to power sensors and structural monitoring systems.

      so they invented self-powered Life Alert system for trees? ;)

      ABS 200 Entire Course

      http://www.hwsoloutions.com/product/abs-200-complete-course/

      Visit Our Website :

      http://www.hwsoloutions.com/

    2. Re:when a tree falls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exploit the natural internal resonances of trees within tiny artificial forests capable of generating enough voltage to power sensors and structural monitoring systems.

      so they invented self-powered Life Alert system for trees? ;)

      So if a tree falls in a forest...

  12. about piezo electricity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone knows about dyi plan for a light switcher that use only piezo as power source ?

  13. Conference alerts in india by conference2016 · · Score: 0

    We conduct conference in different states and cities all over India. The main aim of the conference is to spread the knowledge among the Engineering students, Researchers and any other who attends the conference. for further information please contact Conference Alerts.

  14. Well, that's a terrible idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Any time someone proposes an artificial tree as a solution, you know they are an asshole. Put a real tree there. It will use solar power to turn atmospheric CO2 into solid fuel. It really doesn't get any better than that. You would get more power from one tree-sized solar plant than from a whole forest of artificial trees that don't make air, don't clean air, and don't self-repair.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Well, that's a terrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really a dickhead, aren't you? The research is about harvesting vibrational energy using small tree-like structures, not building tree-sized devices to generate energy for the grid. But yes, your strawman version of this research is a terrible idea, so congratulations on coming up with a terrible idea. You must be an asshole.

  15. What they really need to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they really need to do is a bit of genetic engineering - get the cell growth of the trunk to embed nano-wires... that connect to the leaves to harvest some left over energy from photosynthesis (it is present, as there is a LOT of left over energy - besides keeping the tree alive, it also provides food for animals, resources for fungi, bacteria, ...)

  16. Wind Doesn't Come From Trees by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Duh

    1. Re:Wind Doesn't Come From Trees by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Well actually, a small part of it does. The albedo of trees is generally very different than the albedo of the ground or vegetation around the trees. This creates differential heating between forest and non-forest, and the differential localized heating drives differences in localized air pressure. As soon as you have this, you end up with wind as the air flows from low to high pressure.

      It's the same thing as a ocean/sea breeze or mountain breeze, just on a smaller scale.

      (I'd add a close tag to being pedantic, but apparently I can not.)

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Wind Doesn't Come From Trees by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Wind comes from windmills!

  17. Wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is wind energy possible to store in batteries from running trains and vehicles.?

  18. ET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they watched ET.

  19. Wind from running car and trainssss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wont it work..? Get energized while energy drains... Fit a small wind farm above the running cars and train. And store in batteries... If artificial trees can, why cant this..?

    1. Re:Wind from running car and trainssss... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      The resistance from the collector outweighs the gain.

  20. Growing trees more useful? Much better than coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Growing trees may capture more carbon. So once a tree is mature it is less useful with respect to carbon capture.

    Plus there are secondary benefits of burning wood displacing other fuels such as coal. Burning fresh wood is carbon neutral unlike burning carbon sequestered millions of years ago in the coal or petroleum case.

  21. Not a replacement for solar, a complement by perpenso · · Score: 1

    It is hard to find an application of this that would not be more easily solved with solar. Perhaps if you really wanted to hide your sensor as this could be completely inside the tree.

    Its not a replacement for solar it is a complement. We need trees, we should probably have more trees. Their trunks and branches are going to bend and flex whether we take advantage of that or not. Much like the tides are going to come and go. Having piezo devices running along (outside) tree trunks and branches is an interesting idea. Way too early to say how practical it is, but its yet another thing to look into. Science and engineering is at times all about looking at "crazy" ideas.

    Skyscrapers? Bridges?

  22. Alternative, letting it go to waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody said anything about powering a city with it, but even if it really was only 0.04W/sqm, over a year it's a nice amount of energy. Enough to power emergency beacons or call boxes or something.

    It may be a small amount but what is the alternative, letting it go to waste?

    1. Re:Alternative, letting it go to waste? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which is more wasteful: Letting $0.01 worth of power 'go to waste' or spending $1,000 to collect it?

      Before you go all self righteous hippy on us, remember cost is a decent, but imperfect proxy for power spent doing something.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Can work with real trees ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Piezo devices can be run along trunks and branches of real trees. This tech does not require artificial trees.

  24. E.T. did this is 1982 to phone home. by Doke · · Score: 1

    In the movie, the alien used connections to a tree to power his transmitter to phone home. It's nice to see some confirmation that the idea isn't entirely fantasy.

    1. Re:E.T. did this is 1982 to phone home. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And here we see confirmation bias in the bright lite of day.

      Doke really want's this to work. No critical thinking, just 'It confirms my childhood world view, yeah'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'