h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The device consists of a series of massive and transparent tarps held at below rain cloud level by balloons. At the center of these tarps would be a hole connected to a flexible tube that increases in strength as it reaches the surface below to counteract water pressure increasing. At the surface below
would be a turbine to make energy.
There would be vertical gaps between the tarps to let humid air up when it's not raining so it can make clouds. The tarps would attach to the ground with cables or ropes.
Since it's so high up it the rain would have the maximum gravitational energy possible to be turned into high water pressure at the bottom of the tube.
Plants would have to be watered by tap, but this system would give access to lots of rainwater for that.
The tarps themselves would not hold the water, the water would be in a tube leading to the generator, with a balloon supporting that tube with rope.
Alternatives to this include: a tarp held between multiple towers , with a central tower to hold the water pillar. But i don't believe you would be able to use any kind of tower or structure to do this, since it would need to be 1km high in order to reach the level rain starts at, which is a world record not yet achieved by building.
[link]
|
| |
I thought about this ten years ago, while also thinking about trying to capture energy from gutters and downpipes. |
|
| |
Where it goes wrong is gravity. |
|
| |
Picture if you will an earthbound hydroelectric dam. To generate a useful amount of power, it must first capture a stupendous weight of water. Just imagine what happens when you swap out the concrete for tarpaulin, even before hoisting the whole thing into the sky. |
|
| |
I've thought about this too. |
|
| |
If the tarps are dual purpose it is viable.
They have to collect water at enough altitude to feed reservoirs when condensing.
When not condensing, wind energy flaps them and generates electricity by vibration. |
|
| |
Combining those two gives you constant electrical generation storage to be doled out at peak hours. |
|
| |
Subsequent reservoirs could store it again and again as crops are watered. |
|
| |
There's just no money in it. (+) |
|
| |
The infrastructure cost could be offset by utilizing existing trees on slopes rather than harvesting them. Screw concrete. Use what already exists. |
|
| |
This is an old memory, and somewhat vague. It definitely happened, and the gist is correct, but some of the details may not be: |
|
| |
When I was in primary school, a man visited our class to talk about people starving because of droughts, probably in Africa.
After he'd talked, there were questions, and someone asked "Why can't we just send planes full of water over and let the water out to make rain and end the drought?"
And the man very patiently explained that yes, if we could do that enough it would work, but the issue is actually the sheer amount required to be enough. |
|
| |
//if we could do that enough it would work, but the issue is actually the sheer amount required to be enough.// |
|
| |