Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
(OP)
I thought I’d start a thread for people to suggest some ‘green machines’ following on from my post about exchangeable battery packs for vehicles.
I know not everyone, or even most members believe it’s necessary but lets ignore that temporarily and pretend we all think it’s a good idea to reduce the use of fossil fuels, especially oil.
What cunning machines, techniques, systems, mechanisms etc do you have for saving energy or generating it in ‘cleaner’ ways, and to keep it on topic ones that could be realized (at least in prototype/proof of concept form) in the next 5 years.
Obviously if you think it’s a really good idea you may want to save if for your patent application, since once on this board I suspect anyone could use it although I’m no expert on patents or copyright law etc.
Try to think outside the box a little, ideas that aren’t receiving much if any attention at the moment, perhaps do a quick internet search before you post just to check.
So for starters, wind turbine powered ships. Especially a vertical axis wind turbine powered ship.
The direction of travel would be completely independent of the wind direction, you wouldn’t even need to tack.
If a two blade ‘H’ configuration or egg beater configuration were used then in port auxiliary power could be used to avoid any dangers of collision with the turbine locked for and aft.
Once at sea the turbine could be unleashed.
Classically ‘H’ vertical axis wind turbines have problems with peak power being provided n times a rotation for an n bladed turbine.
This can cause problems with a torque tube as well as being non optimal for driving a generator.
This can be alleviated by ‘twisting’ the blades around the axis but using this would complicated stowing the turbine for and aft as above.
On the ship maybe a ‘power smoother’ could be used. Perhaps a hydraulic pump at the hub connected to a hydraulic motor for the propeller via an accumulator to smooth the rotation.
This is about the only thing I could find which isn’t quite what I’m thinking of.
htt p://www.me magazine.o rg/supparc h/pejun04/ ebursts/eb ursts.html
So obvious problems and flaws with the idea.
Or have any of you got your own ideas that you think Engineering might explore in the next 5 years?
I know not everyone, or even most members believe it’s necessary but lets ignore that temporarily and pretend we all think it’s a good idea to reduce the use of fossil fuels, especially oil.
What cunning machines, techniques, systems, mechanisms etc do you have for saving energy or generating it in ‘cleaner’ ways, and to keep it on topic ones that could be realized (at least in prototype/proof of concept form) in the next 5 years.
Obviously if you think it’s a really good idea you may want to save if for your patent application, since once on this board I suspect anyone could use it although I’m no expert on patents or copyright law etc.
Try to think outside the box a little, ideas that aren’t receiving much if any attention at the moment, perhaps do a quick internet search before you post just to check.
So for starters, wind turbine powered ships. Especially a vertical axis wind turbine powered ship.
The direction of travel would be completely independent of the wind direction, you wouldn’t even need to tack.
If a two blade ‘H’ configuration or egg beater configuration were used then in port auxiliary power could be used to avoid any dangers of collision with the turbine locked for and aft.
Once at sea the turbine could be unleashed.
Classically ‘H’ vertical axis wind turbines have problems with peak power being provided n times a rotation for an n bladed turbine.
This can cause problems with a torque tube as well as being non optimal for driving a generator.
This can be alleviated by ‘twisting’ the blades around the axis but using this would complicated stowing the turbine for and aft as above.
On the ship maybe a ‘power smoother’ could be used. Perhaps a hydraulic pump at the hub connected to a hydraulic motor for the propeller via an accumulator to smooth the rotation.
This is about the only thing I could find which isn’t quite what I’m thinking of.
htt
So obvious problems and flaws with the idea.
Or have any of you got your own ideas that you think Engineering might explore in the next 5 years?





RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Some nice ideas, I think we'd have to get a communist or similar government to really get some of them running though! I’ve always thought the refrigerator/air conditioning situation was kind of dumb.
Here’s one, modular integrated offshore power generation. I understand two of the major costs for off shore wind/wave/tidal power projects are:
1. Cost of laying transmission lines back to land.
2. Cost of rigidly anchoring the system/unit to the sea bed (if required, a lot are now looking at floating platforms which minimizes this)
So if you’re going to spend all that money why not at least maximize the power generation at each ‘anchor point’. I’m thinking a platform that has not just a wind turbine but also wave power generators and tidal/current power generators mounted on it. It would be modular so in a site which really wouldn’t justify one of the generators, e.g. an area with very low tides/currents, you could leave those components off.
