Gathering lightning?

Question

There's supposively massive amounts of energy in each lightning strike and ontop of that, they are easily attracted. So why not set up devices to capture them?

Answer 1

Because lightning is static electricity, and storing that isn't as easy as one might think. There's also the problem of the sheer power of a lightning bolt -- one bolt can have a power measured in gigawatts. Building equipment that can stand up to that repeatedly is no small thing. There are people working on this problem, but don't expect a cost-effective solution anytime soon.

Answer 2

I've often wondered if this was possible.

First, for any scoffers out there, it *is* possible to attract lightning, using model rockets trailing copper wires. I've seen it on the Science Channel - very cool. It doesn't work every time, but significantly increases the chances of a lightning strike at your location.

The hard part is how you turn that massive and very short burst of energy into some kind of stored energy.

- A capacitor can be used to store electric charges, but we don't have capacitors anywhere near big enough to hold that amount of energy.
- One hypothetical way to capture some of the energy would be to collect some of the heat energy released by the lightning as it moves towards the ground. Unfortunately, to collect the heat, you need electrical resistance, and lightning will seek another conductor, attempting to leave the pathway you prefer.

Some day, someone who is very clever will come up with a way to perform this, and hopefully make a lot of money in the process.

Answer 3

Part of the problem is the difficulty predicting where exactly it will happen. Some areas are more prone than others to have lightening but the uncertainty of pinpointing the exact location of a lightening strike makes the expense involved in "harnessing" electricity risky investment. There are many scientific and technological hurdles to overcome as well but research can solve that. All that takes money, lots of it. I suppose nobody is willing to take the risk of huge expense on such unpredictable source of energy. It also has to be mobile since lightening seldom hits the same spot consistently and repeatedly.

Answer 4

A lightning stroke has about 250 kilowatt-hours of power. This is alot of energy in one instant. But even a small fossil fuel power station produces 500Megawatts. So this power station would produce 2,000 times more energy in one hour that the single lightning strike in a flash. Or you need lightning to hit the same place 2,000 times over one hour to get the same amount. (As TomD says, you can coax a strike in one location with a model rocket, but you can't coax a storm to create that charge in the same area over and over again. One zap and the "capacitor" is discharged. You have to rebuild that charge for another zap).

Sorry, but no scientist is working on lightning power as a solution for our energy needs. One windmill with 15mph wind can produce 10 kilowatts of power. It would take 25hours for the windmill to make the energy of one bolt of lightning, but it's not bad. Predicting wind is allot easier than predicting lightning strikes.

If you want clean renewable energy, think solar. It is the only source with a BIG number. The energy falling on New Mexico, if collected using 10% efficient solar farms, would be 12Terawatts of energy. That can supply the entire world's energy need for 1998.

But consider something better. Solar energy as in photosynthesis. Biomass. Cellulosic ethanol from native grasses like switchgrass. No fertilizer required. No irrigation. And the U.S. has lots of land (that we pay farmers not to plant). If our politicians drop corn subsidies and make cellulosic ethanol our next "Apollo Moon Mission", we could be energy independent from the Middle East or Venezuela, and we could be selling excess ethanol.

Bit of history:
The Great Plains of the United States, for tens of thousand years was covered with native grasses. Grasses store nutrients below the surface, allowing the top to freeze over the winter or eaten by buffalos in the summer, and grow back every season. It sequesters carbon and puts it in the soil.

Another aside: Brazil ferments sugarcane into ethanol, which is more efficient than from corn like we do in the U.S. Also sugarcane is a native grass which doesn't require fertilizer, which requires petroleum to produce. But the current process only uses the sugars, not the cellulose. The cellulose is burnt. Even so, sugarcane ethanol is a mature and renewable resource. Corn ethanol is a ridiculous government subsidy. Cellulosic ethanol technology needs more development.

Answer 5

Assuming we develop the engineering skills to actually store that massive amount of energy that quickly, the bigger problem is actually having thunderstorms actually being near enough to a collector and making it want to strike a collector consistently.

We'd have to deploy lots & lots of collectors, unless we're willing to wait days or weeks in the thunderstorm season or months to get into season.

Answer 6

not practical ( equivalent to storing the energy in dynamite by blowing it up ) and note that the power in the wind is the real energy in a storm that we will store long before the lightning

Answer 7

Basically it would be too cheap and easy. its taken the power companies quite awhile to buy power from windmill generators. or to change from coal to gas or add dry paper or wood to the usable pile.
would have to research the current storage methods that could store the power in one lighting bolt.