I’m not familiar with the mechanics of electricity generation and such, so I’m curious if there are good reasons why this isn’t possible or useful.
Edit: thanks for the great responses! I gather that the main problems revolve around the fact that it will take more energy to outfit the machinery and feed the people than you’ll get in return.
In: 5
At some point in Britain, during the industrial revolution, prisoners were used as labor to do nearly that. They didn’t generate electricity, but they did spin a shaft which could have a generator attached to it. Thoughty2 did a video on it. They didn’t use bikes, they had these stair-climber things, but it was more like they were climbing on the top of a hamster wheel. People were sometimes used inside of giant hamster wheels, and I’ve seen people wind the spring in a pumpkin launcher using that method.
So yes, it’s feasible, but it’s not what anyone would describe as “fun.”
Not particularly. It’s definitely possible, but people are not particularly space or energy efficient. For example, a midsized walk-behind lawn mower may have a 4HP engine. At a long-distance pace, that’s somewhere around the power that 8 to 12 fit people can produce on a bike.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed (this is known as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). Transforming energy always has some inefficiency, where some of the energy is lost (typically as heat). Instead of having humans transform food into electricity, it will always be more efficient to just burn the food to release the energy. Instead of converting sunlight into food then burning it, it’s more efficient to just use solar panels.
Not particularly. It’s definitely possible, but people are not particularly space or energy efficient. For example, a midsized walk-behind lawn mower may have a 4HP engine. At a long-distance pace, that’s somewhere around the power that 8 to 12 fit people can produce on a bike.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed (this is known as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). Transforming energy always has some inefficiency, where some of the energy is lost (typically as heat). Instead of having humans transform food into electricity, it will always be more efficient to just burn the food to release the energy. Instead of converting sunlight into food then burning it, it’s more efficient to just use solar panels.
It can be done.
The problem is that the value of the power made is less than the value of food you need to make it.
In the case you need to pedal aniway, why not? There are gyms that make electricity from the people pedaling in it. Still that’s 1-4 hundred watts per person.
Think of it like a trade. Assuming you had a power-generating bike already, you are trading time, effort, and the food it takes to fuel a person, for only a little bit of electricity.
There are times this might be worth it, like in a post disaster scenario where there’s plenty of food and time and no other way to generate power. You might get on the bike and power a radio to call others, and that would be very worth it. But if you are asking if in the present day it would it save money or energy, no, because we aren’t very efficient engines at turning one source of energy (food) into another (electrical charge).
You might think that there are some scenarios now where people are biking on stationary bikes at gyms and they are paying to do so, and that power output which they’re already doing because it serves as their exercise could definitely be used to at least charge a phone. But remember that we started our thinking with the person already having access to a power generating bike. In reality it costs a lot to add that functionality to an exercise bike in a safe and reliable way, so even when the person wants to pedal and spend that energy, it’s rarely efficient to provide the equipment even to paying customers for how little electricity we can create.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed (this is known as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). Transforming energy always has some inefficiency, where some of the energy is lost (typically as heat). Instead of having humans transform food into electricity, it will always be more efficient to just burn the food to release the energy. Instead of converting sunlight into food then burning it, it’s more efficient to just use solar panels.
Not particularly. It’s definitely possible, but people are not particularly space or energy efficient. For example, a midsized walk-behind lawn mower may have a 4HP engine. At a long-distance pace, that’s somewhere around the power that 8 to 12 fit people can produce on a bike.
Think of it like a trade. Assuming you had a power-generating bike already, you are trading time, effort, and the food it takes to fuel a person, for only a little bit of electricity.
There are times this might be worth it, like in a post disaster scenario where there’s plenty of food and time and no other way to generate power. You might get on the bike and power a radio to call others, and that would be very worth it. But if you are asking if in the present day it would it save money or energy, no, because we aren’t very efficient engines at turning one source of energy (food) into another (electrical charge).
You might think that there are some scenarios now where people are biking on stationary bikes at gyms and they are paying to do so, and that power output which they’re already doing because it serves as their exercise could definitely be used to at least charge a phone. But remember that we started our thinking with the person already having access to a power generating bike. In reality it costs a lot to add that functionality to an exercise bike in a safe and reliable way, so even when the person wants to pedal and spend that energy, it’s rarely efficient to provide the equipment even to paying customers for how little electricity we can create.
Latest Answers