Turbine could generate electricity each time you flush
[Via Inhabitat]
[Via Inhabitat]
Relevant Posts
- New solar cell efficiency record (barely) achieved at 40.8% (57 days ago - 79 Comments)
- Texas Instruments gets excited about energy scavenging (47 days ago - 16 Comments)
- Video: game consoles stored in Gamestop bathroom (13 days ago - 205 Comments)
- TeknoCreations' InCharge juices Wiimotes through silicone skins (22 days ago - 23 Comments)
- Athlon 64 2000+ at 8-watts outperforms, draws less energy than Atom (55 days ago - 73 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ijyt @ Mar 6th 2008 11:09AM
Oh this is just being anal.
Jamma @ Mar 6th 2008 11:52AM
Forget that stuff at CES, this is the real crapgadget!
Asha @ Mar 6th 2008 12:56PM
Actually, it is kind of brilliant in its simplicity. This is energy that could be harnessed and, as long as those things don't clog or break down easily, it could recover a moderate amount of power. It isn't going to fix the energy crisis, but a drop in the bucket is still just that.
Flashpoint @ Mar 6th 2008 11:11AM
I personally don't see this generating enough energy to meet the demands of current households, BUT, something like this should be in use in STORM DRAINS and GUTTERS of heavily raining areas.
Brodie @ Mar 6th 2008 11:16AM
I don't think it's necessarily the point to produce enough energy to power a home or anything, but its producing energy using something that needs to occur anyway. I agree with you about storm drains being another good thing to look into...
7on @ Mar 6th 2008 11:18AM
But it could offset an electric bill by a few dollars.
I think the idea is a bunch of generators wokring together in the long run. Solar panels, wind/water turbines, grass with sweaters on, etc. it's the future!
tom @ Mar 6th 2008 11:33AM
This is so gonna interfere my internet from google TISP
http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html
required @ Mar 6th 2008 11:43AM
Clean energy is everywhere yet one device can not capture it all, therefor we need collaboration.
mike @ Mar 6th 2008 12:23PM
Here's to hoping my Seattle power bill will be going down soon...
Whiplash @ Mar 6th 2008 12:51PM
This is really kind of brilliant. Every time I go to Vegas I wonder how much waste water is generated by all those hotel room toilets. They could probably power a lot of neon by installing a few of these.
Michael @ Mar 6th 2008 2:56PM
@Whiplash
That's actually an amazing idea! I was thinking about it as one house at a time and not getting that much energy about of it, but if you think of it as an entire hotel, where each room itself doesn't use that much energy...
Or, how about we take it a step further? Install one of those with each toilet that has an auto sensor to flush... make the turbine power the next flush!
Oh, and how much you wanna bet the guy that came up with this did so while taking a shit!
Sivada @ Mar 10th 2008 9:40AM
I agree, but also car washes, laundry mats, hotles, etc. Originally I was thinking it might be an asset if placed after the last tank, & in route to sprinler heads on septic systems. Furthermore, placed on the individual water supply line, feeding dwellings & businesses, from the water main!
I think if used in conjunction with other electricity saving technologies, it would be worth while to both households & businesses!
Thanks, T.
Dave @ Mar 6th 2008 11:13AM
I always had a feeling having a shit would solve the energy crises.
technophobe @ Mar 6th 2008 11:16AM
you could always burn the methane
MEAT! @ Mar 6th 2008 11:31AM
So what you're saying is the energy crisis is full of shit? The oil companies are right??
RikF @ Mar 6th 2008 12:11PM
No, he's saying that all the best ideas come when you're... seated, but not on a chair
MEAT! @ Mar 6th 2008 11:14AM
Would this not decrease the speed of the water, and thus encourage toilet clogging? Perhaps you could turn it off and on.
These guys are chumps. How about a water wheel that you piss on? Now that's innovation!
azrealjg @ Mar 6th 2008 11:19AM
From the looks of it, it doesn't go on a toilet outlet anyway. But it would be useful for capturing otherwise wasted energy from showers/dishwashers/sinks at the very least.
Aaron @ Mar 6th 2008 12:05PM
That would probably give me some incentive to actually get it in the bowl
MEAT! @ Mar 6th 2008 12:17PM
@Aaron
Rest stops on the highway could have a high score list, with flashing lights and brightly-colored readouts, encouraging you to generate the most electricity, all for the good of the country.
michas_pi @ Mar 6th 2008 11:23AM
So when I experience severe intestinal distress and the resulting situation requires a plunger, wouldn't the plunger be sucked in?
I'll pass on this one.
Asher69 @ Mar 6th 2008 11:27AM
..And if the generator breaks down, can you no longer use the toilet?
looseinthedeuce @ Mar 6th 2008 11:31AM
Thermodynamics lesson:
The total energy "gained" is less than or equal to: (mass of water) x (height change of water)
Which means it's like lifting a bucket of water a foot. A device like this likely requires way more energy to manufacture than it will ever help produce.
Ike Skelton @ Mar 6th 2008 12:20PM
Yes! More thermodynamics:
the turbines used will be limited to only about 30% efficiency.
michael @ Mar 6th 2008 12:57PM
Im only fifteen and Im just about the complete my course in standard grade physics(Scottish high school qualifications).
