Dragon Power Station
It’s clear why people don’t want to use pollution-free electricity generators: fossil fuels come at good prices. Yet there are many ways to generate decent amounts of energy without burning stuff. I’m sure you’ve heard of solar panels or Aeolian mechanisms and these are just starting to get some attention. But apart from solar, wind and Brownian devices, we should also be considering the kinetic forces.
Kenney expects it to produce 5,000 to 7,000 kilowatt-hours every day, which is enough to power 1,750 homes. The "Dragon" is already set to be installed in some other prime locations and Kenney foresees a profitable deal out of these devices.
Loading ...
55 Responses to “Dragon Power Station”
By rathje40 on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
And the reason he thinks that sapping energy from the cars passing over his plates is free?
By PR on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Of course he’s actually stealing energy from passing vehicles. They have to burn fossil fuels to restore the energy they lose as they go over his nifty device. They climb up on it (which costs them energy) fall (and recover nothing) then have to climb back out of the hole they created when they compressed the fluid. But hey, he doesn’t have to pay for it, so what does he care? He ought to call it the “Bloodsucking Leech Power Station” because that’s a lot closer to what’s going on.
I invented a similar device that sucks gasoline directly out of the tanks of passing vehicles, to skip the middle man. For some reason people call me a thief.
By Bob on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Great, so it takes more energy for the vehicle to drive over his power generator, which means more fuel burned by the least efficient method (piston internal combustion engines are much less efficient than a large scale power plant.)
By Bill on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
I was under the impression that the plated were embedded inside the ashphalt, so assuming this is true the shape and size of the ashphalt shouldn’t change. So he is therefore just gaining the wasted energy transfur from the vehicles weight pushing on the earth and in fact not requiring them to expend any extra energy at all, theoretically this technology could bring us one step closer to a greener earth in my mind.
Well done!
By dave on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Energy is not free.
It must come from somewhere.
You might be able to do this without stealing gasoline if you placed the machine on a downhill slope. (like steps)
This way you would be recouping the potential energy from the truck before it is turned into kinetic energy.
By dave on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
And yes, the steps would have to be angled so that they were angled against the tires (not tangential). Think small uphill areas which would slow the car or truck down.
The steps could be larger than a car or truck, and the whole thing would look like a lock system similar to that used in boating.
The design would have to be just right though, or the whole thing would be a driving hazard.
By grumpy on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Stop whining, it is a good idea.
By Dan on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Probably one of the worst energy ideas of the millenium. Other than ethanol.
By Randy on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
And the reason the “plates” don’t require any energy to move *back* into the initial position is because?
If it works, great. I just suspect we’re not getting anything but a sanitized story here.
By Zech on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Not a bad idea… I’m just wondering, doesn’t the asphalt flex when a truck drives over it if this is installed? I can’t think of the ideal way to do that right off the top of my head, but it’s a good idea…
By w00t on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Wow… you people are such idiots.
The idea is not to replace fuel plants.
The idea is to get energy from somewhere else, lessening the demand on the fuel plants.
This system, if installed on interstate highways and such, means that you only have to burn the fuel in one place. Your vehicle, which you are going to drive that highway anyways! This is non-intrusive, it does not steal. It lessens the demand for fossil fuel plants.
Man people on the internet are so stupid. Just because one person says something about transference of energy would mean that it wouldn’t work are the idiots who are keeping us from going anywhere as a human race.
By Kyote_ael on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
If placed in the right place it could reclaim energy lost (heat - for the purists) in slowing down trucks at the base of steep descents. Like a lot of things good if done right bad when not done right.
By SiriS on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Asphalt flexes as you drive over it anyway. It’s not gonna use more than a tiny percent more gasoline installed, even with all of the cars added together.
By tunne on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
if u ever travelled indian roads, u’ll notice farmers scattering maize, finger millet, wheat etc on the road. Moving vehicles on the road do free pounding. Sometimes, two wheelers skid and get into accidents.
By Jeff on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Um what the goal is that yes within the asphalt is a resevoir, which when compressed as vehicles pass over it (no different than on a standard surface) moves hydraulic fluid in such a way that will turn generators.
