(Video) Vehicles passing by this morning on Route 4 (Haifa-Old Tel Aviv), north of Emek Hafer, generate electricity as part of an experiment that is one of the first in the world, carried out by the Invatech company in collaboration with the National Road Company. Output: about 2000 watts per hour. The harvested energy is stored in batteries
A breakthrough in the field of renewable energy: Israeli scientists have succeeded in generating electricity from the driving of passing vehicles on the road. The experiment, in which the National Roads Company (formerly MAZ), the "Innovatech" company and the Technion are partners, proved for the first time in the world, how a technology developed in Israel enables the production of electricity from generators buried under the asphalt layer. The experiment was carried out this week on road number 4, at the Hefer junction, in a section of travel that was about ten meters long. Following the success of the experiment, the research will be expanded to additional projects of approximately XNUMX km each.
"The success of this week's experiment is an important milestone in the technological breakthrough," says the CEO of the National Roads Company, Alex Wizhnitzer, "We live in a small country with a considerable advantage in the fields of research and knowledge, compared to many countries in the world that are looking for ways to conserve wasted energy. We are happy to assist those who wish to share with us innovative developments. "Invatech" researchers bring real news, which is still in the development stages.
The project manager, Dr. Lucy Adraei-Azolai, explains that the generators developed by the "Invatech" company were buried at a depth of about five centimeters below the top layer of asphalt. "The technology is based on piezoelectric materials that enable the conversion of mechanical energy derived from the weight of the vehicle - into electrical energy. From the point of view of the drivers traveling on the spot, there is no noticeable change in the road.. Regular movement of vehicles allows the accumulation of about 2000 watts per hour. The electricity is stored in batteries on the side of the road.
"Expanding the project to a single travel lane of about 1000 meters will allow the production of electricity on the order of 200 kilowatts hourly. A kilometer of four-lane road will allow the harvesting of about a megawatt hour per hour, an amount sufficient for the average electricity consumption of about 2500 households."
Adrai-Azolai explains that the technology developed by the Invatech team of scientists in collaboration with the Technion Institute enables the supply of electricity to various consumers along the travel routes, such as lighting lamps, advertising signs, speed enforcement cameras, communication systems, or direction signs. "The efficiency of the solution and the production of electricity with this technology is not affected by weather conditions, does not consume special land areas and enables the production and harvesting of electricity near the consumers, without the need to establish transmission infrastructures. Major companies in the world in the field of infrastructure and green energy are following closely and are showing an unprecedented interest in the technology developed in Israel."
A video showing how the sensors were inserted into the road
On the same topic - 2008: In five years we will generate electricity from the road.
65 תגובות
If you use batteries you always lose money because the price of the batteries is more expensive than the price of the electricity you receive and in addition you have to take into account like when using a 100w solar panel the amount of electricity that returns to the electricity grid if you convert 12v/18v to 220v we will only get 50w per hour which will return the price of purchasing the panels by more than Twenty years and not within 12 years... All in all an experiment that needs to be done and will be done.
Haim:
You are wrong and misleading, if you had read what I wrote you would have already understood this.
By the way - your claim was supposed to be - in principle - also true for a hybrid vehicle.
That is - you could - according to the same "logic" - claim that loading it is a waste of energy and therefore cannot be useful.
Fortunately, my Prius doesn't read your bullshit and manages to go twice as far on the same amount of gas.
To the Physicist No. 56, 58
Finally someone who understands and presents the facts in a correct and structured way.
The energy stored in the system is at the expense of burning fuel, period.
Stop talking and writing nonsense. Those who do not understand, should not respond.
Neither green energy nor plaster.
See my response 47.
Without too many calculations from earth to heaven...
They will drive a kilometer from the above-mentioned road and take an electric vehicle.
They will measure exactly how much energy he wasted in order to pass this kilometer.
And they will measure exactly how much is burned in a kilometer of a normal road.
In an electric vehicle, you can measure everything quite accurately
physicist:
Let it not be understood that reality cannot be covered with calculations.
