SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-you-*sure*-that-will-scale-up? dept.
Converting the energy of a moving automobile into an efficient power source for that same automobile is one of the Holy Grails of motor transport, and new research suggests an important part of the solution could be to look at the friction generated between car tyres and the road itself.
Engineers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the US have developed a nanogenerator that’s capable of harvesting the energy produced by the friction of a tyre rolling along the ground.
For those aren't going to RTFA no matter what: Their test vehicle was a toy car, so I've got some concerns about whether or not this will scale up to full-sized models. But if it does, it could potentially vast increase the range of electric cars, or allow them to use smaller batteries.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kent_Diego on Tuesday July 07 2015, @08:06PM
1. It takes energy to generate energy. Since the energy conversion in not 100% efficient. why put this extra load on the batteries?
2. Costly extra mechanical complexity. Surly unreliable in long run.
3. Extra unsprung weight causes handling and ride issues not to mention loss of vehicle efficiency.
There must be more reasons this is a silly idea. Feel free to add on.
(Score: 2) by kaganar on Tuesday July 07 2015, @08:12PM
(Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:06PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:25PM
it may be no more stupid than regenerative breaking
Regenerative braking is a great idea if you want to slow down and get some of your kinetic energy back... Keeping your foot on the regenerative brake all the time so you're always getting energy back, however, is stupid - and based on the TFA and abstract, that's exactly what this idea sounds like. Maybe the real paper resolves this.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday July 08 2015, @11:05AM
From reading the writeup on the university website, I get the impression they are re-capturing the energy that goes into generating static charge (and ultimately heat). If so, and if it's significant, then this would make sense.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday July 08 2015, @12:08PM
The surprise there would be to find that the static charge accounted for any significant part of the frictional energy loss c.f. mechanical heating and noise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2015, @04:41PM
Now if they can also put LEDs in the sidewalls...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday July 07 2015, @09:27PM
It's not silly if you consider the generators may be embedded into the road. This way, you'll be paying your freeway toll by generating the energy proportional with the distance travelled and your vehicle weight
Imagine the bright future: all roads the same, no more toll roads, just... by using a road sealing fluffy enough to maximize the energy stolen from your vehicle.
G'day drivers
.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:04PM
But since all cars in the future are electrical that means…
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:49PM
That means we need a massive increase in the capacity of the electrical grid. Years ago, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation of the electrical requirements for replacing petroleum-based fuels with electricity. The energy per car was roughly the same order of magnitude as the electrical energy consumed by a typical home. Hence, the grid would have to double in capacity, assuming one car per house. Double the number of hydro dams, double the number of nukes, double the amount of coal burned, double the gas turbine plants, double the wind generators and solar photovoltaics etc.
I don't see how that is going to happen.
The only realistic solution is to reduce the size/power requirements of cars... substantially. The future of the automobile looks more like a bicycle.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday July 08 2015, @01:15AM
Yes, but assuming that the new load is mostly battery powered vehicles, it is much more amenable to time constrained charging.
A mix of local solar and off-peak grid would be able to handle it with much more modest improvements in delivery infrastructure.
You are still going to need either more generators or lots of solar.
AU where I live is heading that way. Solar installations are appearing on more roofs all the time. (14% of homes in 2014 had solar power)
The power companies have dropped the feed-in tariff so much that people are now load-shifting to avoid the feed-in/buy-back difference. (and now the companies are complaining about that)
Realistically, it is not yet worth going off-grid, but PV panels keep dropping in price and if cheap batteries come along that could change.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 08 2015, @12:54AM
Wait, I thought the tolls we were paying were so the road could power the car.
Now I need a bigger battery to power the road.
Damn politicians, get you coming and going!
Ohhhhh, maybe just drive BACKWARDs down the road to charge the car! Shhhhh, not so loud!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 08 2015, @02:20AM
Huh! Wishful thinking!
While it may happen, the private initiative must be encouraged: prepare yourself for the power sold to you on/by the road at a double price of the network: it's not "how you produce it" that determines the price, its the utility of it that you are charged for (and the "utility" will be defined as "emergency assistance for empty battery cases").
Also be prepared to be restricted on the amount of energy you use at home to recharge your car, we can't have it cheap for everybody (remember Enron?) and the world is warming up. Besides the current gas stations (to be converted) need to be kept working - you wouldn't want unemployment to rise, would you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by BigJ on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:28PM
Ughh... yes this is a dumb idea. If the net result is to decrease rolling resistance (road-tire friction), there are proven ways to accomplish this:
1) return to hard compound rubber
2) increased tire pressure.
3) lower vehicle weight.
I understand that you could possibly just turn this feature on during deceleration, but isn't this what regenerative braking is already doing? Using the friction between the road and tire to spin the tire and thus the generator? How could this technique be additive?