My only catch up is his numbers and on how big of a stretch of road is necessary for this. Either way GREAT IDEA, really does just replace the way we build roads and maybe adds some cushioning *laughs*
By Mike on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
I agree with w00t. Everyone needs to lighten up. This guy came up with an idea so they are going to test it. It was the same with ethanol. Though some energy ideas aren’t the best at least these people are trying to bring us to a better tomorrow versus lashing out at others ideas.
By dave on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Wow, a physics flame war. I love it.
w00t, first of all, yes it is stealing. No matter how you slice it, you are forcing the car to do work in order to create energy. (If the car does no work, no power is generated, so therefore the magic device no longer works).
Second of all, energy conversion is not a perfect process. Larger power plants are more efficient than smaller ones. Therefore you get more bang for your buck with power plants than if you use the motor in your car.
Every time that you are converting energy from one form to another you lose some (actually a lot ~ 70 %) So Conversion of Gas in your car (chemical energy) => Car motion (kinetic energy) => Potential Energy => some kind of piston motor (kinetic energy) => electrical energy will NEVER EVER be more efficient than burning the gas and running a normal turbine.
Third, the only reason that it may work is if you are trying to use energy that would be wasted anyway. In my example, I was talking about the extra energy that a car gets when it goes up a hill. On the way down, you gain speed. Sometimes this will cause you to go faster than you can legally go. You then press the brake, which increases friction, and eventually causes the kinetic motion of the car to be dissipated as heat.
Flame on.
By Dave on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Another idea, using the same concept, would be to build a parking garage with a “down only” elevator that brings the car to street level from the top floor. The cars on the top of the garage need to get down anyway, so why not let the weight of the car spin a turbine as it is lowered to the ground. Free energy. Better yet, I could seal off the exits on the bottom of the parking garage so that all cars would need to drive up to the top and use my elevator. They might have to use more energy in gas to get their car to the top than I will receive from my device, but I’m not the driver, I’m the garage owner so it shouldn’t matter to me how much my clients have to pay for their fuel.
As mentioned in the previous posts, there may be opportunity to capture energy in situations where energy would be lost to braking or moving to lower elevation anyway. However, if we are talking about a flat road, this device will cause some level of resistance to the vehicles that drive over it and even though the expense would be spread across many drivers, the cost (both economically and environmentally) would be much higher than just getting power from the power company.
Setting aside from the moral implications of skimming little bits of gas money from every car that drives by, it is important to note that a device like this is not without cost.
By Eman on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
PR
You are an idiot. The only way your comments make sense is if the world wasn’t mobile. Wake up, it is. The man invented an ingenious device to capture that energy. What potential energy saving device have you invented?
Also, the plates they run over probably don’t even effect the cars like you stated. And besides.. we run over many things such as car counters and other devices all the time. Quit being so stupid!
By redamazon on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Right on Bill! You seem to be one of the very few that actually READ the story and grasped the idea of the Dragon power station and how it works!
I think it’s a fantastic idea and not that hard to implement. There is already something similar in place, the plate system used at truck weigh in scales for semi trucks. The only difference would be his would be incorporated into a main thoroughfare and connected to a system to generate power.
How is THAT stealing energy vehicles?!? I think a few of you need to READ the article again!
By redamazon on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Bravo Eman… well said!
By Eman on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
If you place this on a slope and the car hasn’t lost any energy and has actually gained some from the slope yet the device picks up some energy..
meaning.. the car had not done work.. and has actually still moved down the hill..
wouldn’t this be free.. or even have a negative expense?????????????????????
ha. even with an expense it still is a good design.. anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid unless they can come up with a better design..
oh and if you think about it.. this is kinda like taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! which we all have to pay anyway for the good of the country..
By Steve on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
This idea is brilliant if only in the sense that he is making other people pay to make him rich. That I admire and dammit, I wish I could have thought of it myself.
The physics of the thing is simple. Each passing car does work on the fluid at the sacrifice of kinetic and potential energy. No doubt each driver has to stomp on the gas to get back up to speed after being “harvested”. This is a true energy tax.
