Rouute: ROAD-BASED ENERGY

[EEVblog]

The usual save the planet net-zero, energy harvesting, blah blah.

https://www.rouute.com/road-based-energy

Youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/@ROUUTE

Webinar: https://www.linkedin.com/events/7148305708646617088/

[SiliconWizard]

Why, of course!
Now waiting for the "but you guys don't understand how innovation works, we gotta have at it even if it's dumb, because otherwise we will be 10 years late when China finally makes it work."
(And some are saying that kind of stuff not at all because they benefit from the grants, never!)
 

Regarding this one, some people seem to still have problems with basic physics. Where do they think the energy they would harvest would be taken from?

[EEVblog]

(And some are saying that kind of stuff not at all because they benefit from the grants, never!)

They mention compatibility with UN goals, gee, I wonder why?

[IanB]

Should this be called theft, or a vehicle tax?

[coppercone2]

the car has to climb out and this probobly makes it run less efficient. typically taxing small inefficient objects is a very bad idea. there would probobly be a plume of less efficent car engine byproducts on that road because the drivers would step on it just a bit

this is like a physics based toll booth.

how about a walkway for pedestrians where they force you to sit down and husk a corn before letting you go on your way. Or just crank a random lever.

some might call it an obstruction. or parasitism

how about installing a nut cracker for planters co. in the revolving door at the mall? every time you walk through you need to split a nut

[pcprogrammer]

They at least had the budget to pay Morgan Freeman for his voice 

[IanB]

the car has to climb out and this probobly makes it run less efficient

There's no probably about it. If you extract energy from vehicles driving over a road, you are extracting energy from those vehicles. Every kWh you take is a kWh provided by the gasoline or electricity powering those vehicles, paid for by the drivers. You are stealing from the operators of those motor vehicles.

[coppercone2]

I still think that installing nut crackers in revolving human powered doors is a good idea.

[pcprogrammer]

And just as with wind and solar it is intermittent. Depends on how many traffic passes by, but we can use storage to keep it for later.

This means the usage of even more valuable resources for a crappy solution, so how is it sustainable. None of these solutions for harvesting renewable energy are truly sustainable. The only thing it sustains is economy.

But a good advertising strategy for this would be "one can make musical roads with these" 

[coppercone2]

the car has to climb out and this probobly makes it run less efficient

There's no probably about it. If you extract energy from vehicles driving over a road, you are extracting energy from those vehicles. Every kWh you take is a kWh provided by the gasoline or electricity powering those vehicles, paid for by the drivers. You are stealing from the operators of those motor vehicles.

yeah but its probobly not as simple and has stronger ramifications for emissions then just the conventional calculation since the car is trying to maintain speed but its going on little bumps . I think there would be immediate emissions that are not typical . Electric cars might do better . I don't think impeding cars mechanically can be justified even if you were in agreement that its a fair way to tax drivers per mile or something doubt its good for the tires either

[Haenk]

Funny. For Germany, that's essentially 10 Cent worth of electricity robbed from /you/your electric car dringing over one bump.
Drive over 200 bumps - and your battery is empty.
That seems to be a bit sketchy, I do not trust the numbers.

[SiliconWizard]

(And some are saying that kind of stuff not at all because they benefit from the grants, never!)

They mention compatibility with UN goals, gee, I wonder why?

U-what?

[Nominal Animal]

"I reject your physically observable reality, and substitute my own; for that way I can extract some of that sweet, sweet Green Deal and Green Transition money."

[EEVblog]

Every kWh you take is a kWh provided by the gasoline or electricity powering those vehicles, paid for by the drivers.

+ losses.

[coppercone2]

what if you can pay with gasoline at a toll booth to a syphon system?

[SiliconWizard]

Could we pay with pee?

[coppercone2]

that is actually the most viable idea in this thread.

[Circlotron]

Would actually be useful on a long downhill slope. Reduce wear on brakes and capture some of the potential energy that would otherwise be dissipated as heat. But only on an ICE powered vehicle. Not helpful on an electric vehicle that has regenerative braking that would pump the battery back up on the downhill slope.

But on a level road - what a dumb idea.

[EEVblog]

Here is how it works:




They got 250,000 pound funding from someone.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/grimsby-start-up-could-generate-26824298

[Haenk]

Looks like one of those dodgy indian perpetuum mobile machines.
No way this could ever meet ROI promised. Dig a hole in the road, create a basement, digg some more for the wiring. Sure. Machine and installations will cost more than the generated electricity in 10000 years is worth. If the machine does not break after two days, that is.

