I think there's a ton of energy wasted in making cheap, low-quality commodities. Also, there are a lot of places which consume energy for useless jobs. But no one would like to disturb the status quo.
Yes , inefficency and inutility Is a critical issue . Think for exemple the enormus consumption of Energy of elettronic Money Just to exist . Only Bitcoin system uses the same amount of Energy of Pakistan ! ... Only Bitcoin...
@@pissoffeachother Yes, but low quality commodities are not part of it. They may well be a waste of money and trash oceans and land w the waste stream. Making them doesn’t take up significant energy relevant to the big items like space heat, transport, water, agriculture, etc.
@@Nill757 I agree that production low quality things does not Need more Energy per unit but ... They must be replaced more frequently so more units means more Energy...
Well you would think that TVA could keep the electricity on. During December 22 a week of cold weather was just to much for all these power plants and nuclear power plants all along the Tennessee River they began rolling blackouts and every households light bill was Doubled. Everyone here in Tennessee wondering what will happen when winter really starts.
Ideally the pumped storage would be powered by solar panels floating on the reservoirs and windmills on the edge of the elevated reservoir. And maybe use anchored bladders of compressed air at the bottom of reservoirs as additional storage.
It would be interesting, albeit likely not feasible, if they could use ram-pumps powered by the river itself to pump the water to the reservoir avoiding using electricity to do so. This would increase efficiency tremendously. Multiple pumps (many, many pumps I suspect) could, in theory, continuously pump water up to the reservoir.
Not true. None of it is. It’s 2022. No never seen before magic tech requiring millions of tons is going to show up like a phone app and expand through out the world. Get serious. Build nuclear.
Compressed air energy storage is an excellent option for large scale storage and may improve load following capabilities for renewable systems. Adding ocean dynamics to the air storage is fascinating.
A MW is a Million Watts, if not specified otherwise it is for 1 second. Most don't realize when powerplants are specified, it is for Annual production. We get Billed by Killowatt Hours.
First problem, how long do the concrete spheres last? Secondly that's alot of concrete waste, more importantly how do you service the motors inside them? Also the bottom of the ocean isn't lifeless, the ecological footprint and damage to the environment
why not do this in the following usa lakes? Crater Lake, Oregon (1,943 feet) Lake Tahoe, Nevada/California (1,645 feet) Lake Chelan, Washington (1,486 feet) Lake Superior, Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota (1,333 feet) Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho (1,150) Lake Clark, Alaska (1,056 feet)
National parks, and recreation areas, and volcanoes aren’t traditionally a very good resource. This tech needs to be proven first. But since you are open to using public land how do you feel about this: The caveat of the $3 billion per year budget requested by the USGS to partner with the DOE to cool down the Yellowstone super volcano and use the waste heat as geothermal power. We didn’t have the tech to scan before, but there’s a proposal floated to use a space telescope to scan Yellowstone and other super volcanoes to locate hotspots. USGS wants to perfect the technique of cooling down volcanoes, they think they’re pretty cool over there.
One the plus side you wouldn't have to deal with salt water or tides or ocean currents. On the minus side there might be more mud / debris at the bottom of a lake, but that's just a guess. The lake bed would probably be considered more of a precious habitat than the ocean bed as there is a lot more ocean.
Most of thesr lakes drop off over 100’s of miles . So you would have to tunnel hundred of miles to take advantage of the height difference. That would be to costly to do.
When you're talking about energy storage, we really need to know the storage capacity (in kWH) not just the delivery rate in kW. Interesting video all the same.
Compressed air energy storage for offshore oil platforms, some in 6000 feet of water seems like the ideal application as the power can be used locally and can use wind energy to compress the air.
Yea but when air is compressed heat energy is released and that increases the temperature of the parts shortening thier life span and it is uselessly pumping heat energy nowhere. It the heat was going somewhere it'd make sense but that would only work at scale. Therefore using water pumps and generators makes more sense
@@cybyrd9615 There is a choice of air or seawater as the working fluid. Fraunhofer uses concrete spheres and seawater. UCAES is also an option and uses air. Compressing air in stages with intercoolers (nearly isothermal) would use the least energy and the storage system could be bladders like those used to raise sunken ships. Water as a fluid means expensive concrete pressure vessels are used. These tanks must hold a near vacuum if water is pumped out. Will be interesting to see which approach proves more successful considering both capital cos and operating efficiency.
Excellent idea and the cooling effect of the water increases the efficiency of the PV panels. 4 pneumatic actuators aka airbags could be controlled to provide an inexpensive control system for each panel. A large panel would be more cost effective as fewer bags are required.
The climate nutters would call me a skeptic. Nevertheless, concrete hydraulic accumulators are probably the best possibility we have to reduce CO2 emissions and continue our lifestyles with minimal change.
لو تم استبدال الخزان الكروي والخزان الاسطواني بخزان مطاطي ( كيس ) يتم ضخ الهواء المضغوط حد التسييل مع العمق المطلوب ويتم إرجاع الهواء المضغوط وقت الحاجة إلى توربينات هوائية وتوليد الطاقة. هذا الحل اكثر اقتصادية بكثير حيث يتم الاستفادة من العمق في ضغط الهواء وتسييله دون الحاجة إلى منشأ قوي ومكلف جدا
Interesting, but maintenance of mechanical systems at 700m under water, that sounds very difficult and expensive, and how do they ensure that they don’t get impacted/covered by sedimentation on the sea floor? Also I don’t think anyone is thinking of building offshore wind turbines of that depth except for floating wind turbines, so the pumped storage would unlikely form part of the structure
Hmmm, not to be a wet blanket, just nitpicking; IDK if they’re going to want to be having the masts for wind turbines go all of the way down to 30m balls 700 meters deep. I do like the idea, however, of having floating wind turbines raise and lower a weight to absorb and generate electricity however.
