Sony Extracts Power From Cardboard

[Guest]

Sony is creating electricity by leveraging an effect that allows termites to produce energy by eating wood.

Sony Extracts Power From Cardboard : Read more

 

[jdwii]

LOL

 

[jcb82]

Oh, I guess the makers of fibre cereals are still lying then.

 

[Pyree]

Man, my mp3 runs out of battery!

Time to go to the library.

 

[CKKwan]

Simple process like burning the cardboard can also boild water and produce electricity.

Sony never says which one is more efficient.

 

[steelbox]

Marty: What are you doing, Doc!
Emett: Need fuel! *Throws cardboard in Mr. Fusion*

 

[sissysue]

I can get allot more energy from it with a match

 

[AndrewMD]

This is truly science at work. If you can't understand what they are doing or just plain close minded, just read and leave. The exploration of alternative energy sources is a hot market right now. I also have to blame Tomshardware on making this article sound like a joke when in reality it is the beginning of something that could be useful...

 

[gtvr]

[citation][nom]steelbox[/nom]Marty: What are you doing, Doc!Emett: Need fuel! *Throws cardboard in Mr. Fusion*[/citation]

came for back to the future reference... left satisfied.

 

[xenolalia]

@CKKwan

The whole idea is *not* to burn stuff, as CO2 is a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion. Besides which, "Sony notes that the power output is very low and a [sic] commercialization should not be expected anytime soon." They are still in the development stages; this should be treated as a proof of concept and nothing else. Just 'cause it's not particularly efficient yet doesn't mean that it won't be a viable alternative energy technology someday!

 

[XZaapryca]

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Seriously, how much energy was expended in the production of the enzymes, the processing of the cardboard, the transportation costs of the raw materials, etc. This is about as bad as using a potato to make electrical current. Hydrogen, compressed air, ethanol, etc. all use more energy than they themselves carry or produce. I wouldn't get too excited about this.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]XZaapryca[/nom]Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Seriously, how much energy was expended in the production of the enzymes, the processing of the cardboard, the transportation costs of the raw materials, etc. This is about as bad as using a potato to make electrical current. Hydrogen, compressed air, ethanol, etc. all use more energy than they themselves carry or produce. I wouldn't get too excited about this.[/citation]
Even so, if all of the inputs are waste products I can see this being kind of useful. Its probably better to just recycle the cardboard though. I guess if the leftover pulp has a use then it could find a niche in recycling plants.

 

[DaddyW123]

I agree with AndrewMD! Every little bit of energy we can get out of any material via multiple different methods is important. Some day, you may end up with an inter-changable power pack for your car that inside is comprised of old cardboard, a little hydrogen, solar cells, hampsters and whatever else that generates a small amount of power, that when combined together in perfect harmony, you can get from CA to ME in a single pack.

That's what all of these little bits of progress are all about - progress.

 

[ThisIsMe]

[citation][nom]XZaapryca[/nom]Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Seriously, how much energy was expended in the production of the enzymes, the processing of the cardboard, the transportation costs of the raw materials, etc. This is about as bad as using a potato to make electrical current. Hydrogen, compressed air, ethanol, etc. all use more energy than they themselves carry or produce. I wouldn't get too excited about this.[/citation]
It's not about breaking the laws of physics. The stated 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes no reference to engergy specifically introduced by humans nor the time wasted by humans introducing said energy. Just because you cannot get more than you introduce does not mean that a better way for introducing cannot be discovered. The desired end result need only to be cost effective. This is usually defined as the outcome being useful while at the same time requiring little human effort and while producing little to no waste (an unwanted by-product that is unconducive to human life).

I understand that at first this would appear to break "the rules," but it follows them while using easily extracted energy (from our point of view) and producing little to no harmful waste (from our point of view). Does it mean it required less input? No. It just appears that way from our point of view.

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]ThisIsMe[/nom]It's not about breaking the laws of physics. The stated 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes no reference to engergy specifically introduced by humans nor the time wasted by humans introducing said energy. Just because you cannot get more than you introduce does not mean that a better way for introducing cannot be discovered. The desired end result need only to be cost effective. This is usually defined as the outcome being useful while at the same time requiring little human effort and while producing little to no waste (an unwanted by-product that is unconducive to human life).I understand that at first this would appear to break "the rules," but it follows them while using easily extracted energy (from our point of view) and producing little to no harmful waste (from our point of view). Does it mean it required less input? No. It just appears that way from our point of view.[/citation]
XZaapryca never said it broke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, he just indicated that the 2nd Law tells us that not all methods of extracting energy are going to result in a net gain.

 

[kanoobie]

Cut a tree town + Make cardboard + Synthesize enzyme + Mix and wait = Profit?

 

[eddieroolz]

I think pretty much anything can provide power, but is it on a usable level.

 

[Guest]

It seems as if some commenters think sony is proposing that cardboard be created for this purpose - "cut a tree town + make cardboard + synthesize enzyme + mix and wait = profit?". Clearly, the interesting attribute is not manufacture of cardboard as a primary fuel source. The goal is to use existing cardboard (trash) for a valuable purpose. The notion that the "processing of the cardboard" or the "transportation costs of the raw materials" in some way contravenes the value of this pursuit (in one commenters mind somehow indicating an attempt to contravene the 2nd law of thermal dynamics) is only applicable to the extent that such activites are exclusively involved with energy production pursuits. If energy production can tap otherwise wasted input sources (the commercial production and transport of cardboard for industries leveraging cardboard products), then otherwise wasteful expenditures of energy that are happening anyway (cut a tree down) can provide more value. My suspicion here is that sony researchers would assert that once no more cardboard refuse supply exists no such energy production activites would be sensible. Of course there is presently plenty of used cardboard to spare, so there is little risk of running out momentarily.