The Hidden Crisis With Renewable Energy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Is this how we solve the problem with renewable energy?
For more by Tomorrow's Build subscribe now - bit.ly/3vOOJ98
Additional footage courtesy of Energy Vault.
Join our mailing list - bit.ly/tomorro...
Listen to The World's Best Construction Podcast
Apple - apple.co/3OssZsH
Spotify - spoti.fi/3om1NkB
Amazon Music - amzn.to/3znmBP4
Follow us on Twitter - / tomorrowsbuild
Like us on Facebook - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on TikTok - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on LinkedIn - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on Instagram - / tomorrowsbuild
#construction #architecture #energy
Tomorrow's Build is owned and operated by The B1M Limited. We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules: www.theb1m.com/...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact Video@TheB1M.com.
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2023 The B1M Limited
The famous water fed Dinorwig power station in the UK (Tom Scott did a video on it), is essentially a 9.2 million ton 'weight' over a 500m shaft. Some highly academic research on google says that's three million more tons than the weight of the Hoover Dam. To build a concrete gravity battery on the scale of Dinorwig (and the UK alone would need several to meet intermittency needs), you'd therefore need a hoover dam of concrete, with about 8 or so Empire state buildings on top (400k tons each) to make up the weight, suspended on a structure the height of Taipei 101. This is cartoonishly impractical!
A few things would still intrest me for one what is the efficency of this energy storage?
how much energy can it store for let's say 1 billion dollars building cost?
What is the cost compared to a "normal" battery with similar energy storage?
If we just use water instead of concrete with the same system would it be a lot cheaper?
Whats the cost of an "artifical" water battery when there are no mountains/hills so digging a lake and making an artifical hill (with dirt) where we can store water
Lastly even if this energy storage is expensive and inefficent solar power and wind is usually a lot less expensive than other energy so at what point is just storing the energy in this way cheaper than other forms of energy (with construction cost and all)?
If wind costs about 10ct per kwh and natural gas 20ct the system would only need a efficency of 50% for similar energy cost (not including costruction lol) and only at hours really needed not the rest of the day(at least in sunny cities)
It still seems pretty inefficent and expensive but idk at some point we might build something like that if we can't use hydro (also just digging a big hole under the building seems much cheaper than just building everything up lol) ok im done
@@Admiral-General_Aladeen god just stop. It's a stupid idea. It has never been built because it's a scam. Stop giving it attention.
A subsidised 14Kwh power wall in every house hold might help, possibly linked up to a smart local grid.
@AdamG7CRQ but that has the same issues and more, than having large scale battery storage...
@@John...44... how?
Everything is so beautiful when reality isn't important
I would've loved to hear more about liquid metal batteries and reversible rust batteries since those seem to hold a lot more promise
There are many battery technologies that we have barely begun to explore - molten salt, sand, ion flow, compressed air, to name just a few.
Adam Something did a video on the previous version of the Energy Vault just over a year ago, and this design as clearly gone through some iterations, but still has many of the problems of the original. Like you mention, the material cost of the Vault versus using building dams is contentious, though I've done no research to determine the amounts of used in either. Additionally, the amount of energy stored would be an interesting aspect to look into to get an idea of how effective/viable the different options are.
I remembered the same video: The Energy Vault is a Dumb Idea, Here's Why. In particular, I think he made a snarky but true comment about these 'solutions' that show nothing but flashy computer graphics.
@@chemicalfrankie1030 hmm okay we could use some desert or some valley in the mountains (swiss mountains are full of that and nobody is saying ah this is ugly) sure we have a local problem with the build, but better than a industrial tower with weights moving up and down and making funny noises...
Fully agree. Buzz words all around in case you do the math you will see that price performance ratio is just shit. This will not be the answer for the storage issue
@@ropro9817 Energy vault does have a prototype. but that is a shitty little prototype. with a crane (a bit like the ones in the former renders).
But technical prototypes are super ugly and are worth nothing for an advertising the idea to "normal people".
