Kinergy Power - harvesting energy from bodies in motion
Before I get into the explanation of how the Kinergy Energy Carpet works, here is a video. Now, let's collectively break into song... how about "Magic Carpet Ride"? No? All right then. The Kinergy system promises to produce electricity anywhere heavy traffic is present. It looks like there are hundreds of small pistons moving up and down as a vehicle rolls over them, and the pistons create pressure which turns a hydraulic motor. The motor then turns the generator, creating the electricity, which can power over 2,000 homes for a year, according to their video presentation. I think that the idea makes sense, and it looks like they have tested it. Now, is it commercially feasible? Another of their projects replaces speed bumps with "Kinerbumps", which appear to be a smaller version of their Energy Carpet idea.
The Kinergy Power group also has wave energy on their minds. Looks like they've got both hands firmly in the alternative energy pie, huh!
[Source: Kinergy Power, thanks for the tip, Ian!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
cosm95 8:18AM (1/31/2008)
If you put this system at places where braking would CERTAINLY occur, then you are providing a service (to some vehicles). Anywhere else you are effectively stealing energy from the vehicles, leading to higher consumption.
In short, this system is completely useless. If my municipality installs them and ends up stealing my car energy [i have a prius, and i want my regenerative braking energy to myself!], I will revolt and take them to court for theft.
Reply
Chris M 6:18PM (11/12/2008)
There are sections of the road where slowing almost always takes place and this energy recovery technology can be useful:
1. Before a stop sign.
2. Transitions from higher speed limits to lower speed limits, such as freeway offramps, highways to residential areas, or main roads to school zones.
3. Approaches to curves.
4. Downhill runs, especially long and steep downhill runs.
So, yes there are potential uses for this technology. If it could be switched on and off in sync with stoplights, that could be yet another use.
Leah 7:39AM (11/11/2008)
I think it's a great system, after looking into it I have found no real downside if it is placed in areas where slowing down would be nessary. If only I knew the cost!
Reply
adam 9:59PM (12/21/2008)
okay, other than the idiotic cost of the device and maintenance, i was doing some math and came to this conclusion:
according to the video, this P.O.S. can power 2000 home for a year at 200 meters (600 ft.). if you have a city with 80,000 homes, it would require 8,000 meters (24,000 ft., or 4.55 MILES) of this "carpet." Now you can't tell me that the cost of building something like this would not pay itself off in a remotely reasonable amount of time. not to mention, once again, maintenance. so let's all think of something that actually makes sense.
Reply
Chris M 2:40AM (12/22/2008)
I don't think even the inventors plan to power an entire city this way, at best it would be a supplement to existing power sources, perhaps displace a bit of fossil fuel use. Hey, if it just powered a few stoplights and streetlights, it would help.
Of course, if the initial cost is too high, or the maintenance is excessive, then it would be an economic failure. Since cost wasn't mentioned, and maintenance can't be determined until it is tested, it is premature to assume it makes no sense.
adam 5:05PM (1/02/2009)
chris m,
did you even look at the video?! something with that many moving parts is GOING TO, not probably going to, have astronomical maintenance costs. not to mention the traffic it would cause when having to fix it. And for someone like you, who said, "it would HELP," think about the cars and trucks wasting gas because they are sitting there, packed into one lane on an exit ramp of a freeway, let's say, instead of two lanes. that's extra gas wasted. gas = energy. And as far as the cost not being mentioned, do you really think that something like this isn't going to be expensive? why don't we all use a little bit of logic, common sense, and reasoning, and think up something that will make a difference, and not just "help."
rgseidl 6:41PM (8/17/2007)
Silliest invention ever. The trucks have to expend extra energy to drive over this thing, so there is no free lunch in terms of the overall energy balance. The capital investment and maintenance would absolutely dwarf the revenue from the minuscule amount of electricity you could generate. Seriously, buy a generator or get hooked up to the grid.
Reply
apollo 2:00PM (11/12/2008)
You know nothing about electricity, energy, or viable design.
Domenick 6:56PM (8/17/2007)
I think this is a great idea at least on the approach. Vehicle momentum supplies the energy instead of braking so much.
The power generated could also supply a battery bank which supplies a quick charge outlet for electric cars.
Highway rest areas is a good place for these as well.
Reply
Kardax 8:32PM (8/17/2007)
Here's the problem: if you make it a soft bump, you get virtually no energy. If you make it a hard bump, you still get virtually no energy but also take a chunk out of peoples' tires. And either way, it's still extremely expensive.
Given that heavy traffic is usually in the daytime, a solar panel would be a much smarter investment.
Reply
Peter 10:23PM (8/17/2007)
This has got to be the most expensive, least efficient way to extract energy from gasoline that I have ever seen.
And GW are not units of energy, they are units of power.
Reply
Manu Sharma 8:57AM (8/18/2007)
"GW are not units of energy, they are units of power."
I was going to say the same thing. "25 GW a year from 200 meter of carpet" sounds like total BS to me. Even assuming the preposterous claim is valid, one would think that the company would know the difference between GW and GWh and 200 meter and 200 square meter.
That said, I did hear about someone in India having built a device for generating energy from speed bumps. The greater the mass and frequency of the passing vehicles, more is the energy produced.
Reply
Green Destiny 4:02PM (8/20/2007)
rgseidl -- I disagree. You need not “expend” extra energy if you design it correctly. The immediate example that comes to mind is if one were to put this system in place where braking needs to occur. In that case you aid the braking system of a truck and gain a distinct energy advantage. As for the capital investment and maintenance, you might be correct, but I will wait until I have some data about cost and materials before evaluating those issues.
Reply
GoodCheer 7:06PM (8/29/2007)
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree with Green Destiny.
For a conceptual description, think about having a zone of 200' (or whatever) in front of every highway off-ramp that would convert the kinetic energy of cars into electricity. If cars weighing an average of 1500kg hit the strip at 70mph and leave it at 35mph, then we get:
1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
1/2 * 1500kg * ([30 m/s])^2 - (15 m/s)^2 = 506e3 kg*(m/s^2)*m or 506 kJ per car.
If 3 cars/minute take that exit (which I think would count as very light traffic in many places) they then deliver 506e3*3/60(sec/min) = 25 kW of power.
Sun-tracking 10% efficient solar can deliver about 0.5 kW-h/m^2/day in much of the country, or 0.02 kW/m^2. So you would need about 5,000 m^2 of solar panels to get the same amount of power IF the "drag carpet" can convert at 50%, and that off-ramp sees 4300 vehicles/day.
The biggest challenge I see is in delivering a conversion efficiency for such a device, and being able to build and install it for a low enough cost to make it worth while.
In effect it would give every vehicle on the road regenerative breaking, except that the energy wouldn't go back into power the vehicle.
Reply