It can be done but I don't think anyone has done it.
physicist:
I have already said: it is true that the energy calculations do not agree with the published numbers, but it does matter if you gain energy from the process or not and it does not depend on the calculations but on reality.
If the system turns into electricity energy that previously turned into heat and does not detract from the efficiency of the engine in driving the car then it (subject to its cost) may be useful.
If the system damages the efficiency of the energy extraction from the fuel (meaning that the total energy of the car's motion plus the electrical energy generated through the system is lower than the energy of the car's motion before the introduction of the system) then the system is clearly harmful.
In the intermediate situations where the total of the movement energy plus the electrical energy is higher than the movement energy before the introduction of the system but the movement energy, in itself, is lower - there is room for negotiation.
I agree with those who claim that this is a conversion of the vehicle's kinetic energy into electrical energy,
Then a vehicle that wants to maintain its speed will pay with increased fuel consumption.
But in a certain situation there is a possibility of profit for everyone (and one or two of the commenters already said this, but their words were swallowed up among the multitude of responses).
And the situation in question is on descents, referring to those descents where the driver must slow down, either by braking or by downshifting (like the descent in Castel).
In such a situation, part of the energy that is normally converted into heat during braking is converted into electricity instead, and the driver also benefits because the brakes (or the braking motor) will wear out less.
One caveat - this advantage does not apply to an electric or hybrid vehicle.
I believe that this invention is applicable in two cases:
1. In places where there is no regular electricity network and the electricity is needed for roadside services for the driver.
2. In descents such as the ones I described.
2000 watts from 10m
Claim of the company:
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000502745&fid=3221
A single travel lane of about 1,000 meters,
Provided that there will be about 600 vehicles per hour on the road
will enable the production of electricity of the order of 200 kilowatts hourly
But it is not possible to collect 200kWh under the conditions they say!!!
So it doesn't matter if it's to an energy bill that is lost anyway, or to an energy bill that the driver has to add.
If the numbers were logical (real) it would be possible to discuss the other issues.
physicist:
I didn't refer to the numbers at all because from the moment they wrote 2000 watt hours per hour without specifying what distance it was, it was clear to me that this was advertising material, so I only referred to the principle.
In the calculation you are, of course, right (and it's good that you did it), but this does not contradict anything from what I said.
I'm in favor of a machine for converting boredom into electricity
To Michael Rothschild
It is not possible to collect 200kWh under the conditions they say!!!
Claim of the company:
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000502745&fid=3221
A single travel lane of about 1,000 meters,
Provided that there will be about 600 vehicles per hour on the road
will enable the production of electricity of the order of 200 kilowatts hourly
Important energetic:
600 vehicles that traveled 600 km is like one vehicle that traveled 30 km and therefore consumed 60-XNUMX liters of fuel.
Energy capacity of a liter of fuel about 9.67 kWh/L
Raw energy = 60*9.67= kWh580
A normal engine manages to convert only 20% of that into mechanical energy, the entire gate goes to heat.
(A sophisticated engine with a turbo, etc... is thermodynamically limited up to 37% but it will also consume less fuel)
If we convert this mechanical energy back to the tram even with 100% efficiency (that is, the car's engine will directly rotate an ideal generator) we will get a return from a normal engine 580*0.2=116 kWh
On the other hand, the company claims that they manage to collect 200kWh from the mechanical energy of the vehicles
When the vehicles generate 116kWh
For those who did not understand:
For example, if you walk down the street and throw money everywhere and you started with 116 NIS in your pocket, no one will be able to collect 200 NIS from the money you threw
The calculation is intended to show the amount of energy that all the cars have at the beginning of the road, and by analogy with the above, NIS 116 came out.
If you know how to turn NIS 116 into NIS 200, I would be happy to do business with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content
post Scriptum.
For 9 it is 2000 watts and not 200 watts.