[pcprogrammer]

To make it all work they need solar cells on top of the top side equipment 

That is what the big box on Dave's pictures is, the top side equipment. By the looks of it, it houses a normal generator that is driven with this hydraulics system. So the bump in the road pushes the fluid through some conduit and drives a hydraulic motor that turns the generator. Load the generator enough and the bump in the road becomes exactly that, a bump in the road.

But indeed the sweet Green Deal and Green Transition money will flow towards this idea. At some point it will be proven to not be viable and die a sweet sweet death.

[Haenk]

"I have a vision to send this system globally."

That's a really nice starter for a quote by former (now dead) german chancellor Helmut Schmidt: "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen" - which roughly translates to "If you have visions, you should visit a doctor".

If wonder how many institutes can be talked into funding this nonsense.

[tszaboo]

the car has to climb out and this probobly makes it run less efficient

There's no probably about it. If you extract energy from vehicles driving over a road, you are extracting energy from those vehicles. Every kWh you take is a kWh provided by the gasoline or electricity powering those vehicles, paid for by the drivers. You are stealing from the operators of those motor vehicles.

But you see, if a road is bumpy, than half the time you go downhill. When you go downhill then the speed of the car increases, and when you go uphill it decreases. And it's the same amount of energy, because reservation of energy. But when you go downhill you also go faster. So if you place a bumps on the road, the car will be going faster, use the same amount of energy, plus you can even harvest the energy if you move the bump. This is simple physics. Why don't they do that, are they stupid?

[Haenk]

When you go downhill then the speed of the car increases, and when you go uphill it decreases. And it's the same amount of energy, because reservation of energy.

No - the "bump" siphons energy; driving over the bump means a net loss of energy (for your car; not considering other losses). So in theory you will get slower, If you don't accelerate.

[tszaboo]

When you go downhill then the speed of the car increases, and when you go uphill it decreases. And it's the same amount of energy, because reservation of energy.

No - the "bump" siphons energy; driving over the bump means a net loss of energy (for your car; not considering other losses). So in theory you will get slower, If you don't accelerate.

Why did you take seriously what I wrote?

[AVGresponding]

When you go downhill then the speed of the car increases, and when you go uphill it decreases. And it's the same amount of energy, because reservation of energy.

No - the "bump" siphons energy; driving over the bump means a net loss of energy (for your car; not considering other losses). So in theory you will get slower, If you don't accelerate.

Why did you take seriously what I wrote?

They are German, and therefore cannot comprehend humour.

[Nominal Animal]

The really sad thing here is that many who work for that company, actually truly believe they're going to make things better.

It is surprising how shortsighted even otherwise intelligent humans can be, when easy solutions with ample rewards are presented.  Even straight-up lies are eaten up hook, line, and sinker, when a little bit of belief, charm (or social manipulation), and grease in the form of monetary reward and social reputation is offered.

[SiliconWizard]

The really sad thing here is that many who work for that company, actually truly believe they're going to make things better.

I think you may be a bit "optimistic" with this statement.
A few may truly believe, but I'm rather sure that most of them are there just for the money and don't care one bit what it is for.
Then again, isn't this what most people do with their job. It's just a job. Oh well.

[Eagcress88]

This reminds me of the geniuses suggesting attaching generators to the wheels of electric cars to charge the batteries of those same electric cars. They're like "inventors" of perpetual motion machines. Where do they think the energy for that will come from?

[Helio_Centra]

attaching generators to the wheels of electric cars to charge the batteries of those same electric cars.

That's exactly what regenerative breaking is.

[Nominal Animal]

attaching generators to the wheels of electric cars to charge the batteries of those same electric cars.

That's exactly what regenerative breaking is.

No.  Regenerative braking uses the motor driving the wheels as the generator.  There is no separate generator at all.

I'm not trying to be snarky here.  Describing it in detail like this is the only way to get non-technical people to understand the situation and why things like "let's attach a generator to the motor so we get free energy" don't work and cannot work.  If you don't believe me on this, try it in practice.  If you then follow up by explaining a road that extracts energy from passing cars is like a road where all brakes are applied (at least a little bit), they get the implications darn quick.

After all, a brake is nothing but a device, a generator, turning kinetic energy (wheel rotation) into waste heat.

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, braking is just the complete opposite of generating any energy: it is dissipating it as quickly as possible while keeping heat at a reasonable level.
In terms of energy use, braking makes no sense, but it turns out it's needed because vehicles have inertia. Unless we never needed to stop.

With that said, *harvesting* energy from braking does work and is a clever way of storing back some of the energy that you need otherwise to dissipate to be able to brake.

So as Nominal said, it has absolutely nothing to do with free energy. It has to do with limiting the waste.

