Can Rain Drops Power Our Homes? A Theoretical Calculation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the theoretical potential of harnessing energy from raindrops, calculating that a typical raindrop can produce approximately 7.83 x 10^-5 joules of energy. With an average rainfall of 4.25 inches per month, the total energy generated per square centimeter per year is about 2.54 joules. To power an average household for a year solely from rain, an impractical area of approximately 78,473 square miles would be required. Suggestions for alternative energy capture methods, such as using piezoelectric plates or harnessing lightning, are also mentioned, though challenges exist in their implementation. Overall, the feasibility of rain as a significant energy source appears limited based on the calculations presented.
Kalagaraz
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I was bored, my internet was out (from the rain), and so was TV. So all I could was sit there and think...

So I started asking myself, how much energy does a single rain drop have and how much electricity could THEORETICALLY (100% efficiency) be produced from falling rain? So when my internet came back up, I thought I would try and calculate it.

From searching the internet this is the variables I was able to come up with

Typical Rain drop is 2mm in diameter, has a terminal velocity of 6.25856m/2, and has a mass of 4mg.

Using the kinetic energy forumla then I get (0.5) * (4x10-6kg) * (6.25856)^2 = 7.833914655x10-5 joules of energy per rain drop.

Looking up historical weather data for my city, I find that rain fall average is about 4.25 inches per month or 10.79500cm

Density of water is 1g/cm^3. So 1000mg / 4mg is 250 rain drops per cubic cm.

250 * 10.79500 is = 2698.75 rain drops per cm of area

2698.75 * 7.833914655x10-5 = .2114177718 joules per cm per month, multiply by 12 and we get 2.537013261 joules per cm per year.

1 joule = 1 watt second

From a quick google search I came up with the average household power usage being 8900 kilowatt-hours or 32040000000 watt seconds. So to power a house for a year of rain you would need a energy converter that covered as area 1.262902346x1010cm^2 or 78473.11366 square miles.

So if my math was correct, powering our homes from rain probably isn't the best of ideas. If anyone sees any errors in my math/calculations (and there most likely is, been a couple years since I've taken any physics classes) please let me know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I like this! (except for your poor use of significant digits <grin>) It also shows how much water is involved for hydroelectric dams to be economical.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I like this! (except for your poor use of significant digits <grin>) It also shows how much water is involved for hydroelectric dams to be economical.

hehe sorry about the significant digits. You should see how mad my math teachers get any time I have to use pi :)
 
you know what would be REALLY interesting... if you had a piezoelectric plate which deformed due to rain drops. minimal deflection (depending on thickness) .. but neat concept.
 
Nick Bruno said:
you know what would be REALLY interesting... if you had a piezoelectric plate which deformed due to rain drops. minimal deflection (depending on thickness) .. but neat concept.

That's what I was thinking, but after calculating how much energy would be produced. I didn't really think it was worth building a prototype or anything. My other idea was capturing electricity from lighting during the storm :), but from google I've found that it's very difficult to intentially attract lightning.
 
Last edited:
I think this idea is still worth developing a prototype. Think of all the campers who get stormed out. It would be a great way for them to harvest energy for small LED lights or something around their campsite for some night lights. I know in some areas, especially where people camp, it can rain like crazy.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top