I dont knwo if they use the tides to increase the efficiency of teh concrete spheres, becaus ethey could empty them at low tide/pressure, and then at high tides it woudl have higher pressure. Although storage is more abotu when wind is available.... also they seem to be very deep unde rthe sea where the presure is high anyway and tides wouldnt make a difference
In space you can create a vacuum in a syringe by closing the tip and pulling much more easily than at sea level because the air is pushing on the syringe, it is even harder than that under the sea.
Water pressure increases as you go down under water. Pressure is just force over an area. When force occurs over a distance you have work ie energy. Things can be pressurized without compressing. in fact, things that do compress get hot and in the depths of the ocean youd lose that heat, and the pressure would drop making your energy storage less effecient.
From the picture: I thought that the spheres would sink to the bottom with a cable to capture energy then air bags would raise it back up over and over again.
Thanks for posting IT. We so have all the green tech to sort us all out. My money's on underwater turbines that don't kill the wildlife and wind turbines on every newbuild. I also once watched a film where the output from a wind turbine tripled when a 'collar' was fitted around the outer circumference of the blades. Can anybody explain how that works and why please?
Here's the competition - Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries are on track to drop to around $50/kWh. Including the cost to package and for the hardware to charge and invert the DC into AC. LFP cells have a 5,000 to 12,000 full cycle life. Let's use 10,000 since storage batteries would be stationary. $50 kWh / 10,000 cycles = $0.005/kWh Half a penny. Not six pennies. Plus when the cells finally wear out over 95% of the materials can be recovered and reused. That means $20 to $30/kWh return at end of life.
Interesting, but going to fail due to the salt in the ocean water. The gradual build up will cause the spheres to either build up scale inside or along any pipes.
If we had not chosen the worst way to eliminate plant food we possibly could in the first place. We would not have wasted the recurses used now to correct the problem. I wonder how mutch focil fuel that would have saved. Thorium would have been the solution. Giving us safe cheap green energy.
Undersea energy storage requiring copious amounts of Carbon producing processes during Life Cycle …and relying on generally unserviceable mechanical equipment reduces efficiency significantly. Basically, we are to believe that Naval Engineers will solve energy storage problems that CivilEngineering can’t ….really?
a simpler cheaper sistem is a steel tank , cilinder can hold more volume per surface and pressure can be increase by 10, price will be 5 times cheaper than battery so if this savings are invest in solar panels you end up with a self charging sistem, durability 30 to 50 plus years and 100% reciclable.
yeah. a thin stainless steel tank has to be far cheaper. only need to deal with the gauge pressure at the bottom. so technically the tanks can be as thin as a soda can.
I just realized the buoyancy of air at that depth will be problem so a thin steel tank won't quite do it. that is why they are using concrete. Gravity will keep the structure on the ocean floor.
@@j121212100 steel work for regular tank at ground level,the advantage is that they can be as big as posible , under water have the disadvantage that to make then bigger they never to increase the thiknes or make a few small ones.
Why is there a Limit on the distance? China transmits UHV DC 3000km. UHV AC is the current developed world's method of high voltage transmission. It does not have to be made from Concrete just as space station modules do not have to be made from Metals. A bigalow type ball could do the same with far lower cost when constructing at depth... similar to the Toronto Hydro but deeper.
Or you could do something easier, like a bladder full of air. Concrete is really expensive at those scales, and making isn't going to get past the green crowd, that produces CO2.
@somuchfacepalm8451 actually concerte innovations to protect against bunker busters mean they can handle more greater pressure, you use concrete to maintain a vacuum by pumping the water up, stronger concrete will mean the sphere can be thinner, quicker to produce and faster to transport
@@cybyrd9615 And the video said that the specs called for spheres 30 m in diameter. The most they've tested is 3m, and those walls were pretty thick to being with. The fact that it will work does not make it economically viable.
Dr T, there is no limit on distance per se, but losses are proportional to distance. Simply good engineering practice is to put supply and demand as close as practical.
I think you will find there is more than enough Lithium on earth! You can make lithium batteries with cobalt, there is plenty of that also. Heat storage will be the cheapest and easiest to use for long term energy storage. Using Silicon you can store 1 mega watts per cubic metre. Industry needs a lot of heat for presses. It can also be turned into electricity as well.
Do you pay attention to any vids you watch? It isn't you can make lithium batteries with Cobalt. Cobalt has to be used. It's one of the most important metals in lithium batteries. And we don't have enough of it, either.
@@lordgarion514 Some Chemistries Don’t Use Cobalt Though, Look it up. Somewhat novel yes, and I don’t know what Technological Readiness Level it is at, but it’s definitely a thing.