By Jesus christ... on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Wow, some of you guys surpass youtube commenters in terms of sheer stupidity.
The cars and the asphalt are constantly pushing against each other. Gravity and Newton’s laws ensure this. The car is rapidly moving along the road, so the place that this pressure is being applied is constantly changing. Since cars have a lot of mass, there’s a lot of energy going downwards. The only energy being “stolen” is a necessity of having gravity.
So this guy is saying “wait, let’s have a thin layer of asphalt over a metal tank full of compressible liquid. When a car (or even better, truck) drives over the tank, energy will be applied to the tank of fluid, and the movement within the tank can turn some rotors and make some energy”. Same situation. No energy is being “stolen”; the energy that was already produced by gravity is just being used.
Seriously guys, go back to college.
By Eman on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
One last thing… the weight system that redamazon is talking about IS already on the market and is used.. what if they could generate energy too? you have to run over those ANYWAY! why not let them make energy that could power many many houses?
By ewanm89 on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
No, it is not more efficient than directly burning the fuel in a turbine. No one claimed it was. When you drive energy bleeds of in the friction and the natural flex of the road. All he is doing is harnessing some of this energy, gaining it back. Total amount of energy burned in engine is the same, but the amount that has now been used has increased. Now consider these were electric cars, same result, we are still saving that same energy that was being wasted. Of course, you’ll need to top it up from somewhere, but overall less fuel burned in total in the world.
By Aso on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
You guys are fucking morons. The device uses the vibrations that cars and trucks create anyway. Asphalt flexes by nature and moves in response to the cars moving on it. Instead of letting them be wasted this device harvest them. Even if it did use slightly more fuel driving aggressively would uses way more fuel.
By ewanm89 on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
And on a hill you do not have to make steps, you just don’t get so much energy back.
By Eman on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
oh man.. one more thing.. again..
I could gladly know that some guy out there is getting rich off of this device.. or any other device THAT HELPS HUMANS..
By Garrowolf on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Ok I think that alot of people are over thinking this. It is NOT steal energy from the cars. It is taking it from gravity. The plates don’t have to be tall for this to work. They can be an inch high and compress a bladder that goes all the way across a road. You would get the same effect from rolling balls across it. The cars are just already on that road anyway. You could put it on every down ramp and on the down side of every road on a hill and we would have a lot more USEFUL energy for our use. It’s not Free in terms of Physics and it not economically free because you have to set up these Dragon Power stations. It doesn’t require a burning of fuels so that is a good thing.
By God on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Children, be at ease. This man is using ingenuity that I gave him to come up with new and exciting ways in which to use what I’ve given him. The world. The plates are placed just beneath the surface of the asphalt and can’t be noticed unless you note the materials sticking out from the side of the roads. Also this technology could be used on a smaller scale in a park or within a shopping mall to power itself, just the pressure of people walking on the surface of this device is enough to produce some energy. This is a good idea. You are welcome.
By dave on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Let’s not follow a line of logic off a cliff. Yes, of course this device would “steal” energy from the passing vehicle. However, there are locations where this is a desirable effect. Basically, any stretch of highway where drivers routinely brake, but do not routinely coast or accelerate. Braking “steals” far more energy from a vehicle than these devices ever could.
So, look at freeway off-ramps, long downhill grades, entrances to weigh stations and rest stops, sharp s-turns, approaches to intersections guarded with stop signs. Airport landing strips, perhaps? I wonder how much energy one could absorb from a million pound aircraft slamming onto a set of these plates. That energy is currently absorbed by the aircraft’s suspension systems.
No, the average stretch of freeway is not the place to use these devices. As the masses before me have explained, you’d just be siphoning gas out of the driver’s tank to power your home. But what is the problem in helping a driver who needs to slow down anyway?
By Tim on May 1, 2008 | Reply
No energy is stolen. Unless you can come up with a way to power things with the gas that has already been burned in a car’s engine, it is the most efficient use possible. There is no change for any drivers, just energy creation that wouldn’t have happened had it not been there. It wont take more gas than you already expend while driving because very little movement is required to displace a large amount of water over a large amount of space. Harnessing that movement (kinetic energy) is what this is all about. Cost of production and installation may be prohibitive; and no one will deny how much of a bitch it might be to repair it, but with the extensive testing that will undoubtedly occur before any mass installation, everything should get ironed out.
