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?