To a certain degree, yes. ESPECIALLY if we switch to Sodium Ion Batteries. *HOWEVER* Batteries, especially non-flow batteries don’t scale well. The main advantage of Li-Ion Batteries is their low weight for a certain power. This matters when they are in a smartphone, but *not* when they are on top of a concrete pad by an electrical substation. Also Batteries don’t scale as well as some technologies. For every one Watt-Hour needed, you still need the same unit of batteries. For things like Flow Batteries, Reversible Fuel Cells / Power-to-X, Thermal Storage, or as stayed herw, Pumped Hydroelectric Storage and Compressed Gas Storage, you can have a single generator, but an infinitely expandable “tank”. The costs of making steel Fuel Tanks for Methane/DME etc, or digging a hole in the ground scale very well as you get bigger. Batteries are a fixed cost no matter the scale (short of the existing economies of scale due to the widespread use of Li-Ion batteries in Mobile Electronics, which is probably near-peak as is) I’m rambling here, but short of things like BEVs, Hybrid Vehicles, Mobile Devices, and Small Scale Microgrids, Batteries Don’t Make Much Sense, even then Iron Batteries / Organic Flow Batteries, or even some Power-to-X system may make more sense from an “Appropriate Materials” standpoint. Check out the channel “Just Have a Think” if you haven’t already; they do a great job covering these kinds of things. Rant over lol
@@ericlotze7724 I agree with your rant. I was only putting one example for brevities sake. I did find that it is usually the ignorant that reply to my comments as example of Robert Pruitt. They think that because they can type they should. As I pointed out to him it only makes them look stupid. Cheers, John PS: Yes, that is a good channel to watch!
@@lordgarion514 I'll add to your misery and the Other's edification, a lot of mining is done by hand by the locals. The Suppliers say no "Artesian" (miners) products, yet 15,000 are in the pits.
1,000 people who did better than me in College, all talking about the same general subjects that he is talking about. In any normal [SEASON] I would say congratulations to them. However, since Trump became President we are in a different [SEASON]. They are not adjusting to this [GREAT SEASON]. This season is to reveal and implement all the tech of the secret [PARALLEL UNIVERSE]. Einstein's purpose was to dumb us down. He gave us one nice hint. he said N Tesla was greater than him. Watch the good seed start to sprout and as it grows it will kick all your stuff to the curbside. Millions of people signed NDAs. Some of them have already been going faster than light after WW_II. We were so dumb that they let us break the Galactic Law. [No power shall have Nuke bombs and Fission power.] Frase WW_III is a disgrace. We are in the [GREAT WAR]. [BIMBOS WAKE UP]!!! !!! !!!
There is a problem of national security and other solutions that benefit the populace of a country and it's economy. A study after the 1966 shutdown showed that if someone sabotaged just a dozen distribution points electricity in the US it would shut down the country for months if not a year this is a national security risk. As for distributed or Central electrical generation there are two things to consider Centrally generated in distributed energy structure allows corporations to use any excuse to raise prices to their consumers. On the other hand, millions of homes and businesses with solar energy storage and electric vehicles, is from a security point of view probably impossible to shut down by sabotage. And regarding finances consider all of that money left in consumers and businesses pockets it will increase available funds and increased velocity of money in the economic system which will improve a country's So the choice is centrally generated and vulnerable to sabotage or widely-distributed safer and benefits to people Scientia Non Habelet Domus, (Knowledge has No Home) antiguajohn ,
Gravity batteries are a flawed concept The concrete itself is very very carbon intensive . We do not have enough supply of concrete and this would take up massive amounts of it at scale. it would also raise the cost of building in the area these were being built in unless significant investment in more concrete production in that area. The cgi model they show is also operating in a fanciful computer environment with no wind, placing these blocks perfectly. How will these work in high wind conditions ? Additionally making all this concrete as a method of storing power idiotic simply due to the fact we already have the ocean and it’s pressure to do what the mass of the concrete blocks would do on there decent/ power release phase. Why waste a carbon intensive building material it makes no sense.
Thunderf00t debunked the concrete gravity tower over a year ago, everything else here is a joke. There's a reason that everything is a student model or CGI. Scaling up does some weird shit.
Actually innovations in concrete mixes means they can use less. Look up bunker busters on dark tech YT channel. And it scales so if it takes too much you can just use a bigger sphere, the pressure on the walls won't change
The amount of waste in all of this nonsense is ridiculous. But we had before work what we have now is a logistical nightmare that will ruin us. With no backup plan this is big dreams for big people. We're not big people anymore especially in America since we listen to nonsense all day and believe that having people from different countries import lithium to make batteries for electric car is 0 emissions I will never know.
Disgraceful lack of rigour in the basic concepts of energy and power, and the units used: energy is kWh and not kW/h. There are other examples which erode the credibility of the video despite the nice animation. Real shame. Please get your science basics right.
A little boy gluing random shit onto his failed paper airplane idea, tying to save an inferior idea. If your working a problem, that you discovered when you were working a problem, that you discovered when working a problem with your idea, then you should stop and ask how viable your idea is.
at 4:00 your misuse of units tells me that you do not understand the subject of energy. Go cover politics innovations instead, or learn some dimensional analysis so that you can convey accurate tech information.
"All the best places are already taken" is defeatism at best and marketing propaganda for other systems at worst. If you started with a perfectly flat prairie, there is nothing to prevent you from digging a big hole, piling up the material removed from it, and making a reservoir on top of that. Landfills would make great elevated reservoir locations too. Low-hanging fruit is not even exhausted, much less human-engineered solutions. There is no reason at all every city in the world couldn't have pumped hydro, if it was actually the best solution for them.
