Seems to my ignorant eyes that we could always somehow split the power received into more manageable units, even if it has to be splitted a million times, 🤷‍♂️.

  • @who8mydamnoreos
    link
    511 year ago

    Cant predict it, cant store it, cant get it where it needs to be

    • @scarabic
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      If we could eliminate transmission costs (superconductivity) and make energy storage trivial then it would become viable. We’d just install lightning rods around the world and plug them into the grid. We’d get a lot of power, after all.

      But those are two huge “ifs.”

      • @who8mydamnoreos
        link
        51 year ago

        So we are just a few miracles away from a less effective solution than solar, forgive me if i don’t think its worth the brain power.

    • Dandroid
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Not that I think it’s practical or that it should be done, but I think it’s mildly interesting that Texas could be an answer to all three of those things.

      Texas gets a ton of lightning, has a large battery company (Tesla), and probably needs the power the most.

  • @skeld
    link
    411 year ago

    Lightning has a peak power of 1TW for 30 microseconds according to Wikipedia, corresponding to an energy content of about 8000 Watt-hours. That is enough to run a 100 watt conventional light bulb for 80 hours, so not actually much energy. You would need to capture about half a million lightning strikes a second if you wanted to power the world that way, for example.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I double-checked and you’re entirely right, i didn’t know that, i’ve heard many years ago that a single big lightning strike could power a large city for months(, while it’s indeed more a matter of minutes, if not less), and thought that it was a technological problem(, and that, e.g., flying devices anchored on the ground to either a portable infrastructure or a nationwide-extended network, could potentially make up for the unreliability and follow the storms, or even perhaps cause them one day).
      Now i understand even better why solar power is preferred, thanks !

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        A single lightning strike could power a large city for a few milliseconds. Not even seconds or minutes. Definitely not months.

    • Rhynoplaz
      link
      41 year ago

      Who’s using conventional 100w bulbs?

      • themeatbridge
        link
        81 year ago

        Get a 20w LED and it’s just 400 hours. Better, but still not much.

        • AgentOrangesicle
          link
          61 year ago

          So if I’m wearing an Arduino to power some LED’s for cosplay, how often do I have to get struck by lightning to keep it going?

          • themeatbridge
            link
            51 year ago

            Only once, and they’ll remain lit for as long as it matters to you.

            • @Lopoloma
              link
              11 year ago

              Hit a blunt to get lit for half a day.
              Get hit by lightning to be lit for the rest of your life.

        • Dandroid
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          I think my LEDs are around 6W? So what would that be? 1,333 hours per LED. Or my 3000W oven for 2 hours and 40 minutes.

          Yeah, we would need a lot of lightning strikes. My solar panels generated about 34,000kWh today, or 4.25 lightning strikes.

            • Dandroid
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Lmao, you are right. That’s what I get for commenting when I’m half asleep.

      • @skeld
        link
        21 year ago

        I’m a hobbyist in electronics repair. Conventional light bulbs make great AC current limiters and have a built-in indicator. 😂

    • @Lopoloma
      link
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      1,400,000,000 strikes earth every year

      According to https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/thunder-and-lightning/facts-about-lightning

      That would be barely 45 strikes each second.
      That’s four magnitudes away from your cited goal of powering earth.

      The reason noone talks about harnessing lightning as a power source is the diminishing returns on top of its unreliability and it being demanding on the tech it would need - which we know for decades now.

      My conclusion is OP didn’t research google his question first.

    • Cam
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      I thought a bolt of lightning can produce 1.21 gigawatts? Doc Brown said this in Back to the Future movie.

  • Cosmonaut_Collin
    link
    261 year ago

    I think the difficult part with harnessing lighting is the consistency of it. We would need to build in places where thunderstorms are common, which will only be true for particular seasons. The other limitation is the battery technology that we currently have. It could be a better resource if we could find a way to store electricity in a non-degrading system. I think the new solid state batteries are supposed to be that way, but I don’t know enough about them or this topic to really say. Alternatively, we can just pump people full of radiation until one of them becomes a weather controlling mutant so we can have infinite thunder storms.

    • Vengefu1 Tuna
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      It would also be interesting if we had a way to greatly increase the chance of lightning in a small area, but by that point, we’re probably still not justifying the cost of that R&D.

  • some_guy
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    No it’s not weird that we don’t talk about harnessing something that we can’t predict more than a few seconds in advance.

    Do you also think it’s weird we don’t plan our entire day to avoid getting hit by meteorites?

    • Bizarroland
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can farm lighting with a model rocket. Hell, the Empire State Building gets struck several times a year.

      We just don’t have anything that can capture and store that much power easily, and smoothing that power into stable, reliable energy would be harder than Matt Gaetz at a elementary school luncheon.

      • mrbubblesort
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        harder than Matt Gaetz at a elementary school luncheon

        god-tier analogy right there

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I know you are sorta joking, but humans collectively have spent billions on mapping out our solar system with the explicit goal of predicting meteorites. There is active monitoring trying to see meteorites before they hit. And it is actually a fulltime job for a lot of people to plan for, scan for and predict meteor impacts.

      Good thing is, we are very good at it. We know pretty much for sure there isn’t going to be a big impact for the next 100 years caused by an object in our solar system. They are currently working on sizes that would cause a big issue if it were to hit a city. Of course chances such an impact would be in the ocean or a less densely area are big, but still it’s good to check.

  • @What083329420
    link
    51 year ago

    Wondered the same, learned its too unreliable where it hits and not consistant enough. Thats also a big issue with renewable energy now, we dont have a proper way to store overloads and have to acually waste it currently.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Voltage rises with altitude, it’s theoretically possible to raise one end of a well insulated wire very high into the sky and jam the other end into the Earth to draw current from the sky.

    This isn’t exactly harnessing lighting, more like harvesting the energy in lightning before it strikes.

  • LemmyLefty
    link
    31 year ago

    …shouldn’t you be in 1985?

    • @aaaantoine
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      “One point twenty one jigawatts!”

  • @ben_dover
    link
    21 year ago

    i’ve brought it up with different engineers, everyone said it’s basically impossible, it is just too strong

  • Yo la tengo
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    There’s a retired astronaut whose entire post-NASA career has been devoted to developing a plasma propulsion engine. Which is kind of (though not exactly) what you’re thinking of.

  • Cam
    link
    English
    11 year ago

    Remember how hard it was to capture a lightning bolt in Back to the Future movie? The only reason they succeeded was because they knew when and where lightning will strike in a week and they timed it out perfectly.

  • @DontAskAboutUpdog
    link
    11 year ago

    Lighning to a power generator is what atomic bomb is to a nuclear reactor. If you had no means of predicting when and where the bomb will go off.

    There are so many better options.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You couldn’t predict it, but you can kind of coax where it will strike with lightning rods. If you could send the power to a battery of some kind to be discharged when needed, that’d be handy. Never hurts to have extra energy lying around in storage.

  • Cam
    link
    English
    01 year ago

    Unless you can control the weather which if it was possible, would likely take lots of energy ans is the only way to make a “lightning power plant” to my understanding.