4 ms·

This seems like it's constrained to produce a trivial amount of energy. There is no way it's a practical source of power to reduce carbon emissions. Let's say w

by tdeck 6y ago

This seems like it's constrained to produce a trivial amount of energy. There is no way it's a practical source of power to reduce carbon emissions. Let's say we drop an 80kg person onto this floor and they deform it half a centimeter. That's 9.80 N/kg * 80 kg * .5 cm = 3.92 joules. A AA battery has 14,000 joules in it, which means you'd have to do that 3,571 times generate the equivalent energy. The paper's abstract gives 0.87 volts * 13.3 nA = 1.15E-8 joules per second. That's not exactly going to make a dent in our power grid. One paper I found [2] says you could get about 5J per step from walking on level ground, but that's still the same order of magnitude as my initial estimate and nowhere near a practical power generation technology. [1]: https://www.baldengineer.com/9v-battery-energy-density.html https://www.baldengineer.com/9v-battery-energy-density.html [2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2016.1215203 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2016.1...

centimeter 6y ago
All of these "clever" energy recovery schemes are inherently stupid, because you'd almost always be better off just making the original system more efficient rather than recovering some negligible fraction of its losses.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
Maybe the innovation is designing devices that require orders of magnitude less energy, and then meeting in the middle with low output energy sources like solar panels, etc.
- Fordec 6y ago
  At that point, we just make less batteries and solar panels and call it a day. An order of magnitude less energy consumption means we basically already have the necessary renewables and nuclear installed as is, job done.
ficklepickle 6y ago
It's not gonna power your fridge, but it could make a cool rotten floor sensor!
40four 6y ago
You’re not wrong, but I think your point is missing the most interesting aspect of the article. Which is fair, I don’t think this article was written very well. The thing that stands out to me the most is the realization that mycelial networks generate electricity at all, just from applied pressure. The article stated that this is the piezoelectric effect, which by definition is a very minuscule amount of electricity. I can’t imagine anyone is seriously considering this effect could be tapped reduce carbon emissions. They suggested if more buildings were constructed from wood that might reduce carbon, but it’s sort of a tangent to what should have been the headliner if you ask me :) The fact that the fungus is generating an electric charge, albeit very small seems incredible to me! Add it to the list of incredible things fungus and mushrooms are capable of, and the important role they play in our environment. Is no surprise the show ‘Star Trek Discovery’ chose a ‘mycelial network’ as the ships basis for teleporting around the universe.
- tprice7 6y ago
  I got the impression, both from this article and the original (here: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/11/eabd9138 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/11/eabd9138) that the electricity wasn't generated by the fungus, but instead the increased compressibility of the wood after being rotted enhanced its pre-existing piezoelectric properties. The original article does mention "mitigation of climate change" as a possible application, by the way.
  - akavel 6y ago
    I heard that squeezing "possibly related to climate change" somewhere in academic work increases chances of getting grant money nowadays, could it be it's the only reason why this phrase is there in this case?
  - 40four 6y ago
    Oh dang, Yeah I think you’re right! Maybe I got to excited for the fungus part from my own bias, maybe I’ve been watching to much Star Trek haha :) So it’s the resulting structure of the wood, not the mycelium itself. Thanks for setting me straight. It’s a little unclear how, or what types of devices could be powered by this, but they would be very low power. The biggest is mitigation to climate change come from selecting wood as the primary building material, versus steel which produces a lot of greenhouse gas.
dheera 6y ago
> There is no way it's a practical source of power to reduce carbon emissions. Even if it were, the fungi probably release a couple more orders of magnitude more CO2 than saved by this generation mechanism. Common fallacy is anything "natural" is a carbon reduction. Not always true. A biker on a meat-based diet releases more CO2 per kilometer than a Prius. [1] [1] http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-of-biking-vs-driving http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-of-bi...
xxs 6y ago
The energy 'created' (transformed) is still generated by the human by effectively burning carbohydrates/fats/etc. Might as well create a tiny alternator, spin it by hand and be done with. Alternatively, attach magnets/coils to gym equipment and there you go. If you continue further, no need for springs and weights at all - make all gym equipment with NdFeB and copper instead - 'free' energy.

by tdeck 6y ago

centimeter 6y ago

All of these "clever" energy recovery schemes are inherently stupid, because you'd almost always be better off just making the original system more efficient rather than recovering some negligible fraction of its losses.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

Maybe the innovation is designing devices that require orders of magnitude less energy, and then meeting in the middle with low output energy sources like solar panels, etc.

Fordec 6y ago
At that point, we just make less batteries and solar panels and call it a day. An order of magnitude less energy consumption means we basically already have the necessary renewables and nuclear installed as is, job done.

ficklepickle 6y ago

It's not gonna power your fridge, but it could make a cool rotten floor sensor!

40four 6y ago

You’re not wrong, but I think your point is missing the most interesting aspect of the article. Which is fair, I don’t think this article was written very well. The thing that stands out to me the most is the realization that mycelial networks generate electricity at all, just from applied pressure. The article stated that this is the piezoelectric effect, which by definition is a very minuscule amount of electricity. I can’t imagine anyone is seriously considering this effect could be tapped reduce carbon emissions. They suggested if more buildings were constructed from wood that might reduce carbon, but it’s sort of a tangent to what should have been the headliner if you ask me :) The fact that the fungus is generating an electric charge, albeit very small seems incredible to me! Add it to the list of incredible things fungus and mushrooms are capable of, and the important role they play in our environment. Is no surprise the show ‘Star Trek Discovery’ chose a ‘mycelial network’ as the ships basis for teleporting around the universe.

tprice7 6y ago
I got the impression, both from this article and the original (here: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/11/eabd9138 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/11/eabd9138) that the electricity wasn't generated by the fungus, but instead the increased compressibility of the wood after being rotted enhanced its pre-existing piezoelectric properties. The original article does mention "mitigation of climate change" as a possible application, by the way.
- akavel 6y ago
  I heard that squeezing "possibly related to climate change" somewhere in academic work increases chances of getting grant money nowadays, could it be it's the only reason why this phrase is there in this case?
- 40four 6y ago
  Oh dang, Yeah I think you’re right! Maybe I got to excited for the fungus part from my own bias, maybe I’ve been watching to much Star Trek haha :) So it’s the resulting structure of the wood, not the mycelium itself. Thanks for setting me straight. It’s a little unclear how, or what types of devices could be powered by this, but they would be very low power. The biggest is mitigation to climate change come from selecting wood as the primary building material, versus steel which produces a lot of greenhouse gas.

dheera 6y ago

> There is no way it's a practical source of power to reduce carbon emissions. Even if it were, the fungi probably release a couple more orders of magnitude more CO2 than saved by this generation mechanism. Common fallacy is anything "natural" is a carbon reduction. Not always true. A biker on a meat-based diet releases more CO2 per kilometer than a Prius. [1] [1] http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-of-biking-vs-driving http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/climate-impacts-of-bi...

xxs 6y ago

The energy 'created' (transformed) is still generated by the human by effectively burning carbohydrates/fats/etc. Might as well create a tiny alternator, spin it by hand and be done with. Alternatively, attach magnets/coils to gym equipment and there you go. If you continue further, no need for springs and weights at all - make all gym equipment with NdFeB and copper instead - 'free' energy.