Let's try to think how to improve
To this end, we make two assumptions
A- Yes, there is a loss of energy in the vehicles that we try to minimize
In - these are good people who really don't want to "steal" from us more than necessary
What if we install the system close to the intersections? Especially rude? There, in any case, we need to slow down and then the system will "help" us...
What if instead of fast springs we install slow springs and the system is from the level of the road surface down at signalized intersections? When you drive fast, the spring is not responsive enough. But when you stand, the spring sinks slowly? On the one hand you convert the weight of the car into energy. On the other hand, when the traffic light turns green you always give too much gas so you stole from the waste?
My father and his friends are doing us a great service with the "Yaden" website and with such news - it's a shame that the company involved doesn't bother to respond to the fascinating discussion that developed here.
hguy:
Not true.
For the proposal to be viable, it needs to extract more energy from the car's engine than is currently produced from it.
that's it.
If some of the energy that today turns into heat turns into electricity - you make a profit.
If you had read the comments before yours you would have understood this and avoided the unnecessary sarcasm.
to hguy
You actually said something smart, why are you so quick to shy away??
Ten percent of electric cars will be charged by one hundred percent of the cars that drive, not by Perpetum Mobilya or by Tishma!.
Good luck
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You haven't understood the humor yet. For the invention to be worthwhile it must generate more energy than was invested in it.
The fact is that I have written a leading paragraph and all the cleverness will not help. Remember the lamp in Ramat Gan.
hguy:
Yes.
are you.
Where did you read that the amount of electricity produced will be enough to fill car batteries?
Perpetum leads. We will fuel up with electricity that will create the battery of the car that will move forward and generate electricity to continue its journey.
Is anyone confused here?
I am seething with rage.
It's theft for its own sake. They will get the energy from the vehicle moving on the road that burns fuel.
In order to receive energy, the vehicle must sink a little on the road to activate the system. All potential energy is converted into electrical energy. To get out of the "sunset" the car must increase the engine's energy by burning more fuel. The driver of a car that suddenly feels vibrations and a reduction in speed will have to press the gas pedal to maintain its speed.
There is nothing here. The system steals energy from the owners of cars moving on the road. And don't try to come up with new theories.
That the honorable gentlemen knew that a claim would be filed against them to the court for theft, on the same day that they would install the system commercially.
It may be beautiful from a scientific point of view, but I will personally take action against them with a charge of theft.
Joseph:
I already explained before why it is absolutely possible that this is energy that would have been lost.
You tried to describe another example, but beyond the fact that this is not the case and that there is no need for metaphors, but we can refer to the case in front of us directly, I would like to comment that precisely such wind farms may increase the energy consumption of the car because they will interfere with your free flow of air and therefore increase its resistance to the movement of the car .
It is known, for example, that swimming near the edge of the pool is slower than swimming in the center of the pool.
You can do a thought experiment
The main argument here is that there is no such thing as creating energy without someone (the car owner) "paying" for it in fuel consumption. The argument itself is good, but a thought experiment can be done that will prove that energy can be created without anyone paying for it:
What if we install small wind stations on the side of the road that will be powered by the wind produced by the driving cars (a car traveling at 90 km/h produces a lot of wind)? Does the driver or someone "pay" for the energy we get from it?
So it's true, the burden of proof that the energy production here is not at the expense of the vehicle owners, but theoretically at least it can be (if you want, it can be shown that it is possible and can even save fuel)
A bad road takes more energy, and we have a lot of those in Israel.
Don't jump to conclusions, this idea is blessed and suits us especially well.
The question is whether there is an economic justification for the matter.
The digging of the road (+ traffic jams it creates), the installation of the system, batteries, replacement of the wear and tear of the system.
Installation of a backup generator for the system (in case there is not much traffic on the road and the batteries run out), you do not want the area to remain without electricity.
What happens when there is snow (and salt) or rain and the road is cracked? Do you need to install the system again?
To all the wise, after you have finished questioning the law of conservation of energy, can you continue?
What do you think about V=IR or X=VT or E=MC2?
I'm sure you can find "logical" arguments why they are inaccurate!