Look up global pumped hydro atlas. As for your plan to build a mountain. To build a 50m high platau using a 50m deep hole would cost $7,500. (based on my reasearch) The amount of storage you get from this. 0.272Kwh
@@catprog we're not talking about building mountains, only plateaus. We have several landfills within 15 minutes of our house which would be high enough. Please don't point out all of the engineering challenges, of course there are some, that's what engineers are for. The cost would be reduced with volume production. Anyway the point is that we have only scratched the surface of the many ways energy can be stored cheaply, and every new scheme claims to be superior in some way. The truth is there are many viable ways, but pumped hydro is one of the least expensive, and we absolutely have _not_ exhausted even the easiest to use locations.
@@crawkn You need 100m height diffrence before you start to get significent power. -- Yes to the easiest to use locations. That is why I said look up the term "global pumped hydro atlas". It was a study done based on geography to find good places to build pumped hydro dams.
@@catprog there are 100m height differences most places on the globe, just not immediately next to each other for the convenience of photographers and real estate transactions. That's what pipes are for. I looked at the maps, I understand there are a lot of them. There will be a lot more. Spanning the Mississippi with bridges was once thought impossible. Then it turned out it wasn't. Energy management is an engineering problem with many solutions. So many that it's easy to forget that we have been using some for many decades.
All these concepts are proved, however they use more energy and store as potential energy of mass or as compressed air. The stored energy will generate only a fraction of the energy used. This can be useful commercially only if energy supply has low cost and when energy demand has higher price and so all the system will work temporarily. Gravity has the potential to generate energy on demand and the best places on earth are mountains. Let lift there effectively concrete blocks and generate electricity on demand, every block will be lifted multiple time on demand and will generate energy. Partnership between government and investors is a must and agreement to protect the secret on new invention which is not disclosed. The stationary Gravity engine will generate energy on demand for many decades and will have competitive cost compared with any version disclosed on this presentation.
Wow genius the concrete spheres do use gravity, by lifting the water. But because the water is at a higher pressure you can store and generate more energy
You need to review the difference between watts and watt hours. There were a lot of loose numbers thrown around here
1:10 Mentions 1,652 MW for 22 Hours
@@ericlotze7724 Which would be approximately 75.09 MWh or 75,090.9 kWh.
@soulsurvivor8293 no it would be 35GWh, you divide Wh by time and multiply W by time. 1.6GW is power 35GWh is energy
MW is power, MWh is capacity, MW per hour is just wrong.
kW, a unit of power. kWh, a unit of energy. 1kW for 1 hour = 1x1=1kWh, 1kW for 2 hours = 1x2=2kWh. 0.5kw for 2 hours = 0.5x2=1kWh. you get the point
0:25 A standard hydroelectric power plant does not generate power simply by discharging water over a dam.
I came here to say this
I think there's a ton of energy wasted in making cheap, low-quality commodities. Also, there are a lot of places which consume energy for useless jobs. But no one would like to disturb the status quo.
No it’s not alot. Try transportation, making steel, pumping water, building heat, AC, lighting.
Very true. Allocation of energy is part of the energy crisis.
Yes , inefficency and inutility Is a critical issue .
Think for exemple the enormus consumption of Energy of elettronic Money Just to exist . Only Bitcoin system uses the same amount of Energy of Pakistan ! ... Only Bitcoin...
@@pissoffeachother Yes, but low quality commodities are not part of it. They may well be a waste of money and trash oceans and land w the waste stream. Making them doesn’t take up significant energy relevant to the big items like space heat, transport, water, agriculture, etc.
@@Nill757 I agree that production low quality things does not Need more Energy per unit but ... They must be replaced more frequently so more units means more Energy...
Well you would think that TVA could keep the electricity on.
During December 22 a week of cold weather was just to much for all these power plants and nuclear power plants all along the Tennessee River they began rolling blackouts and every households light bill was Doubled.
Everyone here in Tennessee wondering what will happen when winter really starts.
Ideally the pumped storage would be powered by solar panels floating on the reservoirs and windmills on the edge of the elevated reservoir. And maybe use anchored bladders of compressed air at the bottom of reservoirs as additional storage.
It would be interesting, albeit likely not feasible, if they could use ram-pumps powered by the river itself to pump the water to the reservoir avoiding using electricity to do so. This would increase efficiency tremendously. Multiple pumps (many, many pumps I suspect) could, in theory, continuously pump water up to the reservoir.
Pumped energy storage is only 70% at the Michigan Ludington pumped energy storage project, which means they are probably inflating their numbers.
This is an excellent idea, and if that cost per kW-hr (not kW/hr) is true, this is great news.
@rvoit That's what I said.
Not true. None of it is. It’s 2022. No never seen before magic tech requiring millions of tons is going to show up like a phone app and expand through out the world.
Get serious. Build nuclear.
Crazy idea here... store the energy close to where it will be used.
Compressed air energy storage is an excellent option for large scale storage and may improve load following capabilities for renewable systems. Adding ocean dynamics to the air storage is fascinating.
MW is not a capacity unit, right?
No, it's a power rating. MW/h would be a unit of capacity.
@@HerrTyp No not MW/h either. MWh is a unit of energy. Division and multiplication should not be mixed up.