Nevertheless, the prototypes do their job in validating their point. Even though, you might never actually see any of these technical prototypes.
I do agree, that companies that never make technical prototypes are basically a scam. But that doesn't mean that the inverse is true: Just because a company has a nice looking render, doesn't mean they also properly prototype.
@@aurelspecker6740 Thunderfoot calculated that that prototype had about as much energy storage as you need to run a single watercooker.
Great video with an intriguing idea.
But lets not play dumb. This wasnt't not being talked about. Energy storage has been an argued issue with solar & wind for a long time.
I am an electrical and solar contractor, but I talk more trash on Solar than almost anybody I’ve met.
But it’s because it’s the truth that you cannot have enough Solar power To heat homes and businesses… That is why big oil backed solar. Because in America, we were considering going nuclear, but the oil companies wouldn’t make a dime on the housing sector. Nuclear power provides enough electricity and more, enough to heat your house easily.
I believe the first solar panels available to the public was the BP British petroleum company. I’ve taken a number of BP panels off rooftops and “retired them“ when they were about 30 years old
Basically Solar is a detour with a dead end and the oil companies can sleep a lot better knowing Solar is all the hype and nuclear plants are typically not being assembled
Hasnt this tech already been disproven?
Totally. I've read more than one Civil Engineering doctorial thesis on the subject, and each concluded that that the laws of physics can not be defied. It's a physics problem, not a technology problem.
Why don't we build mini nuclear power stations. Like the ones they put in nuclear submarines.
B1M did a video about it allready: ruclips.net/video/BrN_SRzsEF4/видео.html
Short answer: It is being worked on but it is still bloody expensive.
@@ReDFootY Thanks. Will have to watch that. 👍
To be fair we need as well BIG nuclear power plants for our base-load
Why not build the big ones which are the most cost effective? Something doesn't need to be novel or even new to be an appropriate solution.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Exactly. This channel had a video about 20mw smrs that are going to cost $100m.
The fastest built reactor was built in 39 months and is 1315mw. You would need 66 smr to equal 1 1315mw reactor. At 3 months each x 66=198 months. Thats 5x longer.
"The size and modular building approach means Last Energy’s PWR-20 is under $100 million per unit"
66 of these would be $6.6b.
"The installation cost for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power is said to be 70 billion yen."
That averages to $75m per reactor. One reactor is still cheaper than the smr. Accounting for inflation the 1315mw reactor would be $140m. Still cheaper considering what youre buying.
Did you miss the debunking video's on how much carbon is used to make the concrete blocks for that energy storage solution. Thunderf00t has a few good ones on those topics.
That gravity vault looks like a dumb idea o or a bait for investor money because of ridiculously low energy capacity, and energy density.
LOL, May I suggest that those geniuses consider using lead-acid batteries as their lifted weights so that they can increase power density at least.
You’re also missing the Molten Salt batteries which are much more common in Norway & Sweden. Very interesting stuff.
Salt batteries have a lot of dispersion because they work with heat
Dunno why videos like this never mention tidal turbines when it comes to reliable consistent renewable energy production. Tidal turbines output is determined by the tide, which is literally controlled via the moons gravity when it rises and sets, which we know is twice a day forever, so the tidal turbine output pattern is consistent forever. Of course the issue is that its output goes between 100% down to 0% then back up to 100% gradually a couple of times a day, but it's exactly over every 12 hours forever. So you could pair say a 2MW tidal turbine with a just 6MWh battery and it'll output 1MW 24/7 more consistently than even nuclear. Can't do this with wind or solar because they're not predeictable and can have low output for days or even weeks on end, can't build a battery for that. Whereas with tidal you KNOW that it'll go back up to 100% output within a few hours. You can know the output of tidal turbines at any specific time any day 10 years from now if you wanted. Of course we can't have tidal turbines anywhere but even 10% from them would be a nice 10% baseload. Or just build nuclear.