There is also no need to rush and write what has already been written several times
To all those who claim that the energy will be "stolen" from the vehicles, maybe I'm wrong but it could be energy that is wasted anyway
And now they just save her...
This is also an option.
In short, there is no need to rush to conclusions.
If the cars pollute, at least generate electricity 🙂
jewel:
If you read the comments that preceded yours (in particular 10,11,13,15,17) you would see that everything you said has already been discussed and that the conclusion cannot be so decisive.
The physical explanation is this
The piezoelectric crystals get their energy from the force of their contraction
That is, the car that is carried on such a surface sinks (a little) inside the road and on
In order to move forward, she needs to raise herself (a little) to sink into the crystal
The next in line that will generate energy from the matter and God forbid.
That is, every car wastes additional energy to move forward on such a road (it needs to rise)
This bit of energy is the bit of energy produced by the crystals during the passage of a car
Individual.
It therefore follows that each driver contributes his share of the fuel surcharge he pays at the gas station.
Since there are no "free meals" it is not possible that more energy will be produced in the crystals than the added fuel
For cars traveling to pass on such a road.
And then the question arises, who said that in general this whole process is effective? Maybe to give the fuel
This one for the power plant that will generate electricity more efficiently? And this is in terms of the public aspect of the matter.
And from the private aspect of the matter, why do I have to pay and not even an extra penny (for fuel) for the need
Crossing such a road? Someone asked me if I agree to pay an additional amount for a private entrepreneur to make a profit
pestle?
I assume that the famous doctor knows all these "small" details, but she wants to
to make some nice exit from her company to some enthusiastic entrepreneur who doesn't understand physics (by Meridor)
And that he will break his head if this "small" legal matter.
Let them also do it on the sidewalks of houses, office buildings and shopping malls, then the pedestrians will also generate electricity while walking and the source of energy is also quite green.
And even so there is excess energy in this case with obesity.
Not to mention the motivation, people will no longer say, what did I get out of going to fetch, pick up, etc. They will actually make money from the walk and a greener world.
Uncle:
Just a clarification:
In any case, it is not about sections 2 and 3 on your list.
The energy that the system collects - to the extent that it is not additional energy that the engine wastes - comes from something that is more similar to section 3 - that is, from energy that would have turned into heat in the tires **and the road** in the area of their contact with each other.
Michael –
The comment: "I agree with Michael this time!" - was in the mind jokes!
Do not take seriously!
I agree this time with Michael!
I advise people here not to rush and kill the invention even before you understand the process in depth!
After all, so much energy is lost during the trip -
1. Heat that the engine produces and loses in cooling with the air.
2. Air resistance to the really imperfect structure of the vehicle (from an aerodynamic point of view).
3. Heat generated in the tires from the friction with the road.
And there must be more...
It is quite possible that they found a method to utilize and harvest the energy that is being lost anyway in one of these ways!
If this is indeed the case? It seems to me that then it is not theft at all!
Best regards,
Uncle
To Elad - your calculation is fundamentally wrong
And does not take into account the politician conservation law...
It is known that every politician strives to persist in his movement unless a strong enough force is exerted on him
(like police investigations for example), therefore it takes a politician about 5 months to read
report and 6 months or so to find the pen to sign the report.
Because the average term of office of an average government in Israel (the average)
It is roughly between a year and a year and a half and since it takes the new minister at least 5 months
To study the material (arrange the family photos) it turns out that a system
Approving reports and promoting various projects is a system that is sensitive to start conditions.
So although from a practical point of view the foreign workers can finish everything in a day
It will take politicians between 10 and 20 thousand years...
Maybe it's worth inventing first of all a method to utilize the energy of the politicians...
All those who claim that the electricity is at the expense of the car's work - it is clear.
The question is whether there is a utilization of energy that is lost anyway
(Bless you! The potholes on the roads of our country take more energy...)
And if so, then on top of it!, it's clear that there is no energy here from nowhere and cannot
be no violation of the law of conservation of energy.
By the way, I am more interested in the experiment of utilizing the energy of waves in the sea that was carried out
Not long ago in England, does anyone know what is happening with the project?
I hope they thought of a solution to the "Yom Kippur problem"…..
It would be interesting to know how much it would cost to set up such a system on a given road section, what is the lifespan of the system/its wear and tear, operation and maintenance expenses, how much does the system affect the car's speed and driving efficiency. And if all the factors are taken into account, is the system worthwhile at all?
According to my calculation, if 4 km of road produces electricity for 2500 households,
After all, 11200 km of road generate electricity for 7 million households,
According to Wikipedia in the entry "Transportation in Israel" the following data appeared:
Land transportation: 16,115 km paved road. 1,730,000 vehicles, 76% of which are private vehicles.
Also, according to Wikipedia, in the entry "foreign workers in Israel", the estimate of the number of foreign workers in Israel today is around 200 thousand.
From the combination of the above 2 data, the following conclusion emerges:
If every foreign worker installs such generators over an area of about 56 meters, assuming that he can install generators at a rate of a little more than 5 meters per hour, by tomorrow afternoon all of Israel's energy problems will be solved as if they never existed.
As a matter of fact: the effect on the vehicles passing by is minimal to an imperceptible level. In any case, this topic will also be thoroughly examined over time during the research. Regarding the claim of those who fear that the generators will "steal" energy from their car, they should take into account the following fact: for the purpose of placing the generators, hard concrete surfaces were cast on the site and placed under the generators. These surfaces increase the resistance that would have been lost inside the carriage. Now, go out and think, how much energy, the generators - in fact - give in their resistance to the weight of the vehicle (according to the same logic of "theft")...
Shlomi:
And of course it is possible to produce biofuels without harming anyone's diet.
It's all a question of optimal utilization of the space on Earth.
Shlomi:
Biofuels are indeed renewable energy.
Biofuels convert the sun's energy and materials from the earth and the atmosphere into fuel and return to the earth and the atmosphere what they took from them at the end of the process.
This is the definition of a renewable process.
It has nothing to do with any other consideration.
Solar collectors can also come in place of residences or fields for growing food. According to your logic - they do not create renewable energy either.
Energy that will not be used - for many and varied reasons - will not save us.
LeMichael: Bio-fuels are not renewable energy. You have to invest in crops that usually come at the expense of hungry Indian stomachs or at the expense of global wheat prices. And even if so (you will harvest crops that grew naturally in the wild) you will have to renew them somehow. If you mean to recycle oils such as cooking/frying oil it is already something else.
And by the way, the source of energy that will save us in the future is precisely the hot fusion that, although it consumes fuel and is not renewable (deuterium according to one of the prescriptions), there is enough of it on Earth for our expansion as humanity to the other planets in the solar system.
Gidi:
Read comments 10, 11, 13 and 15
The great advantage of the method in my opinion is its locality, it can be used throughout the day to turn on night lighting without laying out electric wires all over the country.
The bottom line for all those wondering about the loss of energy is simple: does the elasticity and the surface of the road change as a result of the addition of the generators and in which direction? If the road should be more bumpy, the drivers pay, if not then not.
Ami:
It is difficult to know which response you are responding to, but your claim that "no one has tried to claim that there is a full cycle of energy" is incorrect - see response 16
Of course, the law of conservation of energy is preserved - no one tried to claim that there is a complete cycle of energy. But for that matter, anything that can convert energy that is otherwise wasted as heat for other needs - after all, it's excellent and pure profit. Efficiency is another matter.
What can be done and how much it will be enough - these are real questions as well as the question of who ultimately pays for this converted energy. The idea of coupling braking energy to generate electricity is not new and already works in many cars. Also coupling slopes where you have to brake anyway to convert and utilize the power to electricity is a good idea. Slow lane is also a good idea. The more "multidisciplinary" we become (not only great physicists but also road engineers, automobiles, materials, electricity) the better off we will be.
[I just hope that no one will comment in his anger that road engineering, materials and electricity are derivatives of a great physicist - not because it is not true, because it is trivial and at the same time the actual overlap does not always exist]
With the blessing of thrifts,
Ami Bachar
Ofer Levinger:
There is great doubt as to whether this is theft of energy from the drivers and see in this regard comments 10 and 11 above.
On a highway there is no book that this is stealing energy from the drivers.
But you can put these systems instead of deceleration strips, and then the kinetic energy will be used instead of being absorbed by the brakes.
Or on steep descents on the way out of Jerusalem, which in any case should be braked.
And another idea:
You need to install an electric battery in every car (even those powered by gasoline) that will charge while braking, and at the gas stations it will be possible to convert the energy into fuel (or get a little discount)
Just let's not delude ourselves that the introduction of this technology on all roads will make it possible to charge a significant percentage of car batteries.
This would contradict the law of conservation of energy.
Charging the roads with energy comes - as already mentioned - from the energy of the cars.
Actually - only a very small part of it - because most of the energy is invested in the journey itself.
If the car is electric - the above claim translates to the fact that a tiny part of the battery's energy is wasted on "charging the road" and therefore the road is charged with less energy than what exists in that tiny part of the battery.
If you want truly renewable energy - there is no escaping the use of solar energy and its derivatives (wind and wave energy or bio-fuels)
First of all, a lot of respect for these companies and pride for our country that from here come technologies that can change the world.
I think that in the future we will indeed see this technology on every highway.
If you look at cost benefit, there seems to be a balance here.
If a road will generate energy and with the energy people will be able to charge their cars and also there will be good lighting for the road then here is the benefit.
The government will probably benefit from us driving on the road, the energy company will benefit and we will also benefit because the cost of electricity will be cheaper as time goes by.
In short, look at the bigger picture for the longer term and you will see that there is indeed something here that is groundbreaking for governments to start adopting.
Well done company and keep creating innovative technologies for us.
Israel is on its way to becoming a technology and patent powerhouse!
Circles:
Here's some basic physics:
Electric energy (like any other energy) is not produced from the existence of a force but from the work of that force.
If the road dips more then the car has to spend energy climbing back out of the dip (otherwise it would end up four cubits into the ground).
If you had read the comments carefully and had not started from a starting point of disdain, you would have seen that it was already written in them.
There is no loss of energy and no loss of the cars speed, here is some basic physics..
As described, the system is charged by the weight of the car, the weight of the car is a force in a vertical direction caused by the force of gravity from the influence of the earth. The force that activates the car engine is in a horizontal direction, the direction of movement and does not affect the system. So the power required to charge the system does not depend on the driving speed
Daniel:
The presentation is nice but does not expand beyond what is said in the article.
The solution is based on the subsidence of the asphalt during the passage of the car and the question is - if we adapt the things I said in my previous comments to the current case - does the addition of the piezoelectric generators increase the subsidence of the road or leave it as it was.
On Invatech's website, you can get an idea of how this is done:
http://www.innowattech.co.il/swf/roadway.htm
(for the calculators)
More on the same topic:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/low-cost-materials-for-capturing-solar-energy-0806092/#comment-223966
https://www.hayadan.org.il/nanogenerators-produce-electricity-from-running-rodents-1602092/#comment-176592
Society:
There is no need to rush to conclusions.
It is quite possible that there is no loss of energy here.
Why not make roads out of marble?
Why are the wheels inflated and not full?
Among other things, to dampen some of the shocks created by the contact between the car and the road.
It may be that the energy will be short from the shock braking and not from the real propulsion.
I don't know if that's really the case but it's definitely a possibility and I wouldn't start cutting until I found out.
Error in the calculation above: I got confused between the data they give. In one travel lane along 10 meters they talk about 200 watts only!
That is (1000 cars per hour) is about 2 joules per car.
Even if the mass of a car is only a ton, its energy before the system is about 300 kJ.
And so the deceleration is much less than one kilometer...
I repeat the first calculation, but the energy source is still in the fuel that the driver paid for at the gas station.
According to basic physical laws, the negative compensation for the car's speed (in kinetic energy) must be _at least_ the same energy that is stored in the system's accumulators as a result of the car driving over the receptors.
In the course of an hour, according to them, 200 kilowatt hours were accumulated in the accumulators (it was possible to save and write 200 kilowatts, but it was enough), that is, about 720 megajoules of energy.
Here are some reasons why the negative payoff is much greater than the energy gained:
1. The process of turning the car's kinetic energy into electrical energy in the "piezoelectric" material (probably one or another crystal) is not perfect and therefore emits at least a certain amount of heat, which also originates from the car's kinetic energy
2. The process of transferring the electrical energy from the "piezoelectric" material to the batteries involves the resistance of the wires, so it is also not perfect, and once again we got heat generated from the car's kinetic energy.
3. The process of charging the batteries is not perfect and emits heat, and again as above
In total, in order to accumulate 720 megajoules in the batteries, the cars had to be slowed down by at least 1000 megajoules of energy (and I am assuming here that the systems are very, very efficient. It is likely much more).
They are talking about the regular traffic of vehicles on road 4. In my estimation, in one lane, a car passes every 2 seconds on average in regular traffic (keeping a distance, and not too busy), so let's assume that 1800 cars pass per hour.
That means each car loses about 550 kilojoules of energy.
Let's assume that the mass of each car is about 1500 kg (a reasonable average), and they travel at the speed limit of 90 km/h (probably even more), that is, 25 meters per second.
So each car has a kinetic energy of E=0.5*m*(v^2)=~470Kj
According to such a calculation, the system steals enough energy to stop all the cars completely (please correct me if I'm wrong), and the drivers will probably compensate for the deceleration by the gas pedal - and spend about enough fuel as if they had to jump back to 90 km/h.
According to the calculations above, the slowdown of the system is significant!
Ami Becher and Orgil are right, that there must be a "negative return on the speed of the car", the "trick" is that it is probably minimal at the level of a difference between driving on a new road versus driving on an old road...
Yehuda, the meaning is that they produce electrical energy in the amount of 2000 watt-hours (energy) every hour.
Wow, what geniuses here, I run to buy their shares, if they are a public company.
If it is cheap enough, there will be companies willing to pave the way for the sale of electricity to the region
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It sounds a bit doubtful to me that a joint that converts motion due to the weight of the vehicle will not cause a negative result in the speed of the vehicle. I don't have the physical explanation, but in my gut something seems to me that in the end the payment for the electricity that will be stored will be paid by the drivers plus the fuel and the citizens plus the amounts of carbon in the air. However, I could very well be wrong.
And now for a flash from the future:
In the future, all roads will be networked with such devices that will harvest energy from the movement of cars. In open areas, the roads will be lined with surfaces that harvest light energy, which will reduce the heat temperature on the asphalt and provide shade from the sun or rain that wets the road. On the sides of the road for a long time there will be lighting poles for the night and on those lighting poles, higher up, there will be windbreaks. In this way, we have significantly reduced an ecological disaster such as a road (substrate area that emits heat that causes mass death in humans). The investor will be the state that will help with tax money and donations from green bodies (money is in heaps). After the investment is returned to everyone, the state will set up roadside gas stations that drivers can connect to and charge their hybrid cars with energy harvested under and above the road.
In the more distant future, instead of highways, cars will connect to a single magnetic track and float without friction and with little energy to their destination. This way it will also be possible to control traffic offenses such as illegal detours (which will not be necessary anyway because speed will not be a problem on the highway).
In general, the future is rosy.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Why don't they say it's a kilowatt output? After all, it's a matter of course that it will be a kilowatt hour.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The National Road Company headed by Alex Vizenzir really think that the drivers are stupid and will agree to pay with increased fuel consumption for "free electricity"?
Class action - this is what awaits them with the implementation of the program. All the drivers have united! There is a lot of money in the cash register!