A MW is a Million Watts, if not specified otherwise it is for 1 second. Most don't realize when powerplants are specified, it is for Annual production. We get Billed by Killowatt Hours.
Capacity isnt a fucking unity either
First problem, how long do the concrete spheres last? Secondly that's alot of concrete waste, more importantly how do you service the motors inside them? Also the bottom of the ocean isn't lifeless, the ecological footprint and damage to the environment
The Ocean Grazer project isn't for energy storage, it's just the dutch continuing it's tradition of land reclamation
why not do this in the following usa lakes?
Crater Lake, Oregon (1,943 feet)
Lake Tahoe, Nevada/California (1,645 feet)
Lake Chelan, Washington (1,486 feet)
Lake Superior, Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota (1,333 feet)
Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho (1,150)
Lake Clark, Alaska (1,056 feet)
National parks, and recreation areas, and volcanoes aren’t traditionally a very good resource. This tech needs to be proven first.
But since you are open to using public land how do you feel about this:
The caveat of the $3 billion per year budget requested by the USGS to partner with the DOE to cool down the Yellowstone super volcano and use the waste heat as geothermal power.
We didn’t have the tech to scan before, but there’s a proposal floated to use a space telescope to scan Yellowstone and other super volcanoes to locate hotspots. USGS wants to perfect the technique of cooling down volcanoes, they think they’re pretty cool over there.
One the plus side you wouldn't have to deal with salt water or tides or ocean currents. On the minus side there might be more mud / debris at the bottom of a lake, but that's just a guess. The lake bed would probably be considered more of a precious habitat than the ocean bed as there is a lot more ocean.
Most of thesr lakes drop off over 100’s of miles . So you would have to tunnel hundred of miles to take advantage of the height difference. That would be to costly to do.
When you're talking about energy storage, we really need to know the storage capacity (in kWH) not just the delivery rate in kW. Interesting video all the same.
Compressed air energy storage for offshore oil platforms, some in 6000 feet of water seems like the ideal application as the power can be used locally and can use wind energy to compress the air.
Yea but when air is compressed heat energy is released and that increases the temperature of the parts shortening thier life span and it is uselessly pumping heat energy nowhere. It the heat was going somewhere it'd make sense but that would only work at scale. Therefore using water pumps and generators makes more sense
@@cybyrd9615 There is a choice of air or seawater as the working fluid. Fraunhofer uses concrete spheres and seawater. UCAES is also an option and uses air. Compressing air in stages with intercoolers (nearly isothermal) would use the least energy and the storage system could be bladders like those used to raise sunken ships. Water as a fluid means expensive concrete pressure vessels are used. These tanks must hold a near vacuum if water is pumped out. Will be interesting to see which approach proves more successful considering both capital cos and operating efficiency.
@@rickrys2729 Doesn't seawater have corrosive and thus life-shortening properties as well?
This is good in places where we have the specific resources.
2-axis PV floating solar lily pads on reservoirs seems like a cost efficient way to reduce evaporation
Excellent idea and the cooling effect of the water increases the efficiency of the PV panels.
4 pneumatic actuators aka airbags could be controlled to provide an inexpensive control system for each panel. A large panel would be more cost effective as fewer bags are required.
but kills the ecosystem, stifles oxygen, prevents photosynthesis, water will go sour
The climate nutters would call me a skeptic.
Nevertheless, concrete hydraulic accumulators are probably the best possibility we have to reduce CO2 emissions and continue our lifestyles with minimal change.
لو تم استبدال الخزان الكروي والخزان الاسطواني بخزان مطاطي ( كيس ) يتم ضخ الهواء المضغوط حد التسييل مع العمق المطلوب ويتم إرجاع الهواء المضغوط وقت الحاجة إلى توربينات هوائية وتوليد الطاقة.
هذا الحل اكثر اقتصادية بكثير حيث يتم الاستفادة من العمق في ضغط الهواء وتسييله دون الحاجة إلى منشأ قوي ومكلف جدا
"Capacity of 10MW"? Wrong units.
Power capacity energy capacity, there arent wrong units
@@cybyrd9615 Obviously, these spheres store energy, so MW is the wrong unit. There is no such thing as "power capacity" in physics.
These videos get fustrating when the terminolgy used is wrong.
Interesting, but maintenance of mechanical systems at 700m under water, that sounds very difficult and expensive, and how do they ensure that they don’t get impacted/covered by sedimentation on the sea floor?
Also I don’t think anyone is thinking of building offshore wind turbines of that depth except for floating wind turbines, so the pumped storage would unlikely form part of the structure
Overall I do like the concept though - could work where you have floating wind turbines and pumped storage cylinders together
Placing all those spheres will wreck the sea floor environment the same way offshore windfarms wreck critical vertical water currents.
This will work really good in LockNess in Scotland where is close to all that North Sea wind farms
Hmmm, not to be a wet blanket, just nitpicking; IDK if they’re going to want to be having the masts for wind turbines go all of the way down to 30m balls 700 meters deep. I do like the idea, however, of having floating wind turbines raise and lower a weight to absorb and generate electricity however.
The plant will use more than it produces.
No shit
Still not profitable without subsidies. Yes, government subsidies. Which explains why wind energy is dying out.
Water going over the dam as shown does nothing. It has to go through the turbine !
Don't let science get in the way of a good shot
whoever controls the energy balls controls the universe
Take all that cement make a giant water tower and pump the ocean water into it on land and save a lot in construction cost
I dont knwo if they use the tides to increase the efficiency of teh concrete spheres, becaus ethey could empty them at low tide/pressure, and then at high tides it woudl have higher pressure. Although storage is more abotu when wind is available.... also they seem to be very deep unde rthe sea where the presure is high anyway and tides wouldnt make a difference
I just came up with this idea only to find out that it already exists.😆
Never heard Goderich spoken liken that before
Superb !
I want you to say "That's a lot of fish"
Google it - 1998
I'd hate to see what kind of maintenance that would require. Anything underwater is always expensive to maintain and up keep.
what do they mean by compressed water? water is incompressible.
Pressurized, probably.
In space you can create a vacuum in a syringe by closing the tip and pulling much more easily than at sea level because the air is pushing on the syringe, it is even harder than that under the sea.
Water pressure increases as you go down under water. Pressure is just force over an area. When force occurs over a distance you have work ie energy. Things can be pressurized without compressing. in fact, things that do compress get hot and in the depths of the ocean youd lose that heat, and the pressure would drop making your energy storage less effecient.
Also applicable in energy storage for a wave action seesaw generator.
From the picture: I thought that the spheres would sink to the bottom with a cable to capture energy then air bags would raise it back up over and over again.
All fusion money should be diverted to this.
Thanks for posting IT. We so have all the green tech to sort us all out. My money's on underwater turbines that don't kill the wildlife and wind turbines on every newbuild.
I also once watched a film where the output from a wind turbine tripled when a 'collar' was fitted around the outer circumference of the blades.
Can anybody explain how that works and why please?
Way too complicated…forget about it!
Couldn't you just pressurise a cave? Save using thousands of tons of concrete.
looks like another "hyperloop" project :(
I bet that thing chews up a shit ton of fish
I was thinking about the concrete spheres where they are drawn or left to float as a technique to store and retrieve electricity.
hint: it won't work.
I think in America you might want to use feet and acres vs. meters and hectors or both
No, y’all need to get on board with metric systems before another rocket gets blow up 😂
Chaina be like : just Compressed Air Energy Storage.
Compressors fatigue quickly.
Get your units straight man...
Ту воду замість перекачування, краще переробляти на водень/кисень
Here's the competition -
Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries are on track to drop to around $50/kWh. Including the cost to package and for the hardware to charge and invert the DC into AC.
LFP cells have a 5,000 to 12,000 full cycle life. Let's use 10,000 since storage batteries would be stationary.
$50 kWh / 10,000 cycles = $0.005/kWh
Half a penny. Not six pennies.
Plus when the cells finally wear out over 95% of the materials can be recovered and reused. That means $20 to $30/kWh return at end of life.
There’s plenty of lithium, and new battery chemistry’s don’t use cobalt!
Also, non-lithium batteries are becoming increasingly available.
@@stephentroake7155
But not really out yet.
Being researched isn't the same as being mass produced.
Sodium batts have just been produced. Lithium challenger.
Interesting, but going to fail due to the salt in the ocean water. The gradual build up will cause the spheres to either build up scale inside or along any pipes.
I wouldn't want to see the repair procedure for fixing one of those under sea turbines.
None of these solutions provide convenient efficiency and reliability, where nowadays provide high efficiency with over 20 years reliability 😆🤦♀️
I think the deep sea is promising.
If we had not chosen the worst way to eliminate plant food we possibly could in the first place. We would not have wasted the recurses used now to correct the problem. I wonder how mutch focil fuel that would have saved.
Thorium would have been the solution. Giving us safe cheap green energy.
I'm sure servicing this systems so deep will be very cheap. Think not! It is ridiculous.
Looks like a great place to throw away used car batteries
How do you service those? They are man made and destined to fail.
Undersea energy storage requiring copious amounts of Carbon producing processes during Life Cycle …and relying on generally unserviceable mechanical equipment reduces efficiency significantly.
Basically, we are to believe that Naval Engineers will solve energy storage problems that CivilEngineering can’t ….really?
Yes
Naval engineers are a bit better scrutinized than public engineers.
This is insane. I had this idea over ten years ago.
The United States does not have Hector's we have Acres and they are not interchangeable
Please stop regurgitating the same "we dont have enough lithium". Why do video makers keep repeating that over and over?
Commercial feasible and needs subsidy are mutually exclusive statements.
a simpler cheaper sistem is a steel tank , cilinder can hold more volume per surface and pressure can be increase by 10, price will be 5 times cheaper than battery so if this savings are invest in solar panels you end up with a self charging sistem, durability 30 to 50 plus years and 100% reciclable.
yeah. a thin stainless steel tank has to be far cheaper. only need to deal with the gauge pressure at the bottom. so technically the tanks can be as thin as a soda can.
I just realized the buoyancy of air at that depth will be problem so a thin steel tank won't quite do it. that is why they are using concrete. Gravity will keep the structure on the ocean floor.
@@j121212100 steel work for regular tank at ground level,the advantage is that they can be as big as posible , under water have the disadvantage that to make then bigger they never to increase the thiknes or make a few small ones.
Sphere is ideal shape for "storing" volume with least surface.
it would be better to do it with cycling clean water down and up, instead of salty, corrosive seawater.
