Sainsbury’s Unveils First ‘People-Powered’ Store In The U.K.

Search

// you’re reading...

automobiles

Sainsbury’s Unveils First ‘People-Powered’ Store In The U.K.

By The Author ⋅ June 15, 2009 ⋅

Email Post ⋅

Print ⋅ Post a comment

Filed Under renewable energy

Sainsbury's

Ever wondered what all those people pulling into a large grocery store or mall parking lot could do for the environment instead of just buying their consumables then leaving? You haven’t? Well, neither did I; but Peter Hughes did, and his recent “kinetic road plate” invention is now being put to the test in the U.K. at a Sainsbury’s to see if all of those commuters and their vehicles can actually produce enough power to run a grocery store.

Power From The Peoples’…Cars

Sainsbury’s, a chain of grocery and small convenience stores located throughout the U.K., is the first store of it’s kind to employ the use of kinetic road plates to produce electricity from the vehicular traffic driving over them. Plate designer Peter Hughes, an engineer who once used to advise the United Nations on renewable energy, claims the possibilities for the system are endless. They work as follows:

“The ramps, which cost between $32,000 and $90,000, depending on size, consist of a series of panels set in a pad virtually flush to the road. As the traffic passes over it, the panels go up and down, setting a cog in motion under the road. This then turns a motor, which produces mechanical energy. A steady stream of traffic passing over the bump can generate 10-36kW of power. Energy not used immediately can be stored or fed into the national grid.”

“With a steady flow of traffic, four of the ramps used as speed bumps would be enough to power all the street lights, traffic lights and road signs for a mile-long stretch of street. The ramp is silent, comfortable and safe for vehicles. It is not only green energy; it is free energy, once you have paid for the capital cost of the equipment. ” Hughes claims that 10 ramps could generate the same power as one wind turbine.

The pilot Sainsbury’s store deploying this technology is expected to reap 30kWh of electricity every hour! On top of this captured energy, Sainsbury’s is also using captured rainwater to flush 100% of their toilets and they will also heat 100% of their hot water using solar thermal panels mounted on the roof of their store. In addition to the store being greener, the construction of it was just as green. Over 90% of the construction site waste, from this project, was either re-used or recycled. All of these environmentally friendly features will not only perform their obvious environmental functions, but they will also save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run for Sainsbury’s. Once again, the Brits are showing that an eco-centric economy is not only possible, but economical and profitable as well.

The Good: A ingenious kinetic energy system that harnesses a plentiful, and otherwise wasted, energy source. If the plates perform as they’re intended, the applications could be endless. Extremely low profile. Reasonable costs when compared to comparable renewable energy systems.

The Bad: Most likely difficult to retrofit to existing sites. Moving parts present maintenance issues. Though comparable to other renewable energy systems’ cost, still would be considered too expensive in upfront cost for most companies to use. Is dependent on, what is most likely to be fossil-fueled, vehicular traffic. Initial investment costs would be better spent on a truly clean renewable source of energy like solar.

The Bottom-Line: What appears on the surface to be a gimmicky way to produce energy is, in actuality, a robust energy harvesting system capable of producing a significant amount of power. Though dependent on a relatively steady stream of fossil-fuel-based vehicular traffic to achieve its maximum potential, the kinetic plates will most likely deliver on their power estimates considering the locations at which they’re planning to be used.

OUR SUSTAINABILITY RATING:

YOUR SUSTAINABILITY RATING:

Rating: 2.3/5 (8 votes cast)

Share/Save

Discussion

Comments for “Sainsbury’s Unveils First ‘People-Powered’ Store In The U.K.”

chriscloke_browne

I am totally with Matthew here. This is an expensive way of getting inefficient (but free to the user) fossil fuel power. By the fundamental laws of pysics the energy only comes from one place - the car.

Matthew

I struggle to see how this could be considered "free," "green" energy. Free to the store owner, perhaps, but not for drivers. And green once all autos run on renewables perhaps, but not while they run on petrol.

These road pads don't harvest energy from the natural environment, they harvest it from traffic, which runs on oil. This technology is simply shifting the generation source from the electric utility to private citizens, as every car passing over the pads will be forced to burn a few drops of extra fuel to overcome the uneven road surface, and this fuel will be transformed into electricity for the store.

Not that there isn't a valid argument for forcing Sainsbury customers to provide the energy that fuels the service station they patronize, but let's be transparent about what it is and what it is not. This is not renewable energy. It is energy taken from the fuel tanks of the customers. It's a far cry from a wind turbine, and I'd bet it actually results in the emission of more carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated than a coal-fired power plant.

theauthor

I agree with you in the fundamental sense, but to assert that because it's powered by vehicles somehow negates its renewable characteristics doesn't make much sense given the fact that the same amount of vehicles will be traveling in these areas regardless of whether the kinetic plates are there or not. To not take advantage of a significant energy source just on fundamental principle, is a little impractical and in the end, naive.

The petrol in the cars is essentially doing more than just 'getting people around' by the fact that its supplementing the store's grid-tied energy needs; energy that in all likelihood, comes from a much more polluting source, i.e. your example of coal-fired electrical plants. But your assumption that the amount of CO2, produced by the car emissions resulting from the vehicular traffic needed to produce the coal-fired equivalent amount of electricity, will be the equivalent of the emissions from a coal-fired plant, producing that same amount of electricity, is simply incorrect.