Because nobody can make it work economically. It's time may come when there is more of a price premium for peaking reliable *green* energy. But at the moment it's competing with gas fired power stations which are just much cheaper - though obviously the cost to the environment is huge. Until there is a proper price on carbon, systems like tidal power will find it hard to compete, as the playing field is not level.
The whole county doesn't have the same tides. High tide in one place is can be low tide in another place. If you spread out tidal energy with that in mind you can avoid the need for storage.
The only issue I have with tidal energy if the possible effect on wildlife.
Two problems: 1. Too expensive 2. Only a few locations in the world with the required strength of tidal currents
If it were that easy, it would have probably been commercialised by this point. The issue I've seen from other videos on this topic is that places with "ideal" tidal conditions have huge problems with the turbines themselves being ruined by entrained materials in the water and the turbines having to operate in extremely harsh conditions. Basically, they keep breaking down and failing.
Another problem is environmental folks can be against them. The oil company I worked for wanted to install a tidal generation offshore California and it couldn't get the permits because of environmental concerns. They were afraid it would adversely affect whales and other sea life.
I would like to know more about the maintenance costs of this energy storage solution.
Keeping all those cables and/or generators running well is going to be a challenge.
For generators, it's no more challenging than maintaining the current system. You get the same amount of energy for spinning the same generators the same amount, you're just using a different energy source to spin them.
same guys who tried storing energy using a crane. That idea was wildly criticized and rightfully so. Don't see this as much better option considering the complexity. And notice the zero info about the cost to store 1 MWh how much is it in the end? Well I guess let's keep milking those investors for money ;)
My god that smoke alarm at the beginning gave me a bloody heart attack! Sounded just like mine xD
That intro (the first minute) made me smile and smile! Thanks Fred!
The problem with the “build nothing but renewables and attack anything else” is that the storage technology to actually make it work beyond cherry picked hours flat out does not exist. And once it does exist, it still only accounts for fuel (wind/sun) *transients*, not steady state interruptions. Any weather patterns that disrupt generation for more than a few hours are going to lead to voltage collapse and complete blackouts. As a NERC certified reliability coordinator that literally controlled the power grid, I can inform the “renewables are all we need” crowd that a complete blackout takes weeks to recover from. If you try to have a 100% renewable grid, you’re going to regularly be without power to huge sections of the country for weeks at a time.
You *must* have a backbone of generation that operates independent of weather. It’s not an option, it’s a necessity - even when storage technology can make short term operation feasible. The solution is nuclear power. Replace the fossil fuel plants with nuclear, and keep about a 49/49 mix of nuclear and renewable (with a little left over fossils for black start recovery; you’re permanently down otherwise). That’s the solution; not delusions of millions of wind turbines and solar farms powering everything.
This looks like a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid nuclear for the base load
This video needed more Fred. We could use his guns to push those concrete blocks up, to store all that potential energy 💪
Electricity is about 20% of global energy consumption, of that 20% about 80% is NOT wind or solar generated. So about 4% of total energy is renewable. Just getting to half of demand is a big problem, without considering storage
If you haven't already covered it, you should do a video on the Snowy hydro scheme here in Australia and the upgrades they are currently doing with Snowy Hydro 2.0
And why on earth it’s blown out to years behind schedule and billions over budget, that’s I’d be interested to know
@@od19 that would be because of the ten years of incompetent government . good ol LNP can bullshit their way to anything
@@od19 While hydro (and pumped hydro) is usually expensive to build, it's essentially immortal. It runs forever with minimal maintenance or other costs. The small Rubicon hydro scheme in Victoria, Australia has been happily generating power for the last 97 years and much of its equipment is the original stuff from the 1920s. Larger schemes in Tasmania are nearly as old and are also very cheap to operate. Other forms of generation (wind, coal, nuclear, gas, solar) are lucky to last for 40 years, So hydro involves a big investment in the short term for a huge return on the capital invested in the long term.