That can be gone with a deflated ballon which inflates when the water is pumped up.
Why is there a Limit on the distance? China transmits UHV DC 3000km. UHV AC is the current developed world's method of high voltage transmission.
It does not have to be made from Concrete just as space station modules do not have to be made from Metals. A bigalow type ball could do the same with far lower cost when constructing at depth... similar to the Toronto Hydro but deeper.
Or you could do something easier, like a bladder full of air. Concrete is really expensive at those scales, and making isn't going to get past the green crowd, that produces CO2.
@somuchfacepalm8451 actually concerte innovations to protect against bunker busters mean they can handle more greater pressure, you use concrete to maintain a vacuum by pumping the water up, stronger concrete will mean the sphere can be thinner, quicker to produce and faster to transport
@@cybyrd9615 And the video said that the specs called for spheres 30 m in diameter. The most they've tested is 3m, and those walls were pretty thick to being with. The fact that it will work does not make it economically viable.
Dr T,
there is no limit on distance per se, but losses are proportional to distance. Simply good engineering practice is to put supply and demand as close as practical.
“So, why do we need such a complex system?”. I thought he was joking. Put water up high. Let it drop. Am I missing something? XD
Gosh so brilliant but so simple lol. Love it!
I think you will find there is more than enough Lithium on earth! You can make lithium batteries with cobalt, there is plenty of that also. Heat storage will be the cheapest and easiest to use for long term energy storage. Using Silicon you can store 1 mega watts per cubic metre. Industry needs a lot of heat for presses.
It can also be turned into electricity as well.
Do you pay attention to any vids you watch?
It isn't you can make lithium batteries with Cobalt.
Cobalt has to be used. It's one of the most important metals in lithium batteries. And we don't have enough of it, either.
@@lordgarion514 Some Chemistries Don’t Use Cobalt Though, Look it up. Somewhat novel yes, and I don’t know what Technological Readiness Level it is at, but it’s definitely a thing.
To a certain degree, yes. ESPECIALLY if we switch to Sodium Ion Batteries. *HOWEVER* Batteries, especially non-flow batteries don’t scale well. The main advantage of Li-Ion Batteries is their low weight for a certain power. This matters when they are in a smartphone, but *not* when they are on top of a concrete pad by an electrical substation.
Also Batteries don’t scale as well as some technologies. For every one Watt-Hour needed, you still need the same unit of batteries. For things like Flow Batteries, Reversible Fuel Cells / Power-to-X, Thermal Storage, or as stayed herw, Pumped Hydroelectric Storage and Compressed Gas Storage, you can have a single generator, but an infinitely expandable “tank”. The costs of making steel Fuel Tanks for Methane/DME etc, or digging a hole in the ground scale very well as you get bigger. Batteries are a fixed cost no matter the scale (short of the existing economies of scale due to the widespread use of Li-Ion batteries in Mobile Electronics, which is probably near-peak as is)
I’m rambling here, but short of things like BEVs, Hybrid Vehicles, Mobile Devices, and Small Scale Microgrids, Batteries Don’t Make Much Sense, even then Iron Batteries / Organic Flow Batteries, or even some Power-to-X system may make more sense from an “Appropriate Materials” standpoint.
Check out the channel “Just Have a Think” if you haven’t already; they do a great job covering these kinds of things.
Rant over lol
@@ericlotze7724 I agree with your rant. I was only putting one example for brevities sake. I did find that it is usually the ignorant that reply to my comments as example of Robert Pruitt. They think that because they can type they should. As I pointed out to him it only makes them look stupid. Cheers, John
PS: Yes, that is a good channel to watch!
@@lordgarion514 I'll add to your misery and the Other's edification, a lot of mining is done by hand by the locals. The Suppliers say no "Artesian" (miners) products, yet 15,000 are in the pits.
There is more than enough nickel lithium and Cobalt in the world for everyone to have home storage so you are definitely wrong on that one
No one will use lithium for home storage the way sodium is advancing
I bet noone calcualted enviromental damage from production and exploitation and later utilization of such "workaround solution"
1,000 people who did better than me in College, all talking about the same general subjects that he is talking about. In any normal [SEASON] I would say congratulations to them. However, since Trump became President we are in a different [SEASON]. They are not adjusting to this [GREAT SEASON]. This season is to reveal and implement all the tech of the secret [PARALLEL UNIVERSE]. Einstein's purpose was to dumb us down. He gave us one nice hint. he said N Tesla was greater than him. Watch the good seed start to sprout and as it grows it will kick all your stuff to the curbside. Millions of people signed NDAs. Some of them have already been going faster than light after WW_II. We were so dumb that they let us break the Galactic Law. [No power shall have Nuke bombs and Fission power.] Frase WW_III is a disgrace. We are in the [GREAT WAR]. [BIMBOS WAKE UP]!!! !!! !!!
🙏👍
There is still more to think about and work on.
Offshore wind and solar
I'm dumber now these are idiotic solutions to garnish taxes, I don't know were to start with debunking these terrible energy solutions.
There is a problem of national security and other solutions that benefit the populace of a country and it's economy.
A study after the 1966 shutdown showed that if someone sabotaged just a dozen distribution points electricity in the US it would shut down the country for months if not a year this is a national security risk.
As for distributed or Central electrical generation there are two things to consider
Centrally generated in distributed energy structure allows corporations to use any excuse to raise prices to their consumers.
