Green energy, ReRev and other projects

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity and practicality of green energy projects, particularly focusing on the ReRev initiative, which aims to harness energy generated in gyms. Participants explore the energy expenditure versus return on investment, the effectiveness of energy-saving appliances, and the concept of rooftop gardens in contributing to sustainable practices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the energy return on investment for projects like ReRev, questioning the overall feasibility and practicality of harnessing energy from gym equipment.
  • One participant mentions that manufacturers provide varying estimates of energy production from people-powered equipment, with some suggesting it may only power small devices for limited durations.
  • Concerns are raised about the proliferation of energy-saving appliances and whether they truly contribute to energy conservation when more devices are continuously added.
  • A participant critiques the concept of rooftop gardens, arguing that they may not provide substantial nutritional value despite being promoted as a green solution.
  • Another participant comments on the perceived hypocrisy in green initiatives, citing examples like city-wide energy-saving events that may not lead to meaningful change.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism and critique various aspects of green energy projects, indicating a lack of consensus on their effectiveness and practicality. Multiple competing views remain regarding the value and impact of such initiatives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of calculating energy expenditure for green projects and the assumptions involved in evaluating their benefits. There is also mention of varying definitions and interpretations of energy-saving measures.

Rx7man
Messages
425
Reaction score
189
OK, let me start of with the disclaimer that I'm all for green energy.., and that this is a little bit of a rant from a thorn in my side.

So.. with that out of the way, I have to really doubt the validity of a lot of these green energy projects...The one that caught my eye in particular was ReRev, It is a project where they're gathering the energy generated in gyms and feeding it into the grid.

Has anyone ever done the math on the energy expenditure vs return on this project? I mean from start to finish, that is mining and refining the minerals required to build the hardware, Shipping it to China and then back again (probably), and then finally installing it.
Besides the cost which I'm sure is a negative return on investment, I'd suspect that unless you keep your gym full of Lance Armstrongs on steroids you'll never recoup the energy expended in the project.

Along with that come all the appliances, etc that are "energy saving"... What good are energy saving appliance if we just keep amassing more appliances, and specifically more (often) useless gizmos that need batteries?

Closer to home for me since I'm a farmer, is the ludicrous idea of rooftop gardens feeding the new green world... Most of these gardens will grow some lettuce and tomatoes, but none of them will ever provide any form of real nutrition.

Thoughts?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It seems to be a bit of a novelty at the moment.

Manufacturers vary in the ways they communicate how much energy their people-powered equipment is capable of producing. For example, PlugOut Fitness says typical users will be able to generate between 50 and 150 watts during a single workout - enough to power a cell phone for a week. By contrast, an elliptical machine in regular use at a commercial facility using ReRev technology generates an estimated one kilowatt-hour of electricity every two days; that's the same amount of power it takes to run a laptop for 24 hours or a vacuum cleaner for 45 minutes.

Is ReRev solving any great problem? Absolutely not. But it's starting a discussion."

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/fit...facilities-harness-user-generated-energy.html

Right now they seem to be used to go back into the energy use of the the gym. This is why we require accepted sources when a member makes a claim as you did.
 
Rx7man said:
OK, let me start of with the disclaimer that I'm all for green energy.., and that this is a little bit of a rant from a thorn in my side.

So.. with that out of the way, I have to really doubt the validity of a lot of these green energy projects...The one that caught my eye in particular was ReRev, It is a project where they're gathering the energy generated in gyms and feeding it into the grid.

Has anyone ever done the math on the energy expenditure vs return on this project? I mean from start to finish, that is mining and refining the minerals required to build the hardware, Shipping it to China and then back again (probably), and then finally installing it.
Besides the cost which I'm sure is a negative return on investment, I'd suspect that unless you keep your gym full of Lance Armstrongs on steroids you'll never recoup the energy expended in the project.

Along with that come all the appliances, etc that are "energy saving"... What good are energy saving appliance if we just keep amassing more appliances, and specifically more (often) useless gizmos that need batteries?

Closer to home for me since I'm a farmer, is the ludicrous idea of rooftop gardens feeding the new green world... Most of these gardens will grow some lettuce and tomatoes, but none of them will ever provide any form of real nutrition.

Thoughts?
Not a bad looking rant.

You omitted to mention in your rant, the yearly "turning off all the lights in the cities" day to save energy, whatever its called and whenever it is.
I forget the details, because, like you, not that I am not green supportive, but instead because it is a typical exercise in what is wrong in the green movement, ranging from who can score the most talking points to just plain stupidity and hypocrisy.

Case in point:
Turn off the lights in your city for a day - yeaah we are green.
Light up your city bridge year round to make it look pretty. Yeeah we are still green because only LED lights are used.
 

Similar threads

ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K