The major problem with this video is the guy talking about the vaults says it’s at night that they’d be using the excess power to store energy because consumption is down, while at the beginning of the video they are saying night is when the extra stored energy is needed.
The easy answer is nuclear power plants, but nobody wants to talk about that.
energy vault has been debunked already, check out thunderfoots video on this. The ironic thing about their garbage cgi is that they made their energy vault right next to a mountain where pumped hydro would be possible to build
@3:20 *Gravity* is handy if you are near a deep shaft into a salt mine otherwise you're digging one and there are all those mine tailings to dispose of. (Good luck with the world's *NIMBY* syndrome.) Not to mention all the pumping problems if there is any water ingress.
*Hydro dams* are great as long as the reservoir stays filled ( *Lake Mead* is drying up,) ... with water (the *Aswan Dam* is silting up.)
Liquid air batteries, would be a better option there's already some pilot plants up and running in the UK, the beauty of a liquid air battery is there really scalable and are built from common materials that are readily available and used in other industries with the available skilled engineers to setup and get running, they have a great cycle live cheap and can be placed where you need them, it's worth a Google to find out more about them. Be nice if Tomorrow's Build could do a RUclips video about this battery.
I was thinking the same. Also redflow, and Form energy. We definitely need an all of the above mentality. More sources can be used in different areas depending on location and availability of local resources
I wonder if liquid air storage of renewable energy might be better used by not trying to turn it back into electricity. It might be far more efficient to use it to cool things directly. A building full of hot air, a tank of chilled fluid, and a simple high efficiency heat pump would almost certainly cool a room far more efficiently than using the liquified air to generate electricity to run a regular air conditioner. The same type of system could be deployed to refridgeration
@@dennisenright7725 brilliant idea, I think the liquid air batteries are about 68% efficient looks like there might be some different uses for them in for industrial services but still a very useful grid battery considering how cheap and long service life you'd get out of them, you've got me now thinking what other applications they can be used for maybe local shipping power a ferry to cross short crossing's.
Wait, solar and wind can’t replace nuclear, water and natural gas? Wow, who would have guessed 🤷♂️
Right? Nuclear power is watching this thinking, "Am I a joke to you?"
Shocking 😂
I would love to see actual stats like how much each motor/generator takes to raise and how much is gotten back when lowered. What is the ACTUAL efficiency of these gravity solutions?
I do know that electric motors can easily reach efficiencies above 90%
@2:35 *Pumped Hydro* works fine if you've got a gravity gradient handy, but it is fairly expensive to build *pumped hydro* on a _flat plain._
yeah then just dont build it there. Transmition lines already exist.
We already solved the energy problem in the 1950s. Stop fumbling and put up a few perfectly safe reactors instead.
Aren't you forgetting nuclear power generation & technological advances in it, including miniature fission reactors and the potential of fusion energy?
Best thing you can do for real clean energy: support nuclear!
Dams work great for Norway, who gets 98% of both it's energy and energy storage from hydroelectric dams.
Sadly anywhere that's a quick-win for hydro is already in use, and greater environmental awareness would make more a tough sell anyway
We've been doing this with water for 70 years. And we don't need nonsense concrete. Just pump water uphill during the day.
Isnt it pump at night so you can dump it during the day and get energy from that since energy usage is lower at night?
I would be interested in a video about Geothermal energy. I know there is currently a trial plan being in Cornwall and other countries are also exploring its potential.
Sodium ion, liquid metal and aluminum air batteries will likely be the answer to stationary storage in the near future as lithium is better suited to high-capacity batteries for transportation and electronic equipment. I don't see the energy vault, or any gravity battery being much of a factor due primarily to its massive size and short power delivery time when batteries can deliver power for many hours and take up very little space per Wh of power.
What's great is that the grid can let them all compete and we don't have to pick a winner, it will just be economics that decide
@@backacheache "Economics" decided that destroying our earth as fast as possible was profitable and therefore a 'good' thing to do. Money should never be given the loudest voice.