[PlainName]

attaching generators to the wheels of electric cars to charge the batteries of those same electric cars.

That's exactly what regenerative breaking is.

No.  Regenerative braking uses the motor driving the wheels as the generator.  There is no separate generator at all.

I'm not trying to be snarky here.  Describing it in detail like this is the only way to get non-technical people to understand the situation and why things like "let's attach a generator to the motor so we get free energy" don't work and cannot work.  If you don't believe me on this, try it in practice.  If you then follow up by explaining a road that extracts energy from passing cars is like a road where all brakes are applied (at least a little bit), they get the implications darn quick.

After all, a brake is nothing but a device, a generator, turning kinetic energy (wheel rotation) into waste heat.

I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and suggest that your argument is about implementation, not principle.

With a typical vehicle you need an engine to make it go, and brakes to make it stop (kind of - the engine can make it stop, but slowly). So if you take an ICE and make it an EV all you've done is replace the petrol engine with an electric motor. Still got brakes to make it stop. Now some bright spark will thing "Hey, why don't we use the motor as a generator to slow the thing down instead of brakes, and that way we can re-use the energy we'd otherwise waste as heat?" Et voila - regenerative braking.

Doesn't really matter if that's achieved by putting a generator in the wheels a la brake calipers, or using the motor as a generator. Obviously, the latter is much better because of cost, space, etc., but in principle there is no difference.

So I think your answer to

attaching generators to the wheels of electric cars to charge the batteries of those same electric cars.

That's exactly what regenerative breaking is.

is missing the point he is raising. He's not saying it is free energy (although, strictly, I suppose it is if only briefly since otherwise it would be lost). He is just pointing out that regenerative braking is exactly what having a generator in the wheel is, subject to implementation detail.

[Bud]

How does emergencg breaking in this case  work though ? I do not want the "regenerative break motor" to keep spinning when i hit the brakes hard. I want the darn thing stop asap.

[PlainName]

EVs still have normal drag brakes, don't they?

[tszaboo]

How does emergencg breaking in this case  work though ? I do not want the "regenerative break motor" to keep spinning when i hit the brakes hard. I want the darn thing stop asap.

You press the pedal, and you get regen breaking. You press it more, you get regen plus regular breaks. You press it even more the ABS comes on. You put the car in B speed, and it doesn't disengage the ICE, you get engine breaking. You pull the handbrake and that comes on. I think that's all the normal breaking modes of hybrids.

[EEVblog]

How does emergencg breaking in this case  work though ? I do not want the "regenerative break motor" to keep spinning when i hit the brakes hard. I want the darn thing stop asap.

All EV's have normal disc brakes as well, they just don't engage for most regular driving unless you are very agressive.
My IONIQ has a "flappy paddle" brake as well as the foot brake, and both engage the regen, but only the foot pedal hard will engage the brakes. I do the majority of my driving using the flappy paddle regen because it's just nicer.

[Nominal Animal]

attaching generators to the wheels of electric cars to charge the batteries of those same electric cars.

That's exactly what regenerative breaking is.

No.  Regenerative braking uses the motor driving the wheels as the generator.  There is no separate generator at all.

I'm not trying to be snarky here.  Describing it in detail like this is the only way to get non-technical people to understand the situation and why things like "let's attach a generator to the motor so we get free energy" don't work and cannot work.  If you don't believe me on this, try it in practice.  If you then follow up by explaining a road that extracts energy from passing cars is like a road where all brakes are applied (at least a little bit), they get the implications darn quick.

After all, a brake is nothing but a device, a generator, turning kinetic energy (wheel rotation) into waste heat.

I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and suggest that your argument is about implementation, not principle.

No, my argument was supposed to be about the principle –– energy is not created, we can only change its form ––, and intuitive understanding.

Fundamentally, acceleration and deceleration are the two sides of the same thing.  To accelerate, you need to convert some form of energy into kinetic energy.  To decelerate (brake), you need to convert kinetic energy into some other form of energy.  The easiest form to convert to is waste heat through friction.  A generator is nothing but a device to change one form of energy to another, plus some losses typically in the form of waste heat and possibly electromagnetic radiation.

Most non-technical people believe a generator creates energy somehow.  This is what leads to unrealistic ideas like attaching a generator to a motor and getting free energy as a result.  My post was about combating this at the core level, human intuitive understanding of reality, and avoiding the linguistic/imaginary pitfalls people often get stuck in when they consider things at the wrong level of abstraction.