Once again, you can’t steal what was never yours to begin with. It’s like saying a tree steals the air you breath out because it takes it in and makes use of it after you.
By Matt on May 1, 2008 | Reply
Yeah this guys a genius. I mean sure he might be “stealing” energy.But at least hes having a go.
Hes inspired me to create a wind farm that is sustained by electric fans when the wind doesn’t blow.Brilliant!
By Bob on May 1, 2008 | Reply
On a downhill the argument is you’re recovering energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat in the brakes. So in other words you’re recovering energy from someone else’s inefficient use of that energy.
However not all cars have this inefficiency. Aren’t you stealing gas from Toyota Prius owners?
Secondly you’re making the assumption that the driver intends to brake at any given moment. If the driver doesn’t brake where the system predicts they will, then you’ve again stolen their gas.
By Mike on May 1, 2008 | Reply
It’s a toll booth !
By dave on May 1, 2008 | Reply
It’s a trap!
By James on May 1, 2008 | Reply
This page ought to make everyone in this debate happy since it includes more details about the system:
http://www.aesti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27
It will only be used in areas where vehicles need to slow down, apparently. This absorbs the kinetic energy of the vehicle instead of transferring it into heating the brake pads of the vehicle.
It should be noted that this technology isn’t good for Hybrid vehicles since they have regenerative braking already.
If every vehicle on the road was a Hybrid, this technology would be a waste and actually make us worse off.
By Bionicjoe on May 2, 2008 | Reply
DPS generates and distributes renewable, off-grid clean electricity from the capture and harnessing of weight and speed - untapped kinetic energy - of heavy vehicles at controlled roadways.
Vehicles are basically driving over plates equivalent to the ones that signal traffic lights to change.
He’s capturing the energy from compression of the ground from the weight of vehicle, not fuel energy.
.
.
.
Knuckleheads!
By Bob on May 2, 2008 | Reply
Er..BionicJoe, when the “weight is captured” what happens to the vehicle? The vehicle goes down into a slight dip. The vehicle then has to increase engine revs slightly to get out of that dip and maintain speed i.e. it uses more gas.
The only way this could possibly work is by using it where the vehicle would need to slow down anyway and capturing the wasted braking energy. However as pointed out above, you’re then stealing gas from hybrid cars as the vehicle cannot then recover the energy itself.
By Brian on May 2, 2008 | Reply
This really isn’t that complicated. There simply is no way around the law of conservation of energy, no matter what you say about gravity and compressible asphalt.
The system converts some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle into electrical energy. In other words you are slowing the vehicle down to generate electricity. It really is like a form of regenerative braking.
It would only make sense somewhere where vehicles have to use their brakes anyway. It would make no sense whatsoever to use this on normal roads at the bottoms of hills or at stop signs. Hybrids would be far more economical and efficient than putting one of these large systems under every stretch of road where people use their brakes.
It could find limited use in industrial situations where large trucks (no one is going to make a hybrid semi truck anytime soon) have to slow down or stop, most or all traffic consists of heavy trucks, and traffic is fairly heavy. Incidentally, these are the situations where the company intends to install the DPS, so they do seem to know what they are doing.
By ahdlm on May 2, 2008 | Reply
honestly, how much energy could be “stolen” from any one single vehicle passing over one of these installations? hundreds or thousands of vehicles passing over something like this once a day would only take a negligible amount of energy from the vehicles and would produce much benefit.
How would that differ from a simple bump or dip in the road? does that mean our department of transportation is stealing energy from us when they don’t make the roads meet super-flat standards as established by The Concrete Society Recommendations TR - 34 Third Edition published in 2003?
Surely a long stretch of irregular road surface would “steal” more than hitting one of these power generation stations.
By Bob on May 2, 2008 | Reply
Well I think there’s a big difference between unintentional energy loss from an improperley maintained road and loss from a deliberately bumpy road.