Also the energy from the 3 sources could perhaps be integrated before being transformed into electricity reducing the number of generators and perhaps using power smoothing techniques (maybe the hydraulics & accumulators I mentioned before) to get a steadier out-put.
It would allow use of sites which are perhaps sub optimal for any one energy source but from a combination of 2 or 3 are economically feasible.
Also hopefully this would lead to higher production rates which in turn would allow prices to drop, opening up more opportunities.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Sorry Kenat, just had to throw that in. Off shore wind turbines are being done now, adding a wave generator and using the same lines makes sense.
We pipe natural gas back to shore from platforms as long as they aren't too far out or too deep, no reason why we can't bring electricity back as well.. except capital investment and ROI.
-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Vertical axis turbine! I liked this movie...
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
In terms of energy used in vehicles, urban traffic use would employ more mass transit or more hybrid vehicles. For highway traffic, use of the new diesels ( Toyota Yaris gets 75 mpg with a common rail diesel)could cut highway fuel use in half. Other management schemes that use the internet to post ride sharing boards ( as well as means to improve security of ridership- ID schemes)could be used to reduce fuel consumption in rural areas.
In terms of reducing energy use in homes, there are schemes used in europe that seem to work- heating costs can be reduced by use of radiant floor heating as opposed to conventional hot air systems. A/C costs can be reduced by passive solar measures and use of solar screens on south and west facing windows. For apartment buildings, use of micro turbines with heat recovery for building heating or absorption Air conditioning would yield an 85% energy efficiency, vs the 50% efficiency for gas fired combined cycles.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
For big green energy machines go to
h
For the first wind-hydrogen production ship go
h
and see the video.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
We slept in one of these houses, nice and warm while it was freezing outside. The romans also had undeground houses when they lived in Tunesia.
h
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/matmata_tunisia.htm
IJsbrand
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Along the lines of the underground house, my idea consists of a buckyball dome mostly embedded into the side of a hill. I guess the closest analog would be a hobbit-hole? This way you save on heating and cooling, are immune to most natural disasters (providing you're geographically distant from earthquakes and volcanoes), and you can use all of the above ground side as your yard!
I had an idea to have a skylight as well, maybe with a retractable cover? Also said yard could easily accomodate solar and/or wind turbines, again depending on locale.
For the (future) wife's sake, you could even build a facade of a normal looking house for the entrance, it would just appear much smaller than your actual place.
Finally, sorry to keep bringing up movies, but I'm pretty sure that the Tunisian Matmata houses were shown in the first Star Wars, ostensibly for the same purposes of cooling in a desert.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
true, we slept in the very hotel where the movie was shot.
And, for people who live in flat countries:
http://www.de12ambachten.nl/ondergrondsbouwen.html
(sorry it's in Dutch, but the pictures will tell the story)
IJsbrand
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
It also reminds me of this article I saw on wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/noaa.html
as well as when I was growing up in Oklahoma we visited the 911 call center (emergency services) and their HQ was underground as well to prevent tornado damage. They also told us it was on springs to prevent earthquake damage and has escape hatches in case of fire. Pretty slick.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
ht
IJsbrand
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
The public water supply system delivers to my house water at a pressure Psupply which is more than enough pressure than I need to get it to come out of my faucet at a satisfactory rate (Pminimum=mimimum acceptable pressure).
Psupply >> Pmin
Psupply = Pmin + Pextra
Pextra > 0
So I open the faucet and the water comes out with certain kinetic energy that is wasted and some throttline losses in my faucet that are wasted.
The amount of energy wasted is Pextra * V where V is the volume of water that I draw out.
What if I had some kind of turbine wheel in the water supply to my house that extracted that extra energy (pressure drop) that I didn't need. Perhaps it could be remotely adjustable from inside so that when I need more pressure, the turbine wheel extracts no energy (no pressure drop), but when I have pressure to spare, the turbine wheel extracts all that extra energy.
So I get the extra energy. Also I don't think the city needs to expend any more energy to deliver my water. Again it is a savings in that throttling loss and extra wasted kinetic energy of water coming out of the faucet.