We could argue about the dictionary definition of "generator", but for a physically realistic, intuitive and correct understanding, only the model of "changes the form of energy" as opposed to "creates energy" makes any sense whatsoever.  And, in this particular sense and model of understanding things, brakes are just generators too, changing kinetic energy (in the form of rotating brake discs) into waste heat.  That, too, is important for a physically realistic, correct intuitive understanding of what is happening here.

If you happen to understand and agree my point above, then the idiocy of energy recovery from vehicles on flat roads becomes obvious.
(Whether energy recovery from vehicles going downhill would be practical, is a completely separate question.)

[CatalinaWOW]

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this video is the data it provides about Morgan Freeman.  I had always had the impression that he was a pretty bright guy.  But either that is wrong, or else he is quite willing to lie for a a modest speaking gig.

[coppercone2]

he could play a role as maxwells's demon to have on the job training about the laws of thermodynamics in the form of a hockey drama about Soviet bidding with said entity to ensure success in international hockey.

[pcprogrammer]

Most non-technical people believe a generator creates energy somehow.  This is what leads to unrealistic ideas like attaching a generator to a motor and getting free energy as a result.  My post was about combating this at the core level, human intuitive understanding of reality, and avoiding the linguistic/imaginary pitfalls people often get stuck in when they consider things at the wrong level of abstraction.

We could argue about the dictionary definition of "generator", but for a physically realistic, intuitive and correct understanding, only the model of "changes the form of energy" as opposed to "creates energy" makes any sense whatsoever.  And, in this particular sense and model of understanding things, brakes are just generators too, changing kinetic energy (in the form of rotating brake discs) into waste heat.  That, too, is important for a physically realistic, correct intuitive understanding of what is happening here.

Then the people who came up with the name "generator" should have had more wits about it and should have named it "converter". 

Connect a "converter" to a steam turbine and it converts the rotational energy into electrical energy.

[EEVblog]

Their numbers don't even add up. You'd have to stop a 3 ton car from 96km/h to get their claimed 300Wh energy converted, at 100% efficiency to boot. 

[Circlotron]

Then the people who came up with the name "generator" should have had more wits about it and should have named it "converter".  >:Denergy.

Or maybe "transducer".

[Nominal Animal]

We could argue about the dictionary definition of "generator", but for a physically realistic, intuitive and correct understanding, only the model of "changes the form of energy" as opposed to "creates energy" makes any sense whatsoever.  And, in this particular sense and model of understanding things, brakes are just generators too, changing kinetic energy (in the form of rotating brake discs) into waste heat.  That, too, is important for a physically realistic, correct intuitive understanding of what is happening here.

Then the people who came up with the name "generator" should have had more wits about it and should have named it "converter". 

Connect a "converter" to a steam turbine and it converts the rotational energy into electrical energy.

Very true, but when has human naming-of-things made any sense in the first place?

Or maybe "transducer".

Non-English terms create exactly the kind of misconceptions that my point is to try to avoid.  Instead of their defined or traditional meaning, people invent their own, based on the context and their own (mis)understanding of that context.

Commonplace words have much better defined contexts –– that is, people generally agree much more about the context.  In particular, "to convert" avoids the misconception of "creating something", whereas a typical English-speaking person does not know whether "to transduce" involves conversion only or also creation.

The best word and example of such ambiquity I know of, is the word "emerge", and whether that which emerges existed in its current form before "emerging" or not.  If you look at the common dictionary definitions, they imply yes (as in, "coming into view"); but if you look at related term "emergent" you get the opposite vibe (as in, "coming into existence").
(Whether "emerging behaviour" and "emergent behaviour" mean the same or the opposite of each other, sometimes keeps me up at night.)

Humans love to use domain-specific terms.  In some cases, it is to show that they "know" the domain; but in most cases, it is because their understanding is so superficial they cannot define their understanding in any other terms!  The act of describing ones knowledge (or lack of) is not just an expression, it is actually a very heavy cognitive function, and is the reason why for example rubber duck debugging works.  Explaining things properly is not just offering the correct terms and solutions, but tying them in their dependent context in a way the recipient understands those relationships.  That is the point I am trying to make: that kind of intuitive understanding is a necessary prerequisite for humans to understand physical reality, and not fall for these dodgy pseudoscientific or technological or technobabble schemes that promise to solve all possible problems.
And it all starts by explaining precisely the terms and their implications.

At one point, the hot "term" in media and advertising was antibacterial; at another point, anything nano.  Now it is green energy and sustainability, with zero actual physical links to what the terms originally meant.  I blame media for using precise terms like they would a badger's ass as a hat.

