Taking energy from the atmosphere

  • Thread starter Thread starter heartless
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atmosphere Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of extracting energy from the atmosphere, particularly through various proposed methods such as engines, thermal energy extraction, and harnessing static electricity. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of these ideas, including comparisons to existing technologies like solar cells and windmills.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that energy from the atmosphere could be harnessed directly, questioning why such technologies have not been developed.
  • Others point out that existing technologies like solar cells and windmills already convert energy from the sun and wind, respectively.
  • A participant proposes using a Stirling engine to extract thermal energy from the atmosphere, suggesting a cold piston could be placed in ice while the warm piston is in the atmosphere.
  • Another participant counters that energy is only accessible when it is in motion, implying that still air does not provide usable energy.
  • Concerns about efficiency are raised, noting that a small temperature differential would yield limited energy output.
  • One participant introduces the idea of harnessing static electricity from the atmosphere, referencing a fictional motor from a novel as a conceptual basis.
  • Discussion includes the potential of capturing lightning energy, with some skepticism about the practicality of such methods and the challenges of energy storage.
  • Some participants express doubt about the energy density of warm air at typical temperatures, suggesting that solar cells remain the most efficient means of energy conversion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and efficiency of extracting energy from the atmosphere, with no consensus reached on the practicality of the proposed methods. Some ideas are met with skepticism, while others are explored more positively, indicating a mix of agreement and disagreement.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the efficiency of proposed methods, the practicality of energy storage solutions, and the assumptions regarding energy availability in still air versus moving air.

heartless
Messages
220
Reaction score
2
Our atmosphere is continously being heated and energized by the sun. Has anyone ever actually developed an engine able to take this energy directly from the atmosphere or if not, why nobody was able yet to make one?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
We have solar cells that take sunlight and convert it to electricity.

We have windmills that take wind and convert it to electricity.
 
yeah, but solar cells are actually taking energy from the sun light, but traveling through Earth's atmosphere sun light will leave a lot of energy in the atmosphere I suppose. If a person gets energy directly from the upper atmosphere one gains much more free energy. Such energy could be more effective than direct sun light. And windmills, they work using wind (oh, what the knowledge :smile: ) and it cannot be accessible from every place of the world at any time. Sun for example always lights.
 
Energy is only accessible if it is in motion from a source to a sink. So warm atmosphere sitting still does not provide a source of energy. Wind is thermal energy in motion and is the closest you can get to what you suggest.
 
Of course it's possible to directly extract the thermal energy in the atmosphere. Just set up a stirling engine with its warm piston in the atmosphere and the cold piston in a bucket of ice.

Just go figure why most people aren't doing this as we speak...
 
Since the ground level is warmer than high altitude I would put the hot piston on the ground and the cold one at high altitude. In fact weather does exactly this.
 
Given the much higher density of water, using the wind-driven waves on the oceans as a source of energy seems to be a much less expensive solution than capturing the wind itself. Of course, there's just those pesky problems of building something large-scale in a very hostile environment...

Russ's point is spot on: If you could store the energy somehow (forget the atmosphere and let's say you just use the infrared spectrum of the sunlight on a black surface to heat water) then you could extract some of that energy as you discharge it back into the atmosphere.

Now, how about efficiency? With such a small temperature differential, you're not going to get much energy per unit of area. Even with nuclear reactors or a gasoline engine in a car or a river dam with a hydroelectric plant, the larger the differential the easier it is to increase efficiency.

So to power a typical home, you'd need an area closer to the size of the lot or larger. With a high efficiency home at a low lattitude, the use of PV solar cells and infrared hot water heaters (to use in showers) can capture more energy in a day than it uses. As long as you can handle paying $.25-35 per kWh of electricity, this is a reality today.
 
gschjetne said:
Of course it's possible to directly extract the thermal energy in the atmosphere. Just set up a stirling engine with its warm piston in the atmosphere and the cold piston in a bucket of ice.

Just go figure why most people aren't doing this as we speak...
I hope that was sarcastic, but can't really tell...where does the ice come from?
 
Your freezer! Just use a generator connected to the stirling to power the freezer. Then you get free energy! (Yes, that was sarcastic :rolleyes:)

Anyway, the point is that you always need some kind of difference to convert energy from one form to another. A heat engine needs a temperature difference, a wind generator needs a pressure difference, a hydro plant needs a gravitational potential difference, an electric heater needs a potential difference.
 
  • #10
In the novel Atlas Shrugged , John Galt invented a motor that ran on the electric charge in the atmosphere , I suppose a kind of static electricity accumulator.

Lightning occurs when this static charge concentrates in clouds and a diiference in potential exists between the cloud and the earth.

On a smaller scale can we accomplish this task artificially , and what might its output in work be ?
 
  • #11
Lightning has been considered. There's an http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lightning_Power#Harnessing_Lightning_Power"about it that says:
How hard would it be to build a power plant that harnesses the electricity generated by lightning? Then, store the electricity and use it on-demand on the electric grid? Pie-In-The-Sky?

This concept is perhaps not as impractical as it once was. The main limiting factor of implementing a lightning capturing scheme such as this was the inability to be able to store large amounts of electricity for later use. However, new Utility Scale Battery technology or other energy storage technologies such as Flywheels or Capacitors could be used to store the electricity captured from lightning in massive quanties, for later grid use.
I wonder how much hydrogen could be produced by electrolysis of water from a single lightning strike. I seem to remember that being looked at once.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
I don't think that 30 degree C air really has that much energy available. Like mentioned, the solar cells are likely the most efficiant way to convert the sun energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K