Seems like a sound theory to me (what do you guys think?).
I would have to sit down and think about the total volume of water and the pressures invovled to discover what the magnitude of the potential savings are. Off the top of my head I'm thinking they are pretty small.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
So, what you need to do is run your system from a header tank, and feed that from the mains with a turbine in it.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Instead of throttling the water by restricting it at the stopcock you doing the same thing with a turbine.
I’m thinking it would only generate power while water was flowing so I’m not sure what you mean by continuous Greg.
I'm not sure you'd be able to extract a significant amount of energy, I believe most turbines only extract a relatively small % of the total energy.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
All large refrigeration system should do this.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
I agree that's a pidly 0.3 watts. In a day 27,000 Joules or 7.5 watt-hours.
It would take about 4 months to get a kw-hr, worth about about 20 cents, retail.
Of course as Kenat pointed out we assumed 100% efficiency, while fluid machines are typically way lower.
Thanks for bursting my bubble, Greg
dcasto - why is there a double-benefit in applying this in a refrigeration plant?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
I wonder how my family and I fit in this picture. Because of the soaring electricity prices in France (yes, no gas no fuel, our heaters run on nuclear electricity), we went back to the stone age and are now heating the house using only the chimney (and a bit of electricity in the bedrooms of the girls). The price of the wood is roughly half the price of the electricity calculated per winter day.
Our great-grandparents did it and it did not cause global warming at the time... moreover we now live in a relatively well-insulated house so should need less wood than they did...
only it's MUCH more air-polluting than the Watts from the nuclear plant down the road.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
We used to burn wood at my last place in the UK. Again in the middle of no where and although we had central heating from bottled propane that got expensive so except for really cold days or to take the chill off in the morning we use the fire. Only thing was we'd often put a little coal in the bottom to improve things which obviously isn't so 'green'.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
I have a small field house where I go some times for weekends. The house has an old style fireplace. In the cold nights of winter I like to be at the fireplace seeing the fire and setting fire live coals. The fireplace will not be a crazy green machine but it pleases me and I forgive myself for co2 emissions.
luis
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
luis
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
With current technology Hybrids are more expensive to purchase than conventionally powered automobiles. From some figures I’ve seen then even with some of the tax breaks available (at least in the US), with anticipated fuel prices, an average user will most likely only just break even over the life of the vehicle. As well as the financial cost there have been questions over whether any extra energy required to make the hybrid compared to the conventional equivalent is recouped, and hence just how ‘green’ they are.
To counteract this it would make sense for hybrids to initially be used in situations where they can get most effect from their regenerative breaking, which is where most of the efficiency improvements are generated. Effectively this means in situations with frequent decelerations, some kind of “stop – go” driving.
Obvious examples of this would be vehicles that spend a lot of time in city, or even highway, congestion and vehicles that due to the nature of the task they are used for make frequent stops, e.g. urban delivery vehicles.
Furthermore if any of these vehicles form parts of fleets that stand idle for several hours a day, especially over night, this would support the possibility of being plug in hybrids – with further decreases in emissions from the vehicle itself.
Then if these vehicles form parts of large enough fleets to warrant their own re-fueling facilities this opens up the possibilities of using alternate fuels without directly relying on the existing gas (petrol) station & distribution system. This may allow use of pure, or near pure ethanol (which can cause problems in the current gasoline distributions system), bio-diesel (including perhaps a co-located recycling scheme for cooking oil not just from restaurants but even private citizens), bio-gas, hydrogen or even just natural gas.
I’m thinking the most obvious candidate is the Post Office. In the US at least they have a large fleet of what appear to be more or less custom vehicles. In urban areas they make frequent stops and don’t tend to go that fast or accelerate that hard which would support greater use of the electrical component of the hybrid drive, as well as the fact they probably don’t need great range. They generally sit in the Post Office parking lot overnight, good for plugging in & charging up, and generally operating from centralized location would be amenable to their own refueling facility.