[madires]

All EV's have normal disc brakes as well, they just don't engage for most regular driving unless you are very agressive.
My IONIQ has a "flappy paddle" brake as well as the foot brake, and both engage the regen, but only the foot pedal hard will engage the brakes. I do the majority of my driving using the flappy paddle regen because it's just nicer.

A brief sidenote: When disc brakes are rarely used it can lead to a rust problem (and a failure of the breaking system).

[madires]

Their numbers don't even add up. You'd have to stop a 3 ton car from 96km/h to get their claimed 300Wh energy converted, at 100% efficiency to boot. 

A Tesla Cybertruck. Very green!

BTW, will Rouute pay for new shock absorbers when the old ones fail early?

[IanB]

Or maybe "transducer".

No, because transducer already has a well-defined meaning for measurement signals.

[IanB]

Then the people who came up with the name "generator" should have had more wits about it and should have named it "converter". 

Connect a "converter" to a steam turbine and it converts the rotational energy into electrical energy.

Converter is a valid name in some circumstances, for example a rotary converter can convert DC to AC, or convert 50 Hz to 60 Hz.

But "generator" is understood in engineering to generate an output of a new kind that is different from the kind of input. For example, a heat generator can generate heat, and an electrical generator can generate electricity. Or an oxygen generator can make oxygen.

[PlainName]

This Rouute thing is obviously a dead duck but I wonder if we're looking at it wrong? ISTM that we see a series of these bump generators over which cars (and trucks, etc) pass at normal speeds as if they're not there. See, for instance, the video of the car trundling along the highway.

But suppose they were built into sleeping policemen. For non-UK drivers these are humps across the road whose sole purpose is to give your vehicle a big enough bump that you slow down to walking pace (and even then some of them are suspension-challenging). With these you expect the notice them and if they are allegedly designed to soften the blow whilst still providing an obstacle, what's not to like?

Obviously you're not going to power a town from them, but how about street furniture. We have illuminated road signs that depend on a solar panel so the power necessary for the sign isn't that high. We also have illuminated cat's eyes that apparently use car headlights to produce the power. Perhaps something like a speed hump with embedded generator (er, transducer... no, converter... no, 'electrical thing') would be worthwhile.

[IanB]

This Rouute thing is obviously a dead duck but I wonder if we're looking at it wrong? ISTM that we see a series of these bump generators over which cars (and trucks, etc) pass at normal speeds as if they're not there. See, for instance, the video of the car trundling along the highway.

The thing is, there is no such thing as "as if they are not there". If they take any energy at all from the moving vehicle, they will have a braking effect. It is just a matter of how much. If you only take a few watts, the vehicles will hardly notice it, but at the same time a few watts is not very useful. If you try to take kilowatts the vehicles will definitely notice it, and their fuel consumption will increase accordingly.

[PlainName]

This Rouute thing is obviously a dead duck but I wonder if we're looking at it wrong? ISTM that we see a series of these bump generators over which cars (and trucks, etc) pass at normal speeds as if they're not there. See, for instance, the video of the car trundling along the highway.

The thing is, there is no such thing as "as if they are not there". If they take any energy at all from the moving vehicle, they will have a braking effect. It is just a matter of how much. If you only take a few watts, the vehicles will hardly notice it, but at the same time a few watts is not very useful. If you try to take kilowatts the vehicles will definitely notice it, and their fuel consumption will increase accordingly.

Perhaps you could read a bit further than the first two sentences, and then you'll see that 'obviously being there' is exactly the feature to use.

[Circlotron]

What might be useful, although maybe impractical, is to have some kind of energy absorbing mechanism on a road surface just upstream of traffic lights that rise slightly above the surface every time the lights go red and the traffic is meant to stop. To recover the energy of a moving line of traffic and bring it to a complete stop would be amazing. Maybe like they do it on aircraft carriers, but that sounds more like an article from a 1930s Popular Mechanics magazine.

[EEVblog]

If you only take a few watts, the vehicles will hardly notice it, but at the same time a few watts is not very useful. If you try to take kilowatts the vehicles will definitely notice it, and their fuel consumption will increase accordingly.

As mentioned in my video, their own 300Wh figure is the equivalent energy to completely stopping a 3 ton car from 94km/h to zero.

[SiliconWizard]

If you only take a few watts, the vehicles will hardly notice it, but at the same time a few watts is not very useful. If you try to take kilowatts the vehicles will definitely notice it, and their fuel consumption will increase accordingly.

As mentioned in my video, their own 300Wh figure is the equivalent energy to completely stopping a 3 ton car from 94km/h to zero.

Yes.
And anyway, however small what you take from vehicles is, it's still taken. So it's just a tax, and a pretty expensive and ineffective way of taxing people. Completely dumb.