Are you talking about converting teh potential energy stored in the water into electrical. If so that is a huge waste of time. Ep=mgh
AFAIK my cistern holds 7 litres of water so mass = 7kg.
my cistern is just under a metre high above the ground so height = 1m(for simplicity)
and the gravitational field strength is just under 10 and ill round it to 10 for ease.
so working out the potential energy of that water is 70 joules. And then the generator is not going to be 100% efficient, lets call it 50% so 35joules of energy. That, is utterly useless.
S**t idea. :P
michael @ Mar 6th 2008 1:00PM
:$ I just realised that it would b the water coming out of the bowl, and not the cistern. So scrub the last post, unless they place the generator between the cistern and the bowl. And that is most unlikely
Gabe @ Mar 6th 2008 3:49PM
Maybe it's the headline that's confusing you. This is a device designed for municipal water systems. It doesn't go on your toilet. Each turbine would be powered by hundreds of toilets, sinks, storm drains, etc.
Argot @ Mar 6th 2008 11:32AM
Is that the new iPhone?
jeeesus @ Mar 6th 2008 11:39AM
HOW did you manage to get apple into this?
i am amazed. and thats saying something.
emailtabs @ Mar 6th 2008 11:57AM
nope its the iplop.
http://www.1iphone1toilet.com/
bob sakamano @ Mar 6th 2008 11:38AM
so not only are we going green, now we are going brown?
John Johnson @ Mar 6th 2008 11:40AM
Sorry, I'm more of a fan of clean energy.
michas_pi @ Mar 6th 2008 11:44AM
I lol'd hard.
Also, fuck yeah, Top Gear!
pathogen @ Mar 6th 2008 11:44AM
Yeah i really need slowing down the flush of a 1.6 gallon toilet.
Ike Skelton @ Mar 6th 2008 11:45AM
It won't generate enough electricity to power hardly anything. Even using it on drains of all sorts; sinks, showers, etc.
Viney @ Mar 6th 2008 12:33PM
It's intended for municipal systems, where you have more of a constant flow from multiple sources. You would not attach one of these to every fixture you have in your household when each runs for mere minutes in a day. That'd be dumb and incredibly impractical.
Would you build multiple hydro-electric dams on every tiny creek and stream that eventually combines into a larger body of water?
Ike Skelton @ Mar 6th 2008 2:38PM
It's a good idea, but incredibly impractical for any use. Low rank that, bitch.
spamhere-engadget.com @ Mar 7th 2008 8:09PM
Isn't the point of pumping water through the pipes to remove the water? I mean, if this were on a mountain top and you could harness the gravitational pull, that's one thing, but on a flat-level pipe... you'd have to pump harder to pass through the turbine, which would defeat the purpose, because it's going to lose energy. Isn't this like a perpetual-energy-losing machine?
Chris @ Mar 6th 2008 11:50AM
I agree with LooseintheGoose,
One of the huge conumdrums of all these devices is that we use up a lot of energy and produce a lot of CO2 to create these things.
But I think it is solvable.
Kris @ Mar 6th 2008 11:54AM
What a shitty idea.
rob @ Mar 6th 2008 12:00PM
Oily Shit!
Tgadget @ Mar 6th 2008 12:27PM
They stole this idea from Tom Goes to the Mayor!! Way to go Tom Peters!!! Maybe with all the money this will save, they can bring back the show.
The_Steven @ Mar 6th 2008 12:34PM
I you take a moment to think about it... Put it on the cold water supply line, just past your water meter. That way all water going into your building will generate some amount of power.
So it's not just every flush, but also every shower, diswasher, clothes washer, lawn sprinkler, etc., would generate a few watts.
So maybe it will take a long time for it to pay for it self in a single family house, but in a hotel, or apartment complex, or office building it could pay for itself in days.
What if the lights in the lobby of your building were powered by this device? Why didn't I think of this idea sooner?
murray @ Mar 6th 2008 1:22PM
No.
If you put a generator in the inbound plumbing, you're using the energy provided by the pumping station that creates your water pressure. You then lose water pressure, and the pumping station has to pump harder to compensate. In the end you have no energy gain (in fact you would have a loss due to inefficiency).
What you're missing is that the proposal in this story takes advantage of gravity, which is free. It only makes sense to harness energy that is already there, and not being utilized. That's what hydro does.
w00t @ Mar 6th 2008 2:57PM
Great... so the water company will need bigger pumps to keep the pressure and flow rate up thus draining more extra power than these can produce and thus completing the whole pointless cycle.
Come on, this is up there with that stupid MSI chipset cooler! Think bigger guys this isn't going to make a difference...
Ross @ Mar 6th 2008 12:47PM
I love all the people who, rather than trying to think of a good use for an interesting idea, spend their valuable time trying to think of reasons why it won't work.
(This applies to most stuff I see on Engadget).
sully @ Mar 6th 2008 1:30PM
These people are called "Engineers"
Ike Skelton @ Mar 6th 2008 2:09PM
Um, yeah. Lets just build these things that are impractical and ignore all of the faults. Who needs engineering anyway?
ross @ Mar 6th 2008 6:53PM
I would agree with you were it not for the fact that a true engineer would want to know a bit more about the device than what is in the article before making the assumption that it is impractical. I am of the opinion that this particular invention has at least one good use and that is that is needed really isn't it?
(for the record I am an undergraduate mechanical engineer)
RossM @ Mar 6th 2008 6:56PM
My brain just did a massive fart - what I meant to say instead of "I am of the opinion that this particular invention has at least one good use and that is that is needed really isn't it?" was:
"I am of the opinion that this particular invention could have at least one good use and that is all that is really needed isn't it?