If you want to take it to the real extreme then waste oil/fat collection facilities could perhaps somehow be added to your post box. The Post office employees could then collect the oil at the same time they drop off mail. Can’t see the union liking that though
Obviously post office isn’t the only candidate. Any kind of urban delivery vehicle, be it UPS/Fed Ex type fleets or even just the delivery vehicles for the various types of store that offer delivery, would be areas of interest. Likewise, Buses, for which there are already hybrid vehicles in the works if not already in large scale production. Taxis are also an option, I’ve read articles of some cities taking steps to encourage this. I could imagine the next version of the ‘London Cab’ being an hybrid (maybe plug in but I know some taxi fleets are operated almost around the clock) and if it was to US vehicle standards I’m sure there’d be a market in New York & LA etc; I’m sure a lot of Americans would get a kick out of riding in a London Cab type vehicle!
Just my thoughts…
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
I was wondering just the other day why governments don’t push for more efficient light bulbs (or bulb substitutes) for general home use etc. Looks like at least some of them are taking action.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17364944/
I was thinking along the lines of a tax on regular incandescent light bulbs, or at least those which constitute the main source of energy usage, I’d guess any in the range from 40W to 100W.
Initially the tax could perhaps start out at say the equivalent of around $.5 per bulb and increase in steps maybe every 6 months or a year until the average price on an incandescent bulb was around the same level as for compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) of equivalent brightness.
The money from this tax could be used in a number of ways on related areas, rather than just being poured into the general slush fund.
First, low-income households should probably be given some kind of assistance to deal with the increased up front costs. Maybe a one off payment, or vouchers, of a high enough value to replace the number of bulbs in an average home with CFL. Or if the voucher route is taken perhaps they’d only be able to use the voucher at a store if they present a burnt out incandescent bulb. Whatever best minimizes fraud while keeping admin costs down.
Secondly some of the money could be used for research projects into LED and other more efficient forms of lighting.
Third some of the money could be used to subsidize LED ‘bulbs’. As the income from tax on incandescent bulbs decreases with their reduced usage so would the subsidy on LED bulbs until it ends and any small remaining revenue from tax is used for research.
However, this is more politics than engineering so I should probably stop this nonsense now.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
I seem to recall being told that part of the reasoning behind streetlights is that they use some of the excess electricity typically available at night. So it may not make much sense from that point of view. However perhaps with some of the changes in power generation/distribution this isn’t as much of an issue anymore.
Also much street lighting comes from ‘bulbs’ that take a while to ‘warm up’ so it may not be practical from that point of view, especially when it is being used for the benefit of traffic.
Also there may be better ways of reducing the energy used by street lighting, wikipedia lists some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light
Any more obvious flaws?
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
I saw an article a while back on storing energy as compressed air in underground caverns etc.
If I recall correctly the plan was to use any excess electrical energy (typically overnight but maybe as part of smoothing intermittent sources such as wind etc) to drive compressors and put the compressed air into the caverns.
When electrical energy was required the air would be exhausted through turbines to re-generate electricity.
I guess effectively they’d work in a similar way to pump/store HEP systems but using air instead of water.
Now if I remember correctly most compressors, reach a point of diminishing returns at which they just cant pump the air to a higher pressure, at least not with any efficiency.
This limits the pressure to which the stored air could be taken.
However, what if once the air was compressed to the maximum practical value it was then heated. I can imagine either large electrical heating coils or maybe even geothermal or perhaps waste industrial heat being the heat source.
The system could then operate almost as a giant pulse jet!
So what are the obvious flaws?
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
The effiency of a stored air system is as follows. The excess electricity is used to compress air to 1000 or 2000 psi at about 80% efficency, the the air is let down through an expander (turbine) at about 75%, net effiency is 60%, if the electricity came from a 60% effiency power plant, overall effiency is 36%.
No free lunches here.
If you have waste heat to heat the air, why not just add waste heat recovery at the site of the generation and not mess with the storage step.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Pumping water doesn't suffer from that particular problem- no heat of compression to worry about. If you happen to have a good sized hydroelectric dam on the grid, you just pump water up gradient to do your peak shaving and use the reservoir as an energy storage. Much more efficient, though limited in locations where you can do it. I'd imagine grid losses would eat up much of the benefit if the source power plant was too far away from the dam.
RE: Crazy ægreen machinesÆ
Some underground storage caverns have temperatures of 150F.
Compressed air storage is proposed for the likes of say Houton, Texas where there is no resivoir 300 feet up a hill to store water.