[pcprogrammer]

Then the people who came up with the name "generator" should have had more wits about it and should have named it "converter". 

Connect a "converter" to a steam turbine and it converts the rotational energy into electrical energy.

Converter is a valid name in some circumstances, for example a rotary converter can convert DC to AC, or convert 50 Hz to 60 Hz.

But "generator" is understood in engineering to generate an output of a new kind that is different from the kind of input. For example, a heat generator can generate heat, and an electrical generator can generate electricity. Or an oxygen generator can make oxygen.

Sure, but that is the whole point. If it was originally named "converter" that would have been understood in engineering to turn some form of energy into some other form of energy.

The same goes for any other word in the dictionary. If another word was made up for something we would be using that other word.

[pcprogrammer]

 

Imagine this. It is a cloudy windless day and there is an energy crisis on which governments decide to prohibit driving on Sundays. Then how is this system going to help us. 

And don't say this car less Sunday thing won't happen, because it already did several times in the Netherlands due to fear of running out of fossil fuels and other reasons. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autovrije_dag

In Brussels they had it last year. https://www.brussel.be/autoloze-zondag

You got to love the bullshit people come up with.

 

[.RC.]

It needs a flywheel somewhere.

Every perpetual motion machine has a flywheel.

But seriously, how stupid would you really have to be to even think this would somehow obtain energy from somewhere other then sapping it from the vehicle.

[tszaboo]

There is one way I see acceptable to extract energy from cars for useful work, it's this:

[nctnico]

What might be useful, although maybe impractical, is to have some kind of energy absorbing mechanism on a road surface just upstream of traffic lights that rise slightly above the surface every time the lights go red and the traffic is meant to stop. To recover the energy of a moving line of traffic and bring it to a complete stop would be amazing.

That already exists. It is called regenerative braking. Standard on every electric and hybrid car.

[CatalinaWOW]

I wonder if anyone has thought of the historical benefits of this idea.  Restoring the feeling of driving on brick or cobblestone pavements.

[SiliconWizard]

What might be useful, although maybe impractical, is to have some kind of energy absorbing mechanism on a road surface just upstream of traffic lights that rise slightly above the surface every time the lights go red and the traffic is meant to stop. To recover the energy of a moving line of traffic and bring it to a complete stop would be amazing.

That already exists. It is called regenerative braking. Standard on every electric and hybrid car.

Yes, as already mentioned. And this is far more efficient than trying to harvest the equivalent outside of the vehicle. Almost worth facepalming, although we must be nice.

[nctnico]

What might be useful, although maybe impractical, is to have some kind of energy absorbing mechanism on a road surface just upstream of traffic lights that rise slightly above the surface every time the lights go red and the traffic is meant to stop. To recover the energy of a moving line of traffic and bring it to a complete stop would be amazing.

That already exists. It is called regenerative braking. Standard on every electric and hybrid car.

Yes, as already mentioned. And this is far more efficient than trying to harvest the equivalent outside of the vehicle. Almost worth facepalming, although we must be nice.

If you want, you can have my blessing to facepalm all you want on this one 

[Circlotron]

What might be useful, although maybe impractical, is to have some kind of energy absorbing mechanism on a road surface just upstream of traffic lights that rise slightly above the surface every time the lights go red and the traffic is meant to stop. To recover the energy of a moving line of traffic and bring it to a complete stop would be amazing.

That already exists. It is called regenerative braking. Standard on every electric and hybrid car.

I know that. I mean recovering the kinetic energy from conventional ICE powered cars.

[JustMeHere]

What would be really cool is if all of you EV guys could plug in and power the grid directly with your car.   Save the world with your car!

[JustMeHere]

What might be useful, although maybe impractical, is to have some kind of energy absorbing mechanism on a road surface just upstream of traffic lights that rise slightly above the surface every time the lights go red and the traffic is meant to stop. To recover the energy of a moving line of traffic and bring it to a complete stop would be amazing.

That already exists. It is called regenerative braking. Standard on every electric and hybrid car.

I know that. I mean recovering the kinetic energy from conventional ICE powered cars.

They got that too.  It's done with flywheels (considered a hybrid by some.)  However, it's better done in a battery hybrid.

[tszaboo]

What would be really cool is if all of you EV guys could plug in and power the grid directly with your car.   Save the world with your car!

It exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

There were limited studies about it.
I think it will be more important to have distributed networks. You drive to work, plug in your car to a charger there. Your solar panel at home makes electricity, and that's what you use at work for charging. Instead of paying for expensive electricity, and get laughable feed-in fees, you only pay for transport costs.

