- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Urine powered generators
- Thread starter Dennis Alwon
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
A link with no comment is not very helpful and is really not forum policy. Can you expand on this?
The hydrogen could easily be sourced from a chemical reaction activated by water or urine. The hydrogen would essentially be already stored and released in the reaction. The process would be exhausted when they run out of reactant, not when they run out of urine. There's a wide range of reactions that do this, aluminum reacts with something that produces hydrogen and then the aluminum gets reprocessed / restored.
Since they're running a reciprocating engine, they're probably producing CH4, methane, and not H2. H they would run into a membrane reactor fuel cell for electricity.
Raw sewage can be dried and the dung input as fuel into an electricity generating turbine. The dung burner has been done. There's also lots of manure digesters, producing methane that is used to power reciprocating engines and steam turbine generators.
If nothing else, they're doing a good job promoting economic interest in an area that needs more capital and technical investment.
Sorry.
It seems to be a form of fuel cell.
In the 60s they were going to run a car on the methane produced by chicken droppings but this is a different principle.
mivey
Senior Member
It looks like it is a school science project, not a new invention that will save the world. Urea, pig poop, and many other biomass type processes are already being tested and developed. This is just an over-hyped story that catches the attention of the world much like the famous 100 mpg carburetor that is secretly being kept from the public.
That is because it is. There is a basis in fact. You can indeed generate electricity from urine. But what makes it hype is the way the story is being presented/perceived: as if you can form a line at the local outhouse with a string of generators next door.
Think about it: 6 hours on one liter of urine? Imagine the power you can get from one liter of gasoline. Now imagine the power you can get from one liter of urine. It should indicate that there are a lot of missing details about the story.
Can it work? Of course. It is not new technology.
Are you going to have one in your bathroom to power your home? No.
Will this provide the power for a small village? That would depend on the needs of the village. A village that has no electricity now would have very minimal electric need. I could imagine that a small village could "contribute" enough to power a small device. But enough to satisfy a collection of electric devices like a normal modern person might need?: No.
Based in fact but over-hyped.
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
The "minimal electric need" that I think is very relevant is cell phones. To folks in many African countries, charging a cell phone is not only extremely valuable but also extremely difficult. People are paying the equivalent of many dollars per kWh to charge their phones at kiosks that may be miles away from their home. Since a cell phone only requires a few dozen watt hours to charge, and a charged cell phone is worth quite a lot to people, it's the kind of thing where people in small village might see the value in using a technology that requires only on their own local "contributions."
It would be interesting to do the math and see if one person's urine can provide enough electricity to charge their personal cell phone on a regular basis. (Of course the company running the cell towers cannot do the same.)
Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you said. At best, this technology would serve as a stepping stone towards people using more electricity from more conventional sources.
Last edited:
Actually, charge is measured in amp-hours.
And if there is an anti-nit-picking medication available I should probably start taking it. :huh:
ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
That would be Watt-seconds. Nit, nit, nit, SWAMP!
flashlight
Senior Member
- Location
- NY, NY
- Occupation
- Electrician, semi-retired
Hmmm, one of the commenters on the original link perhaps put it best :
"You would generate more electricity by /urinating/ into an impeller and generating electricity like a waterwheel. Of course, as with all things it’s the thought that counts ..."
"You would generate more electricity by /urinating/ into an impeller and generating electricity like a waterwheel. Of course, as with all things it’s the thought that counts ..."
tallgirl
Senior Member
- Location
- Great White North
- Occupation
- Controls Systems firmware engineer
That would be Watt-seconds. Nit, nit, nit, SWAMP!
I've had this argument before -- amp-hours is a much better unit for battery storage since there are issues with the difference between the charging and discharging voltages. Using watt-hours can make it seem that energy is being "lost". See Peukert's Exponent for a more detailed conversation.
ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
Actually my nitpicking was over his calculation for Watt-hours which would have yielded Watt-seconds instead.
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
And ... the original nitpick by was incorrect because I was referring to the watt hours of energy from the generator required to charge the battery, not the charge of the battery. (And, in any case, there's nothing wrong with referring to the energy stored in a battery in terms of watt hours, when appropriate. Amp hours means nothing if you don't know the voltage of the battery, which in this case we don't, because it's a hypothetical battery!)
I was going to let it go, but it seems this thread won't die. :happyno:
I was going to let it go, but it seems this thread won't die. :happyno:
Yes, it would.That would be Watt-seconds. Nit, nit, nit, SWAMP!
That's why I said stored energy.
Energy is certainly lost. There are conversion losses in both parts of the charge/discharge cycle.
tallgirl
Senior Member
- Location
- Great White North
- Occupation
- Controls Systems firmware engineer
Yes, energy =is= being lost, however the amount of energy lost is based on the rate of charge and discharge due (in large part) to changes in voltage elevation or depression.
The more consistent measure of capacity is amp-hours. This comes directly from the half cell reactions and the amount of material available to store charge. If you look at battery monitors (TriMetric and PentaMetric from Bogart Engineering, FLEXnet DC from OutBack), that's the method they use -- amp-hour counting. You'd have to know the entire history of the charge and discharge cycle to know the state of charge if you use watt-hour counting.
I take your point but the purpose of a battery is to store energy, energy that is available to do work.
Take electric vehicles for example. The stored energy is converted to mechanical output to propel the vehicle. The Ah does not tell me what that energy is but stored kWh does. And that's the figure that EV manufacturers generally give.
From various sites:
Tesla Roadster - Battery 53 kWh (Lithium-ion battery)
Nissan Leaf - 24 kW?h lithium ion battery
Wiki
mivey
Senior Member
Amp-hour counting will not keep up with the battery state of charge either.
- Status