It would drain substantial gas if these things were everywhere. You, the driver, are paying for someone else’s electricity.
By Bogdan Alex on May 2, 2008 | Reply
C’mon guys, let’s be reasonable! You as a driver are paying for gas in order to get to where you need to get. You pay for yourself as it’s the only way you can make your car work (unless it’s a hybrid or electric car). Does the DPS affect your wallet in a drastic way? Would you really notice this? What would a 50 meter bumpy road cost you anyway? You don’t even have a bumpy road with the DPS.
By Bob on May 2, 2008 | Reply
We’re not talking about one single 50 meter road. If these things are a good idea, then they would be installed everywhere.
You don’t magically get more energy out of the system than you put it. There’s maybe 60KW/h energy in a gallon of gas. Typical car engines are inefficient and waste most of this. You get maybe 15KW/h out in kinetic energy. So DPS takes a slice of this inefficiently produced energy and the rest goes into moving your car forward.
DPS then wastes a further unknown proportion of the energy sliced off from your car by converting it back to electricity.
So why not just use an efficient electricity power station in the first place?
By Brian on May 2, 2008 | Reply
Here’s a quick calculation:
To generate the 5000 KWh/day quoted in the article, assuming 50% efficiency (generous), the DPS would have to completely stop a 30 ton semi going 25 mph every 4 seconds (21,200 semi trucks per day).
To power a single home (920kWh / month) you would have to stop an average car or light truck (2 tons) going 25 mph every 90 seconds (2660 cars per day).
If these vehicles are only going 15 mph, you’d have to stop three times as many. If the overall efficiency is 25% instead of 50% you’d have to stop twice as many.
By Ben on May 2, 2008 | Reply
Im glad to see that most (at least half) of the people commenting have taken a high school physics class.
Conservation of energy is a very basic concept.
By Ben on May 2, 2008 | Reply
Ok, I just though of something. If these were to be implemented the way some people think they will be (long flat roads) It may have a positive secondary effect. we know that cars would produce waves in the asphalt, and the larger the car the larger the wave. since the car will always be at the bottom of the wave (or more likely slightly in front of the bottom on the up hill) it will reduce millage. But behind the car would be a down hill. Small cars would be better able to exploit this wave and “surf” behind the larger cars. This would effectively increase the gas millage difference between large and small cars. This may (or more likley go unnoticed) persuade people to buy smaller cars to reduce their wake (and reduce the power the station makes and it’s effect on their MPG). So in the end this may reduce fossil fuel usage by reducing the size of the cars on the road (or not). Just a thought. Any comments on my idea?
By Bogdan Alex on May 9, 2008 | Reply
Sounds like the drafting effect in car races :)It’s a good idea, but car makers are betting on hybrid and electric cars as far as the future is concerned. Until the day everybody could afford such a car, we can stick to smaller cars, as you’re suggesting.
By Alan Phillips on May 16, 2008 | Reply
I would think this would have to be implemented on a downhill slope. Almost like a key for boats but in much more smaller steps.
Or if the plates were long enough it would give you a gradual slope but you would have to have trucks on both ends of the plate in order to compress without causing a teeter totter type of movement.
If you had a long constant stream of trucks traveling down a constant slope then you would get a nice compression without adding to the burden of the vehicles.
Or if it was on an uphill slope leading up to a stop sign then it could harness the wasted braking energy (both friction brakes and engine brakes for big trucks) and actually increase the life of some of the components on these big trucks.
By Kirt on Jul 23, 2008 | Reply
This is a great idea. There is no stolen energy especially if the system is positioned where cars/trucks are not accelerating, like curves, off-ramps and intersections.
Don’t build them on country roads. Put them where tens of thousands of vehicles would go over daily.
By Todd on Aug 21, 2008 | Reply
These are going to be installed at our Land Ports of Entry in California and all commercial trucks entering the Port will pass over the module and transfer their energy tot he Port.
These trucks entering from Mexico have to cross speed bumps right now to enter. this will replace the speed bumps adn allow us a free clean source of energy.
Check that……