[SiliconWizard]

How many of you think that a majority of people will still be driving individual vehicles at all as we still do now, to begin with, in one, two or three decades?

[pcprogrammer]

How many of you think that a majority of people will still be driving individual vehicles at all as we still do now, to begin with, in one, two or three decades?

Probably lots of people, unless we are all forced to live in cities with very good public transport. Would probably hang myself if that ever happens. Did not move to the country side for nothing.

Has anyone looked into harvesting energy from the shock absorbers. They go up and down a lot when driving on rough roads. Might get some Watts out of that as it is lost energy otherwise.

Double it up with the road bump system and you get 200% 

[Xena E]

Has anyone looked into harvesting energy from the shock absorbers. They go up and down a lot when driving on rough roads. Might get some Watts out of that as it is lost energy otherwise.

Yes, it is being investigated, manufacturing electro magnetic mechanical dampers is perfectly valid, and not such a great step away is the direct harvesting of electrical energy from them.

Have you ever dropped a magnet down a non ferrous metal tube and noted the restriction on the speed of fall? That's the principle.

How much can it generate? If you can say what the extra fuel cost is between driving on a rough road against a smooth one you have your answer:

Basically bugger all, but perhaps probably worthwhile in an EV: it also allows for adaptive ride suspension.

Perhaps we need to get the real Morgan F, to promote it

[SiliconWizard]

Perhaps we need to cut the bullshit, but this is a far more challenging project.

[EEVblog]

How many of you think that a majority of people will still be driving individual vehicles at all as we still do now, to begin with, in one, two or three decades?

How will society change to enable that to happen?
The answer is, it won't change, much.

[PlainName]

How many of you think that a majority of people will still be driving individual vehicles at all as we still do now, to begin with, in one, two or three decades?

How will society change to enable that to happen?
The answer is, it won't change, much.

In towns and cities they can make it too tedious to have personal transport, partly with a stick (charging for access, LTNs, 10mph speed limits, etc) and partly with a carrot (much better public transport). Outside cities that won't wash because there is no alternative if you want to step outside your door, but the question was 'most' and I think most people do indeed reside in cities and towns.

Any major conurbation already has loads of cyclists (despite adverse weather) and I don't really see why that wouldn't be the route for those that want personalised in-city transport. It does work - see Asian cities where cyclists basically carpet the place - and I reckon it's just a matter of making that seem more attractive than the hassle of owning a car.

[IanB]

In towns and cities they can make it too tedious to have personal transport, partly with a stick (charging for access, LTNs, 10mph speed limits, etc) and partly with a carrot (much better public transport). Outside cities that won't wash because there is no alternative if you want to step outside your door, but the question was 'most' and I think most people do indeed reside in cities and towns.

Any major conurbation already has loads of cyclists (despite adverse weather) and I don't really see why that wouldn't be the route for those that want personalised in-city transport. It does work - see Asian cities where cyclists basically carpet the place - and I reckon it's just a matter of making that seem more attractive than the hassle of owning a car.

If you take London, for example, then a car is a liability and public transport gets you almost anywhere very efficiently. The trouble comes when on a few days a month you need a car to go outside the city, and then it should be really easy to rent a car as required. For example, it is really easy to rent an electric bike just by putting a credit card in a slot. Maybe in future, you could pick up an electric car from a charging point, drive it somewhere, and drop it off at another charging point.

[PlainName]

Yep, London should be a good example. But...

They've certainly dissuaded me from visiting, but once a year we go in for a dinner at some posh restaurant, usually around the Picadilly Circus area. You'd think public transport would be the right choice, but in fact is is cheaper to drive in and pay the extortionate NCP parking fees than it is to catch the train and then local transport to get to the place. And that's for one person, but since there would be a pair of us it's even cheaper to ignore public transport! And then, of course, we can go and leave at whatever time we fancy rather than whatever time the train will be cancelled.

If they really want to get rid of cars they need to make the alternatives attractive rather than a pita, and then it would probably happen.

[IanB]

When you say "catch the train and then local transport", I assume you are starting somewhere outside of London and then catching the train into London first? That can indeed be expensive, since national rail fares can be somewhat pricey. But if you were starting out inside the contactless fare zone, then the travel would be relatively inexpensive.

I remember one time going into London from the outer suburbs, and I decided to drive instead of taking the train. Boy, did I regret that! I spent hours in traffic jams fighting with everyone else who had the same idea of driving into London. The train would have been such a better option.

You mentioned the NCP parking fees, but did you also mention the charge for driving inside the congestion zone?