On the other hand, millions of homes and businesses with solar energy storage and electric vehicles, is from a security point of view probably impossible to shut down by sabotage.
And regarding finances consider all of that money left in consumers and businesses pockets it will increase available funds and increased velocity of money in the economic system which will improve a country's
So the choice is centrally generated and vulnerable to sabotage or widely-distributed safer and benefits to people
Scientia Non Habelet Domus,
(Knowledge has No Home)
antiguajohn
,
Orrr we can use nuclear energy just saying
80% losses of energy
Gravity batteries are a flawed concept The concrete itself is very very carbon intensive . We do not have enough supply of concrete and this would take up massive amounts of it at scale. it would also raise the cost of building in the area these were being built in unless significant investment in more concrete production in that area. The cgi model they show is also operating in a fanciful computer environment with no wind, placing these blocks perfectly. How will these work in high wind conditions ? Additionally making all this concrete as a method of storing power idiotic simply due to the fact we already have the ocean and it’s pressure to do what the mass of the concrete blocks would do on there decent/ power release phase. Why waste a carbon intensive building material it makes no sense.
Thunderf00t debunked the concrete gravity tower over a year ago, everything else here is a joke. There's a reason that everything is a student model or CGI. Scaling up does some weird shit.
Actually innovations in concrete mixes means they can use less. Look up bunker busters on dark tech YT channel. And it scales so if it takes too much you can just use a bigger sphere, the pressure on the walls won't change
This guy's seriously talking about MW per hour, and wants us to think he's an expert? Honestly embarrassing
NOOOOO!!!! KEEP THIS SHIT OUT OF THE OCEAN!!
The amount of waste in all of this nonsense is ridiculous. But we had before work what we have now is a logistical nightmare that will ruin us. With no backup plan this is big dreams for big people. We're not big people anymore especially in America since we listen to nonsense all day and believe that having people from different countries import lithium to make batteries for electric car is 0 emissions I will never know.
Put more crap in the ocean, great idea
Disgraceful lack of rigour in the basic concepts of energy and power, and the units used: energy is kWh and not kW/h. There are other examples which erode the credibility of the video despite the nice animation. Real shame. Please get your science basics right.
Oh soo cool! They’re using / generating pressure from water or air to power turbines later, they’re non electric capacitors 😂❤ interesting
A little boy gluing random shit onto his failed paper airplane idea, tying to save an inferior idea. If your working a problem, that you discovered when you were working a problem, that you discovered when working a problem with your idea, then you should stop and ask how viable your idea is.
I like the other narrator better.
"kW/H" *facepalm*
The better solution would be green hydrogen as a way to store energy
Hydrogen production and transport is inefficient ans costly.
more crap in our oceans
at 4:00 your misuse of units tells me that you do not understand the subject of energy. Go cover politics innovations instead, or learn some dimensional analysis so that you can convey accurate tech information.
"All the best places are already taken" is defeatism at best and marketing propaganda for other systems at worst. If you started with a perfectly flat prairie, there is nothing to prevent you from digging a big hole, piling up the material removed from it, and making a reservoir on top of that. Landfills would make great elevated reservoir locations too. Low-hanging fruit is not even exhausted, much less human-engineered solutions. There is no reason at all every city in the world couldn't have pumped hydro, if it was actually the best solution for them.
Look up global pumped hydro atlas.
As for your plan to build a mountain.
To build a 50m high platau using a 50m deep hole would cost $7,500. (based on my reasearch)
The amount of storage you get from this. 0.272Kwh
@@catprog we're not talking about building mountains, only plateaus. We have several landfills within 15 minutes of our house which would be high enough. Please don't point out all of the engineering challenges, of course there are some, that's what engineers are for. The cost would be reduced with volume production. Anyway the point is that we have only scratched the surface of the many ways energy can be stored cheaply, and every new scheme claims to be superior in some way. The truth is there are many viable ways, but pumped hydro is one of the least expensive, and we absolutely have _not_ exhausted even the easiest to use locations.
@@crawkn
You need 100m height diffrence before you start to get significent power.
--
Yes to the easiest to use locations. That is why I said look up the term "global pumped hydro atlas". It was a study done based on geography to find good places to build pumped hydro dams.
@@catprog there are 100m height differences most places on the globe, just not immediately next to each other for the convenience of photographers and real estate transactions. That's what pipes are for. I looked at the maps, I understand there are a lot of them. There will be a lot more. Spanning the Mississippi with bridges was once thought impossible. Then it turned out it wasn't. Energy management is an engineering problem with many solutions. So many that it's easy to forget that we have been using some for many decades.
All these concepts are proved, however they use more energy and store as potential energy of mass or as compressed air. The stored energy will generate only a fraction of the energy used. This can be useful commercially only if energy supply has low cost and when energy demand has higher price and so all the system will work temporarily.
Gravity has the potential to generate energy on demand and the best places on earth are mountains. Let lift there effectively concrete blocks and generate electricity on demand, every block will be lifted multiple time on demand and will generate energy. Partnership between government and investors is a must and agreement to protect the secret on new invention which is not disclosed. The stationary Gravity engine will generate energy on demand for many decades and will have competitive cost compared with any version disclosed on this presentation.
Wow genius the concrete spheres do use gravity, by lifting the water. But because the water is at a higher pressure you can store and generate more energy