Why aren't we storing electricity from lightning yet?
>>8504522
>>8504526
>Won't answer, loans himself some aggressiveness from an image.
Sorry, I'm sure you could answer that but instead preferred to behave like some autistic brat.
>>8504522
>storing electricity from lightning
>mfw
CS fag here, why can't we do this? From my understanding, it would be the shift of electrons that would drive a generator into a storage cell?
Its even conserved because lightning is the discharge built up by pressure systems.
Are these responses trolling or am I missing a more fundamental premise?
>>8504644
First of all, lightning tends to destroy anything that attempts to store it.
>>8504682
That's only because nobody has tried hard enough.
>>8504696
Agreed. But lightning also wouldn't produce that much power. It's too unreliable and strikes to infrequently and many have suggested you're better off trying to siphon the charge off directly from clouds or the atmosphere.
>>8504522
>"The estimated peak power per lightning stroke is 1 terawatt"
The transients would kill practically any system that attempted to capture it.
>>8504522
Because there isn't much energy available in lightning. Storms aren't reliable.
See this wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvesting_lightning_energy
>>8504696
Some idiot in illinois came up with a way to do it see wikipedia above
Not lightning, but some crazy Germans attempted to harness atmospheric electricity for production of high voltage an early particle accelerator. I say attempted because one of the experimenters was killed by it:
http://lateralscience.blogspot DOT co.uk/2012/10/alpine-air-to-produce-30-million-volts.html
>>8504522
It's all about them air masses, and dew points, front on front action with some jet stream support in a cyclonic direction.
>>8504696
Reality is not an anime. Some problems you can't solve by yelling real hard.