[PlainName]

Yes, outside the M25. Indeed, within that it should be reasonably cheap albeit you still need to keep to someone elses timetable. And sometimes the routing can be a drag - I remember (when I did use buses) doing 3 miles into town on one bus then catching another to do 3 miles out to a place that was just a mile away sideways, and it was literally quicker to walk (but... weather, laziness,...).

[SiliconWizard]

If they really want to get rid of cars they need to make the alternatives attractive rather than a pita, and then it would probably happen.

All it takes is passing more laws in the name of saving the planet. There might (probably: will) be some protests here and there, but that'll be it. Why do you think the alternatives have to be made attractive?
Let's say you had no choice. What would you do?

[PlainName]

No, laws are sticks. Make the alternatives attractive and you won't need sticks (or, at least, not so many).

Another instance: when I pop into hospital I know that parking will be difficult and relatively expensive. The car park will likely be full, and surrounding streets covered by the Ringo app, but similarly getting a space will likely be a decent walk away. However, there is a bus stop at the top of my lane, and a bus goes from there to right outside the hospital - you couldn't ask for more! Although, actually, I've taken it only once because it takes just over an hour to get there (20 mins in car), runs only once an hour, and the "onboard free WiFi and charging" never works. So for an appointment at 9:45 I am looking at catching the 7am bus, being bored to tears and than kicking my heels for half an hour at the other end. And then there's coming back... And don't ask about cost...

Laws ain't going to change that. The will to run the things more often and cheaper would make a huge difference, though.

[tszaboo]

If they really want to get rid of cars they need to make the alternatives attractive rather than a pita, and then it would probably happen.

All it takes is passing more laws in the name of saving the planet. There might (probably: will) be some protests here and there, but that'll be it. Why do you think the alternatives have to be made attractive?
Let's say you had no choice. What would you do?

I only have this quote as an answer:

No fireplaces
No meat
No dairy
No heat
No air conditioning
No cars
No clothes
No flights

No comedians
No free speech
No cash
No cats
No dogs
No farm animals

No children

Your future as peasants
Under the eco-fascists

Really just fascists
With the best excuse ever

[IanB]

However, there is a bus stop at the top of my lane, and a bus goes from there to right outside the hospital - you couldn't ask for more! Although, actually, I've taken it only once because it takes just over an hour to get there (20 mins in car), runs only once an hour, and the "onboard free WiFi and charging" never works.

I think that is because they make the buses go all around the houses (literally).

In one Hertfordshire town where I used to live, I could walk from my front door to the town centre in about 20 mins. Or I could get on the "hopper" bus that ran down my street, and it would take 25 minutes to do the same journey, because it took such a circuitous route with so many stops along the way. The only reason to take the bus would be lack of mobility or heavy shopping.

[PlainName]

Yes, it's a roundabout one which takes the scenic route. But that wouldn't matter if they ran more often. They don't run more often because not many people use it - it is never packed and mostly a handful of passengers. By maybe it's not used much because it doesn't run often enough 

[IanB]

Yes, it's a roundabout one which takes the scenic route. But that wouldn't matter if they ran more often. They don't run more often because not many people use it - it is never packed and mostly a handful of passengers. By maybe it's not used much because it doesn't run often enough 

That's the story of the London Overground. The North London Line, for example, was pretty deserted and derelict with tumbleweeds blowing in the wind. When TFL took it over, cleaned it up, and ran several trains per hour, it became very busy, sometimes overcrowded.

[RJSV]

   Nevermind you naysaers, I'm right now trying to think up what's the best ANIMAL to do this with/to:
   SKUNKS  Walking.
   Muskrats walking.  Just cause I like the name
   Eagle tethers.
   High Speed Worms...(No).

    My 4th grade school teacher.
    Decending free Boeing aircraft parts, could help keep steady generation.

[RJSV]

   (My best idea):
   How about an 'Emission-free USB Dongle':
   The thing will absorb the energy released, every time you delete a file, on your PC.

[RJSV]

   Yeah but, just like Veritasium with the sailboat moving faster than the wind;
   Why couldn't someone try rigging up a 'Weight Energy' treadmill, so those little road bumps MOVE...that way they could be adjusted, so that the car is ALWAYS on the downward side, of any bump.

Thanks, Veritasium, (if I've remembered the right name).

[Nominal Animal]

Nevermind you naysaers, I'm right now trying to think up what's the best ANIMAL to do this with/to:

o.O
O.o
You insinuating sumtin'?

[AVGresponding]

Penguins spend too much time standing huddled together for warmth for this. Though perhaps we could harvest the waste warmth with TEGs... the delta-t to the ice must be pretty good!