In an experiment, one tube produced 440 microwatts. When the researchers used four tubes at once, they could power 12 LEDs for 20 seconds.
In an experiment, one tube produced 440 microwatts. When the researchers used four tubes at once, they could power 12 LEDs for 20 seconds.
But isn’t that exactly the sort of implementation we’re talking about here? Especially if you deploy this in large farms around the watershed. One problem with dams is that they have limited potential energy, since you can’t really build a hydroelectric dam in the sky. Harnessing additional kinetic energy for free on its way to the reservoir, capturing energy that otherwise would’ve just gone into the “plop” sound on the dirt, seems like a reasonably good idea; especially if it’s cheap.
Of course, there’s no way it’s ever going to rival solar or wind (or true hydroelectric). But I hope we learned our lesson long ago to not put all of our energy eggs in one basket.
EDIT: Nah, you’re right, on a large scale this is unlikely to be able to pay its own manufacturing costs. Perhaps this is more useful as a small-scale energy source.
This isn’t a terrible idea, and it could be useful as a source of emergency power in places that have high rainfall (paired with a battery system). From my background, I just don’t see it as viable for general use.
I also wonder about stacking them, particularly in places with a lot of rainfall.
Somewhere that has lots of drop, sure. But hydro relies on head pressure. Which is why most dams are a resevoir with multiple turbines.