I've seen a lot of good ideas in regards to tapping untapped sources of energy, and some which made a basic error.
We need to remember that in creating new modes of energy production, that creating systems which capture energy otherwise dissipated in activities which would occur regardless of their energy productive capabilities is more useful than creating ways of capturing energy from activities which would have to be done for that reason alone. My writing isn't very clear today. I apologize.
What I mean is this. Every potential way of harnessing energy also requires energy input. If we're going to build a dynamic floor which will harness kinetic energy in a dance club, we have to factor in the cost of producing the floor, both in materials and energy. Not only that, but we have to factor in the energy spent in order to get investment (talks, meals during talks, etc.) as well as the energy spent to create an effective design. Also, there is an issue of maintenance. How many incarnations of this kinetic floor generator would have to be issued before a model that actually resulted in a net gain for the system?
Once we factor in, or at least estimate, the energy input for each design, we can determine what the necessary energy output would have to be in order for the item to provide a net gain. Through this method, we can identify when our technology, or other concerns, keep a particular idea from being energetically feasible.
So, keep it up. I love the ideas spinning around, but please remember that, every idea requires an input of energy. If you decide to take energy from your bicycle, it will have to come from the energy driving the bicycle, which would result in a decrease of efficiency in the function of the bike.
So, one thing that might be effective would be to identify systems in which a great deal of energy is dispersed, untapped, and in relative isolation from the system which is dispersing it. So, for instance...refrigerators put out an immense amount of heat, as one can imagine. Could that heat be utilized without compromising the efficiency of the fridge and without requiring more energy input into design, funding and manufacturing than would be returned to the system.
In this case, I still find planting trees/seeds to be the most efficient design. Simply scattering seeds requires relatively little energy, a minimum of funding, and no manufacturing costs (as the plant takes upon the manufacturing load). In the long-term, the plants that arise from the process pull carbon out of the atmosphere, give food and habitat to the surrounding ecosystem, stabilize soil, provide shade and other functions which would be much more expensive for us to manually. That and we do not have to invest energy or time into their development for the most part if the seeds are intelligently scattered. They are solar machines which require what are essentially free resources.
The only cost here is that it requires that we have land put aside for such plantings, and that we restrict expansion of human settlement and industry into areas where these plants (which are much more efficient and healthy organisms for the planet than humans) are already present.
I'm curious. What are other people's understanding of energy tapping, and their analysis of hidden and indeterminate costs in both time and energy?
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke