The highway system that dissects Phoenix is expansive. While connecting 515 square miles of the Sonoran desert, to support our sprawling culture, the valley freeways divide communities. My catalyst proposes to retroactively collect royalties on the land taken from social interaction. The design is a retrofitting replacement of the horizontal steel tube that currently holds freeway signage. The replacement will house two horizontal axis wind turbines that will be powered by the turbulence created from the passing cars.
Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
Catalyst- element that causes activity between two or more persons or forces without itself being affected.
Average vehicle speeds on the valley highways are approximately 70 mph. Using average annual wind speeds of 10 mph as a baseline, each single wind turbine will produce 9,600KwH of energy annually. This power production estimate will increase exponentially with an increase in wind turbulence speed. I believe that the wind stream created over the freeways by our primary mode of transportation will create an average annual wind speed well beyond the baseline of 10 mph.
There are two ways in which the power could be used: supply the power directly to the grid to supplement current energy supply, or use the power locally to aid in producing a community hub for social interaction.
All schemes that propose collecting energy near freeways must accept that they will decrease fuel economy. The energy has to come from somewhere, and “waste” energy is very hard to collect without negative impacts. By saying that the system is collecting “royalties” the author seem to be accepting this fact. However, I can’t vote for a system that will take one of the worst aspects of the suburban lifestyle, wasting gas, and exasperates it even more.
Mark Oberholzer is proposed a slightly different take on this in the metropolis next generation competition in 2006.
http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20070110/the-new-i-jersey-barrier
I’m not so sure the vehicles will produce correct winds (>10mph) at the altitudes required (>16ft) for this project to work. Even worse, as vehicles become more streamlined they will disturb the air around them less and less, leading to less output from this over time. I’m not sure how the municipalities’ insurance companies would feel about putting heavy moving machines that need constant maintenance above fast traveling vehicles either. I love the concept, but I’m seeing a lot of setbacks for the ROI.
So…drive more to create ‘green’ energy? I am seeing a glaring fundamental flaw here
Do designers ever bother to actually check the science behind their ideas? It’s easy to just say they’ll be “powered by the turbulence created from the passing cars.” but that doesn’t magically make it true.
Just like a wave energy capture. Cars be makin the waves. If we must drive, and we must make wind farms, I agree that the best place for all of it is over the freeway. I hate to see green pastures with thousands of ugly propellers. This design is more attractive, and less detracting than a road sign. I wonder if signage can be incorporated into larger slower moving propellers.
How does this solve a problem of suburbia? Energy capture, appropriate doubling use of space. Where you are capturing energy, you are also creating power lines… this is again an appropriate place for ugly utilities. Maybe it will create enough energy to power the light poles, which arguably serve no purpose except to add light polution to the night sky.
A brilliant vision, but I’m not sure the turbulence created by the motion of the cars is enough to make a turbine viable. (But contrary to Peter at comment 1, I don’t see how the scheme – if it worked – would in anyway reduce fuel efficiency or increase gasoline prices.)
There’s certainly an instant initial appeal to this ‘tax’ or ‘royalty’ for driving, but I believe concerns regarding the municipal barriers to entrance (i.e. insurance, the environments and willingness of various DOTs, and other logisitical concerns like mobility and ease of disassembling for oversize loads) are well warranted. Because of these challenges and others, a step toward this technology would require significant political backing, and would certainly be monitored very closely economically from that point forward by politicians both for and against the plan. To moshun’s point, in order to continue to receive a respectable ROI, the city would need to curb its other vehicle volume initiatives, tying its future to status quo (read: often unsustainble) transportation methods. It’s not exactly the play a savvy elected official would make. This is emphasized by the fact that this plan taps into a familiar transportation path – roadways (even if people know little about them, they’re certain to think that they do).
Perhaps there’s room for this in a realm with more strictly confined movement and existing momentum for new construction and zoning like railways?
The problem with airflow could be corrected by replacing the overhead turbines with vertical units set up on the median dividers. There is a unit from Blue Energy http://www.bluenergyusa.com/index.html that creates energy from both solar and wind. The things are great looking, and on the freeways in sunny Phoenix and elsewhere would generate a lot of power. And when we move to more mass transit, the rush of trains going by would also generate power from these devices.
Sooooo… the more we do something seriously unsustainable (drive) the better this scheme works. But as we curtail our unsustainable driving habits, these devices’ performance drops… as Moshun said above, a “glaring fundamental flaw.”
I’m glad to see people are thinking up new & novel ways to address our current problems, even if many of them are impractical. This looks like the seed of an interesting idea. The actual numbers may need to be studied & verified. Just because a vehicle is going 70mph doesn’t mean that it will create wind of any substancial speed. Traffic also isn’t consistant 24 hours a day. Although a turbine would also likely take advantage of naturally occuring wind. Also, would the costs involved in building these turbines be finacially competitive with other alternative forms of energy production? I’m not sure what the electrical rates are in Phonenix, but it’s 9.8 cents per kwh in my rural prairie Canadian location. That equates to approx $940 retail worth of electricity annually per turbine. What are the contruction & maintenance costs involved with this project compared to other alternative forms of power generation? If the electricity isn’t used where it’s created and is added to the grid, a third of the production could be used up in transmisson. This is just food for thought in an otherwise creative idea.
First of all, if you replace the freeway signage with these then were do you put the new signage??
Second, there are many more windy corridors around Phoenix that would be better suited for generating wind power.
Third, there is no way that their would be enough wind resistance on those skinny blades to make them turn unless it was Monsoon season.
It looks kind of cool and I could see it in an ornamental application but thats about it!
First of all, I agree with most above me that the idea that this would work and generate energy (at least from wind created by the cars) is absolutely absurd. But, that said:
Levi, that’s not how wind turbines work. Intuitively it seems like the turbines move because the wind pushes on the blades but it is not the case. Rather, it is the pressure differentials that drive them much like the wings of an airplane. Take a look at any modern wind turbine, particularly the ones with only two blades and you will see that the surface is indeed very small.
this is akin to powering a wind turbine by setting up a gas-powered fan in front of it. on net, it would waste energy and increase gas consumption.
Hmmm…? Reburbia…?
I can’t vote for a proposal that robs Peter to pay Paul. This isn’t a win-win proposal. It would be much better to set up the turbines to catch some of the local wind, assuming that were a viable proposition.
This is an “empty calories” proposal – feels good when you look at the picture but ultimately captures very little energy (not economical compared to “traditional” turbines), and what it does capture is mostly a result of wasted energy output by automobiles.
It’s sort of like if you had chevy volt type car that you plug in, and all the stored energy in the battery get sucked out into the grid, then it has to recharge with its internal combustion motor.
I am telling you all right now as a trained engineering and ex architect that this idea can work. It can be engineered and it can be done. My professional colleagues that are electrical engineers and PHD’s in physics affirm this can work as well. I personally live in Phoenix and know in a city where you need a car and public transit is horrible this would generate plenty of electricity. The problem is in the upfront costs such as solar panels that no one wants to put upfront. I have the personal pleasure too of going to school with Mr. Deleree. In regards to the comment where the project “robs Peter and pays Paul” is obsard. Our job as designers and eng is to innovate and think of ideas that benefit society an make our lives better all around. Who benefits from it is all politics and not deisng in general it self. The first step is thinking of an idea that can solve energy dependence and better society. This is how we should mesaure this idea and it is by far an innovative and great idea.
This scheme would also have the side benefit of producing tons of pre-chopped bird meat to feed to growing homeless population, as well as enough free-floating feathers to stuff thousands of pillows, allowing the diners to feast in a comfortable repose.
I have had this idea for twenty years now! glad I am not the only person thinking the freeway is a hugely underused energy resource. But wind turbines are only just the tip of the iceberg. We need to harness the heat and friction as well. Not to mention covering segments of the freeway with solar panel tunnels. So many other ideas I have for redesigning the freeway system. But I have to say…its not really a “reBurbia”, its more like a reFreeway-ia if you ask me. So good try, but I have to give my vote to someone else.
now add a stirling engine up there to take avantage of the temp variation above the freeway and we would have a real energy advantage.
I know from riding my motorcycle that the freeway is several degrees warmer than the surrounding roads. The car’s warm exhaust combines with the slow release of heat from the asphalt’s daily sun light absorbtion makes it much warmer than the surrounding air.
Good idea, but it needs major revamping before it has a chance of working. To get the level of winds you’d need to make it even partially viable, you’d need a crowded freeway full of cars to maintain the pressure differential needed to keep the turbines rotating. However, as we all know, a crowded freeway means the cars are not going fast at all, and the turbines will be still. At night, when the freeway is empty, single cars are not going to turn it.
I’m not even too sure that given a crowded freeway, we would see enough wind speed to turn them. A better solution would be mini-turbines on the sides of the road. When individual cars pass it, it turns a time or two; a long row of cars would keep it turning. The only problem with any of this is that you’ll never capture enough energy with these to justify production. Wind farms and ones at sea are much more efficient in regard to this.
Darius turbines are notoriously unstable and high maintenance. Any design using them needs to expect serious engineering problems. The solution posted by JVL at http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20070110/the-new-i-jersey-barrier shows more promise given the proximity to traffic issue. John Nevils post on blue energy is also interesting but I don’t see any installs on their site … It all seems a bit like scientific design without the science … I thought this competition was about urban design
I really like the idea of turbines over freeways. I don’t know if the physics on which this design are based actually occur, but that’s really beside the point. This is good thinking.
To those that object to this design on the idea that it promotes driving, let’s decouple the idea of cars from combustion engines. It’s true that cars currently use combustion engines powered by fossil fuels produce greenhouse and other undesirable gases. However, cars do not have to use this kind of engine. At some point, combustion engines will go the way of boiler-steam engines, but cars will remain.
Given that, why not attempt to recapture as much of the engine as possible from the normal human behavior of traveling?
Turbulence is the enemy of wind turbines, drastically reducing power output and machine life. See Paul Gipe’s books.
I think that I agree with that while cumbustion engines are bad, but they won’t be around forever… we’ll have to come up with something else sooner or later. However, vehicles and the air disturbance it creates is another issue all together. The more people try to find ways to use the energy we create moving and shaking the more likely we will be able to end the waste of energy that is not replaceable.
I don’t even understand the people considering this proposal seriously. As Greg Martin (#14) said, all this does is convert gas to wind to electricity, losing energy at each conversion step to useless heat.
Yes, Eric Suh, this would produce very little energy
But consider that the alternative YOU propose is that we conserve NONE of the energy but rather lose it all to heat
Wind turbines are great. But this is very, very silly indeed.
leverages existing infrastructure extremely well… nice idea!
I used those exact same images over a year ago for a school project. We did some calcs and they can help power the street lights, but not much else unless they are in a decent wind corridor already. The cars and trucks produce some wind at ground level, but not very good directional wind at 16-20′.
Not a new idea, but in the right places, not a bad one.
Phoenix which is where this design was initially thought of is a great idea. I know because I live here. I went to school with Joe and it is a brilliant idea. To the comment about chopped up birds…you are correct that could happen yet they also could run into the cars below or smack into a building.
I am not denying this idea could use revamping to improve upon it, however, just the thought alone is the initial generating idea which is what a lot of people are overlooking with these project. It is the initial thought, likelihood of the project being tangible, and whether not it does more harm than good.
I think adding a fly wheel to it would solve the problem of keeping enough kinetic energy a lot of the time once their are large breaks in cars passing. Maybe they get place just after over passes so the pressure differential can cause more gusts than breezes. There are a bunch of different ways to do it. Key is having the initial thought.
If no one would have thought of the automobile there would not have been the first debate whether to be electric or combustion engineer. When Henry Ford started mass producing cars for Americans he actually had both electric and combustion engineers. As we all know what one and now everyone is trying to convert to “greener” cars. So as I said and thought. It is the initial thought that is 90% of the work. 5% is the engineering and the other 5% is fine tuning.
Great job Joe. We are still proud of you at the College of Design sir.
Then, shouldn’t an EROEI calculation (including the embodied energy) be trivial? Please provide one.
This is a bad idea that unfortunately I see pop up in different forms often. This and others have the same fundamental flaw that they increase drag or resistance on vehicles (or even pedestrians) in order to ‘harvest’ energy. Any energy you harvest is heavily outweighed by the increased energy needed to power the vehicle. #14 said it well.
If you had some idea to harvest waste heat (which really is waste) then I would listen. Otherwise you would get a much bigger benefit to society by just imposing a gas tax.
And to #18 (Alex) – I am a practicing engineer too, and you and your physics friends are wrong, regardless of how many degrees you collectively have. If you could find some steady wind (instead of turbulence) you could spin a turbine, but there would be no net gain in energy.
To everyone that has no clue what they are talking about feel free to just not comment. I am in both design and engineering. So, I get both the practical engineering side and the architectural side which likes to idealize and dream in smoke and mirrors a lot.
Regardless of what people say it is a good idea. This project was done by Joe who’s background is in architecture. The time and everything that goes into calculations takes funding and money. So if someone wants to help fund this feel free otherwise it still is on the drawing board.
The initial thought is the key. Maybe above highways is not the best spot. Heck maybe if we turn then 180 and make them horizontial be better. If we can put a man on the moon, invent hybrid cars turn thermal energy leving a car into battery stored to improve gas mileage, or even invent the dam Sham Wow….trust me it is more than possible.
Don’t come to this forum and rip the project to shreds. Constructively criticize it think of ways that could make it better or even use the idea as a basis for a whole other idea.
This is what the basis of design whether it is architecture, engineeering, landscape, interior, industrial, etc. job to do. Come up with something that betters our life from scratch or build upon an existing product, theory, or thought.
I am not denying in anyway shape or form this project is fairly flawed. However, what I do recognize the power of the effort, thought, creativity, and all around innovation this could spark if we push the project in the right direction or inspire someone to reinvent the wheel so to speak. Don’t cut it down encourage it. Use this idea as a basis and platform for something else if your imagination allows you too.
And I forgot David…people with PHDs don’t know anything do they? Oh yeah so next time you go to the doctor and he refers you to say an oncologist….tell him he does not know what he is talking about and their is no way you can have cancer. I hope you have your PE in electrical engineering….or even at least an EIT cause otherwise please do not come to the forum without the expertise. And I am structural not electrical so I never claim to know the eccentricities of the system. However, the same basic principles we all learned in electricity and magnetism work just at a larger scale. Engineering does what we think is impossible and makes it a tangible reality. If we invented the Ipod, Slap n Chop, Prius, and the electric car which the republicans and big business killed…..then we can easily make this wor. You got a better thought than this….ivent it, think of it, say it, enter the competition. If there is anything you take from this at least take it as inspiration that is what I am stressing here.
Yes, I have my PE. Thermodynamics, not electrical engineering or even fluid dynamics, is the field of study which dooms this idea. The conversion of chemical energy (gasoline) to mechanical energy (wheel rotation) to fluid motion to mechanical energy (spinning the turbine) to electrical energy (via a generator) is an extraordinarily inefficient process. But even if you could do this efficiently, you would still be robbing useful energy from the vehicles.
As I said, you would be better off taxing the gas and reduce the driving in the first place than to implement this idea. However, if you could find a way to harvest energy that isn’t useful (like waste heat) then you would have a beneficial idea. This isn’t beneficial, even if it might be implementable. What you have here is an idea that lower gas mileage of cars, creating pollution and carbon dioxide in exchange for minimal energy generation.
Worse yet, this idea isn’t even innovative. I have seen it in many forms over the years, turbines near roads, pressure bladders under the roads to pump hydraulic fluid to generate power, etc. They all suffer from the same ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics. Just like perpetual motion machines, they get people excited but are fundamentally misleading. I for one don’t think that is inspiring for anybody.
The designer can’t be blamed for not understanding the physics behind the idea. But I do hope he learns the lesson that you don’t often get something for nothing.
Of all the proposals, this is the most feasible, down to earth and posible in the near future of them all.
Considering the issues of sustainable energy and general ugliness, solar umbrellas/arches would gather energy that just goes to heating asphalt. So long as they were not so exspansive as to darken the road for vision, you could cover a lot of area with solar cells, not create an eyesore (only alter the one you have), and double-use the space. Not to mention, you would likely reduce in-car airconditioning (and thus fuel consumption) with shadier roads.
As a possitive response, I enjoyed the creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. Considering the fact that the gas fueled vehicles will be screaming up and down the miles and miles of freeways for quite some time into the future, to not take advantage of the air turbulance would be an acknowledgement and acceptance of the waste. Whether the vehicular traffic generates wind velocities of 5 mph or 20 mph needs to be further investigated and the concept model tested. The suggestions from other respondents recommending consideration of intigrating PV, signage, etc., I believe is just beginning to tap the potential of this concept.
One of the thoughts I did have was the challenge of locating the horizontal turbins in the zone of the air distrubance. I immediately invisioned a close encounter between the turbines and an overheigtht load, like a piece of construction equipment on a trailer. ICC regulations would be a constraint.
Still love the concept.
This is an excellent idia to generate small power for illumination of highways. I suugest that a flywheel should be added so that there is continuous
power generation in case of gap in traffic flow.