Fat-burning members power Hong Kong fitness club

So we've heard of dance clubs powered by fresh moves, but now California Fitness, a Hong Kong-based health club wants to jump on the sustainable people-power wagon too. As a group effort between inventor Lucien Gambarota, Wharton grad and entrepreneur Doug Woodring, and California Fitness, "Powered by YOU" will offer exercisers the chance to use their own energy to power lighting fixtures, with excess energy to be stored in batteries. The 13 step, cycling, and cross-training machines will be soon be rigged to encourage members to reduce CO2 emissions as well as their waistlines. According to California Fitness president Steve Clinefelter, someone running an hour each day on a machine can generate 18.2 kilowatts of electricity and prevent 4,380 liters of CO2 from being released each year. It's hard enough battling the bulge on your own, so we're glad to see that these explorations in alternative energy can provide some extra motivation for living a healthy lifestyle. We, on the other hand, will continue to remain seated for the rest of our lives.

[Via Inhabitat]

[John Hughes @ Mar 10th 2007 12:08AM]

I was hoping that you would get the units correct. "18.2 kilowatts of electricity" per year is not right, maybe they mean 18.2 killowatt-hours.

[JoshLowry @ Mar 10th 2007 12:12AM]

Just experimental phases they say, but this is very interesting.

My question to them, if a gym goer spends enough time on a electricity generating machine can he get a discount or even pay off his gym membership for the month? Work out and get paid!


- Josh


Where's your head at? - http://www.StateOfBrain.com

[John Shillabeer @ Mar 10th 2007 2:36AM]

"...Work out and get laid!"

There you go, fixed it for you. :)

[TriZz @ Mar 10th 2007 12:37AM]

Matrix much?

[matt @ Mar 10th 2007 2:57AM]

@ SAM:
yo, wise guy: Let someone explain to you the difference between fossil and renewable energy: Last time I checked, I didn´t eat neither coal nor LNC.

[matt @ Mar 10th 2007 2:58AM]

that was supposed to read LNG (liquid natural gas) instead of LNC

[Victor @ Mar 10th 2007 3:19AM]

BTW, california fitness is 24 hour fitness's asian brand.

http://www.californiafitness.com/index.jsp

[Joe @ Mar 10th 2007 7:47AM]

@ Sam:

Your logic is a little off - people at the gym are exhaling CO2 and burning calories anyway. Normally this energy is just wasted as heat (through whatever system the machines use to generate resistance) but if it's put into powering the lights, the demand for power from the power plant will be slightly less. Less energy will be wasted overall.

[Kyle @ Mar 10th 2007 10:49AM]

I think this is pretty sweet, but I think it would be even cooler to have some sort of stat tracking device... I'd love to be able to see how much energy I had generated over all.

It would be somewhat similar to the fitlinx systems used in some gyms today, only it would track the power instead of weights and whatnot.

Also, i just had another thought... how feasible would it be to power your home like this?

[Aaron @ Mar 10th 2007 11:06AM]

New criminal policy:
Run on treadmills hooked up to generators or sit in chairs hooked up to treadmills.

[Sam @ Mar 10th 2007 11:44AM]

Hate to tell you this, but humans exhale CO2. And they "burn" just as many calories to power a light as a power plant does.

[Ray @ Mar 10th 2007 11:54AM]

The article specifically makes the point of CO2 emission savings. So @Sam is correct in his assertions to debunk. Watts is watts. Yes, the consumption of fossil fuels is important, but that is not the soap box from which all the psuedo-science greenies are yelping. The word of the day is "greenhouse gas". And greenies that are gulping down handfuls of vitamin suppliments each morning with their *bucks latte "because they are natural so they must be good for me" are the same ones saying that CO2 from a huffing fat person is better or different than from a car.

[teodoro @ Mar 11th 2007 7:57PM]

I agree with you more than the tree huggers. But you know what? The fat people (and even fit ones) are going to be going to the gym anyway. This is a smart economic move on the part of the gym, co2 omissions aside.

[Sam @ Mar 10th 2007 11:59AM]

Joe...that is a good point. CO2 is CO2 though, and assuming it's eligible for recycling when plants incorporate the carbon into their leaves and seeds via photosynthesis, there's no distinction due to the original source, power plant or human.

Matt...lol...I haven't been eating fossils either.

[Soap @ Mar 10th 2007 1:04PM]

18.2 KW/h a year = less than $2 in electricity. Do not expect your dues to go down.
I also have a hard time believing the technology can even pay for itself (unless it comes out of the advertising budget) much less save any money for the gym.
Also do not forget the large amount of resources which will be needed to produce this new equipment.

[Teo @ Mar 11th 2007 8:07PM]

Soap. Look at the scale of users. Lets agree for the sake of argument that you're right about the $2/year.
My gym has an average of 50 people @ peak times and 10 people at non peak on the cardio floor working these same machines in the article.
Peak is 5am-9am; 12-2pm; 5-8pm
Average cardio workout is 30 min.
So at least 460 people/day/30 min work out. That's a non-measley $165,000/year in energy savings. And I live in a small/moderate town. Imagine what the scale of Hong Kong does. Makes great business sense.

[Soap @ Mar 11th 2007 9:01PM]

Teo.
You ignored the math of the original article.
1 person working out 1 hour per day 365 days a year = 18.2 KWh.
Assume my rate is wrong. The highest rate I can find published for California is 20 cents a KWh. = 18.2*.2 = $3.64 per (dedicated) person per year.
NOT $3.64 per exercise hour. That is $0.01 per exercise hour.

Assume your (usage) numbers are right.
460 people exercising for 30 minutes a day, every day = 230 people working out for 1 hour per day 365 days a year = $837 in electricity savings = $16.75 per machine (you need 50 machines for peak you said)

$16.75 savings per machine per year doesn't justify buying new equipment, or retrofitting old equipment.

[matt @ Mar 12th 2007 6:21AM]

Wow! 4,400 litres?
Let´s do the math. - Anyone withe basics in chemistry knows that 4,400 l translate to roughly 8.8 kg of CO2. (per year !)
The average american car emits roughly 300g/mile of CO2.
In other words: drive your car 30 miles less PER YEAR (and walk instead), and you save the same amount of CO2.
If your gym is three mils from your home, you just need to walk to the gym 5 times per year. (Do the distance jogging, and you can even save the gym membership) ;)

[J. Evans Turner @ Jun 6th 2007 2:36PM]

My idea since childhood.