Comments on: WIND POWER FROM NEW JERSEY HIGHWAYS

By: David Fraatz

David Fraatz — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:38:10 +0000

Ok, another thought. A huge portion of the costs involved in making electricity is the inverter, batteries and transformer. If I put in a separate radiant heat electric source in my home, which is only powered directly by the turbine without an inverter or transformer, I could use a home wind energy turbine with less investment. I use about $2,500 each year on heating the home and heating hot water. If I had a hot water system that only used utility gas when the water was not warm enough from the turbine powered heater, and a furnace that did the same, I would save utility usage. My turbine would be saving me money more effectively than if I tried to create 120-volt supply and would cost me less. This should make the system more profitable for every homeowner.

By: Jerry o

Jerry o — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:18:20 +0000

I taking the pro on this one, and yes we do welcome opinion as well as constructive critique. The rest can go and continue building their model airplanes or finishing their map for their next Dungeons and Dragon’s game.
I too had thought of this idea, it was back in 2000 or 2001 I think. I had mentioned it to an old roommate and he shot it down considering the amount of money and trouble for it to be accepted by all the governing agencies. My thought was for it to involve small vertical turbines, and have them mounted on the surface of (K-rail, Jersey Barriers, Traffic dividers). I didn’t research to see if it was feasible considering how much energy would be gained compared to the amount of energy to create this system, but I don’t think it was or is a bad idea. What we need is a bit more collective positive energy from those of you free thinkers out there. Clean and renewable energy is the path we are going in the future, so why not hop on?

By: David Fraatz

David Fraatz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:16:02 +0000

Also — The center island between two directions of traffic is a vortex of wind created by the traffic. Counterclockwise vertical turbines would capture that very effectively. Those concerned that this would increase drag for vehicle traffic should consider the two wind flows colliding at that point without the turbine, each reducing the force of the other. Free energy to be captured, or lost.

By: David Fraatz

David Fraatz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:10:34 +0000

Vertical wind turbines mounted ten feet in the air on center island Jersey Barriers would gain normal wind unobstructed from trees and wind from both directions of traffic. Wind created by traffic at that height would be lost to the atomosphere if not captured and have little effect on creating drag. I’m picturing smaller vertical turbines in series sharing transformers to lower costs. No scientific degrees, just spitballing. Some of the vertical wind turbines that are small enough to be roof mounted claim to be costs effective for a home user. If combining natural wind, rising traffic wind from both sides and sharing transformers does not make it profitable then someone is not telling the truth.

By: Roc

Roc — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 06:50:56 +0000

I’m not a scientist or an engineer but it seems that everyone assumes that the highway system doesn’t receive atmospheric wind as well. Even when there is no traffic the natural winds would supply additional energy into the system.
This wind with or against traffic will probably do more to affect the drag on the vehicles than any usable amount of wind turbines!

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:24:46 +0000

I’ve seen a number of stories about harnessing wind energy from traffic, but there’s one fatal flaw. Capturing the wind increases the wind resistance on the cars. The result is that the contributing drivers are paying for all of the wind energy with increased gasoline usage. To make matters worse, since the turbine efficiency is less than 100%, they consume more energy from gasoline than they create.

I am a huge proponent of windpower, but on first principles, this idea just can’t work.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 09 May 2007 01:13:07 +0000

I don’t know why people are trying to reinvent the wheel. Wind Turbines work well just as they are. Why not put them along the highway or in a place near by. I know people think they are unsightly and noisy and kill birds. But that is not very accurate. I guess if you really don’t like how they look that is up to you, but frankly the highway isn’t very exciting either. Noise and Bird fatalities has greatly been reduced over the years and Wind Turbines pay them selves back fairly quickly these days. Vertical wind turbines on nearby buildings could also be useful and they don’t have hardly any noise or bird killing problems. I agree that new innovations are great, but when something easy to implement like a good array of wind turbines hasn’t even been tried, I start thinking these pipe dream ideas are intended to make us forget about things that are already plausible. Just look what happened to electric cars.

By: Nick A

Nick A — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:28:35 +0000

New Jersey barriers were developed by the state of NJ in the 1950’s to keep cars and trucks from crossing the median and crashing into vehicles on the other side. That is why they are made of concrete. If you replace them with thin metal grate structures with fan blades inside, how effective do you think they will be in redirecting an 80,000 pound tractor trailer truck?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 04 May 2007 01:38:33 +0000

What about putting an axle under the road so that it spins when cars go over it to create electricity? Or what about plates that generate electricity from the weight of moving vehicles going over the road?

By: andrew k from az

andrew k from az — Thu, 03 May 2007 18:19:11 +0000

One thing I’d like to point out is that the barriers are called “Jersey Barriers.” I’m not sure where they got their name, but they’re used to protect construction workers, dvide highways, and so on, and I’m not sure the design was intended only for use in New Jersey. I’m not sure where the design was intended for, but I know for a fact that “Jersey Barriers” are in use in freeways and other uses throughout the US.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 03 May 2007 11:06:34 +0000

The “don’t build rods because if you do people will drive on them”.

That’s a croc.

By: Graham

Graham — Wed, 02 May 2007 22:43:49 +0000

Anon –
Building more freeway lanes, though it may seem counterintuitive, actually makes traffic worse. This phenomenon, known to most people familiar with transporation planning, is called induced traffic. Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. In fact, A recent UC Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years’ time.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 02 May 2007 17:44:08 +0000

The problem with this idea is that at peak traffic times, traffic moves too slowly to generate much wind. I don’t know about New Jersey, but every major metro area I’ve driven in (LA, SF, DC, Seattle, Portland, Northern VA), freeways are a parking lot during peak times.

And no, the answer isn’t that “we all ride bicycles”. The answer is to build more lanes. Like it or not.

Or build mass transit that *works*.

I hate the SF Bay Area for a lot of reasons, but I will say that you truly don’t need a car in the greater SF area, they have great mass transit.

Portland has the opposite approach – they *hate* cars, they refuse to build new roads – the new plan calls for no new roads for the next 25 years. But they refuse to make public transit actually work. They’ve spent billions on light rail and a new sky tram that will never break even, and don’t do a thing to reduce congestion. Portland does everything possible to force people not to dive, but they don’t give people any workable alternative.

In a free society, the free market, not politicians, should decide what’s ultimately best.

And no, “HOV” is no answer either because all that does is create deliberate congestion. The stated goal of most HOVZ programs, if you read their publically available documents, is to “reduce freeway demand”. In other words the goal of HOV lanes is to *punish* us for driving on the roads that we paid for.

By: Jafar

Jafar — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:20:32 +0000

Erik: Good call for your support of radical design solutions, but the contention over design ideas isn’t intended to be pessimistic, but rather, to be critical. What is the point of proposing a design idea if it can’t withstand any criticism? Shouldn’t the merits and limitations be discussed? In order for design ideas to be taken seriously and pushed forward there needs to be a level of seriousness and critique. Also, ingenuity and creativity emerge in response to detractors and pessimists. People will always try to solve problems and come up with interesting solutions, but as much as we shouldn’t limit creativity, we shouldn’t limit critique.

By: Pat Von Behren

Pat Von Behren — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:50:05 +0000

What is the energy balance comparison between solid walls and walls with turbines? The energy to run the turbines must come from the automobiles. How does the presence or absence of a wall change the gasoline mileage? The air that is pushed into the turbines slows as it gives energy to them. The automobiles that follow the first one encounter slower air, thus increasing drag on them.