Coal-fired plants, on average, release 2 lbs (.9 kg) of CO2 for every 1 kWh they generate. An average plant will put 2.6 billion pounds (1.2 metric tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, making it the most polluting energy source on the planet. By comparison (though their CO2 emissions can't be measured per kWh) the average car emits 19 lbs (8.8 kg) per gallon of gas and slightly more for diesel. So the amount of petrol burned, and resulting carbon released, for those few meters that the car is actually actuating the kinetic plates, is almost infinitesimal considering the fact that the car's inertia is the main energy source at the time it's making contact with the plates. Though it would be a fairly complex calculation, the amount of CO2 produced at the time that the cars are actually rolling over the kinetic plates, which are almost flush with the roadway, compared to the CO2 produced by a coal-fired plant to supply the equivalent in electricity, would be shown to be greatly less.

Cars are not going to be going to Sainsbury's to produce the stores power; they're going there anyway. Yet your argument seems to assert the former, which is just not the case. I think it's a situation in which something, with great energy producing potential, is being utilized rather than simply wasting it. Its taking a secondary unintended benefit of a combustion engine and putting it to good use. Call it whatever you like, but it's better than not doing it all.

Matthew

Recovering wasted energy to generate renewable electricity should absolutely be a cornerstone of a clean energy future, so I applaud the motivation behind this technology in the abstract. But unless these kinetic pads will always be replacing existing speed bumps (in which case disregard everything I'm about to say), the laws of physics would imply that the power ultimately comes from fossil fuel that would not have been burned if the kinetic pads did not exist.

These kinetic plates are harvesting energy from moving vehicles by absorbing a fraction of the vehicles' inertia. As a car passes over the plate, it will transfer some kinetic energy into the plate, which will necessarily slow the car down (there is physically no way that any power could be harvested from the moving car without slowing its speed). So once the car has crossed the plate, it will be going a bit more slowly than before crossing the plate, and will have to burn a bit more gas to get back up to speed. It is essentially this bit of gas, from many many cars, that is the root source of the "renewable" electricity for the store. This is true regardless of whether the car came to the parking lot expressly for the purpose of visiting the business.

I'd be very interested to see a full comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of this technology versus a coal plant, taking into account the auto gas burned to recover vehicle kinetic energy transferred to the plates. But I'd be surprised to find that using a large centralized power plant to turn fossil fuel into electricity is less efficient than using thousands of tiny vehicle combustion engines to turn fossil fuel into kenetic energy and then using this device to transform that kinetic energy into electricity. The numbers you'd really want to compare are the CO2 produced by producing a given amount of electricity in a coal-fired power plant, and the CO2 produced by the cars accelerating to regain the speed they were traveling at prior to crossing the pad, during the time the pad generated an equivalent amount of electricity.

I'm not arguing for coal plants, mind you. I'm arguing for genuine renewable energy. It's the same problem I have with all the recent excitement about "clean" electric cars. Sure, emissions-free cars are great, but until our electricity supply is clean, then electric cars shouldn't be considered emissions-free-- they simply shift emissions from the car to the power plant. I see these kinetic pads as a reverse case of the same problem: sure, generating electricity from the kinetic energy of cars is great, but until our car fuel supply is clean, that electricity shouldn't be considered clean-- it simply shifts emissions from the power plant to the car.

I'd fully support replacing existing speed bumps with these pads, since that would represent genuine recovery of waste energy. But a power source that draws energy from the motion of a car is being powered by the fuel that set the car in motion, and its "renewableness" should be judged as such.

theauthor

I agree with all your points. The pads are not speed bumps though as they are essentially recessed into the roadway. They are equivalent to a steel plate on the road and are meant to be driven over without slowing down. If you look at the picture in the post you can see that they only stick up about an inch from the roadway.

I would say the energy is cleaner in comparison to the other available sources. If you were able to burn the combined amount of extra gasoline it took to make say 30kWh of electricity via the kinetic pads, I guarantee the emissions from that gasoline would pale in comparison to the cola-fired plant's emissions. I would even venture to say that I doubt even 1 cumulative gallon of gasoline would be burned, in excess of what already would be consumed, by the vehicles rolling over the plates. It's such a small amount of gas needed that it almost can't be quantified.

You're right about the shifting of emissions in regards to electric cars 'power source'. People also forget the enormous amount of embodied energy in an electric car as well. It's definitely an issue, but to draw a 1-to-1 comparison is difficult if not inaccurate.

Jonathon

Draw a box around the system (the pad, and the car) and ask how the energy gets into the system. Is the car the energy? No, the car has energy that the pad is 'harvesting'. How did the car get the energy? It was poured into a tank in chemical form and converted to kinetic movement form by the engine, so oil is the original source. Would the pad produce energy without the car. No. What does the energy come from. Oil.
If the pad is not effectively adding to the braking effort of the car, ie the driver is not slowing down anyway, then Sainsbury's is getting 'free' energy by drivers having to renew the fuel in their vehicles at the nearest pump.

theauthor

Correct, but that energy is now serving two ends rather than one.

Jonathon

OK, it's going to two users now. So? You agree the energy is from oil, right? When was oil renewable, except over fantastically long time frames? There seems to be confusion in the media that if the user is not paying for it then it is somehow renewable. In this case, the motorist is paying for the energy and Sainsburys is using it. Each driver won't notice it in their fuel bill as it's a small amount per car but fundementally that is what is happening.
Renewable means that the energy comes from the Sun, as that's the only net energy input to our planet. To harvest Renewable energy you need solar, wind, wave or tidal.

theauthor

Yes, it's from oil and I don't think oil is renewable nor did I infer that it is. I'm simply pointing out that the oil is providing for two ends users now instead of one which makes it marginally more efficient as an energy source, but certainly not renewable or clean.

It seems a lot of the debate over this system revolves around the semantics being used instead of the purpose and function of the system itself. I don't think it's a solution to any type of climate change/energy problem, but I think it's better than nothing, though the money spent on the system would be better suited for investment in something truly clean and renewable such as solar if the upfront costs were comparable.