@@mrawesome9219 I agree, but when it comes to funding these, unfortunately you have to go though people whose understanding of the world is purely financial
At a student conference a few years ago I heard a talk by an MIT-affiliated presenter about a physical battery system. The energy is stored as heat within a colossal high heat capacity structure which can release heat into special coils to boil water to turn turbines. Square cube law limits heat loss. Interesting stuff but mostly large scale project.
If its viable in the large-scale scenario, dont you think it would be efficient for world's needs? Or is it that it is still under R&D?
I would have also mentioned flow batteries, liquid metal batteries, and flywheel energy storage. And also the importance of baseload power from nuke plants.
oh yes the mighty baseload from the nuke plants, we seen it in france this year, most of them down cause additional maintenance and broken or rusted things, sound very safe...
Can't count on nukes with droughts and hotter water, European nukes have already been shut down when needed most.
@@SirHeinzbond it is though..."broken rusted things" are on emergency circuits which have never been used in 40+ years. That's because even those old power plants are extremely safe
Yes, and the other problem no one is talking about is that no amount of storage of any kind is of any use at all when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow for long periods or for the many parts of the world where neither is available at usable scale. Fortunately Small Nuclear Reactors are coming. The MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) variety generates 97% less waste, and the waste has orders of magnitude shorter life span. All new generation modular reactors are walk-away, passively safe. Unlike traditional reactors that are mind-bogglingly complex and built on site, SMRs are mass produced in factories to dramatically reduce cost and time to commission.
SMRs are expected to create more waste than traditional reactors and are much more expensive than larger plants (if it costs $100m to build a 20mw smr but $200m to build a 100mw plant which is the better deal). You dont need msrs. France has been recycling waste for decades without msrs.
The fastest built reactor was built in 39 months and is 1315mw. You would need 66 smr to equal 1 1315mw reactor. At 3 months each x 66=198 months. Thats 5x longer.
"The size and modular building approach means Last Energy’s PWR-20 is under $100 million per unit"
66 of these would be $6.6b.
"The installation cost for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power is said to be 70 billion yen."
That averages to $75m per reactor. One reactor is still cheaper than the smr. Accounting for inflation the 1315mw reactor would be $140m. Still cheaper considering what youre buying.
@@namename9998 I can’t comment on the math and I have no problem with massive reactors other than their sometimes endless approval, preparation and commissioning time and cost… sometimes 20 years. There are thousands of small communities to grid-scale applications where mass produce SMRs such as the latest Rolls Royce offering using trad high pressure tech. It may produce more waste than mega reactors/Gw/hr but surely that’s a non-issue in the scheme of things. Rolls Royce say they need three years to set up the space and three years to commission a half Terawatt system that runs competitively for 60 years, including decommissioning. Apparently they’re ready to roll-out.
@@Kenlwallace I'm confused. Most small communities are connected to larger plants. If theyre so remote then a 20mw reactor is probably too large for them. If theyre getting supplies from the outside world then theyre close enough to be connected to larger power plants.
"For conventional generators, such as a coal plant, a megawatt of capacity will produce electricity that equates to about the same amount of electricity consumed by 400 to 900 homes in a year."
And theres the cost. If theyre so remote then how are they going to afford a $100m reactor.
And if theyre so remote why would they want such reliable power. If they wanted modern conveniences wouldnt it make sense that they live closer to other towns.
SMRs make sense for military bases and islands but not small towns.
Germany is pioneering lithium mining from their own thermal waters which obtains exponentially more than the usual yield.
This video lacked the criticism an idea like this deserves. Looks to be a more expensive and less efficient energy storage solution than just building a facility for pumped hydro.
Gravity storage is good, but I’d bet chemical storage is more efficient. For instance, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is relatively cheap, and hydrogen fuel cells require very little maintenance
hmmm if only there was a tried and tested way of using nuclear fission to create cheaper, greener and more consistent energy than solar and wind 🤔
The economics of big-nuclear don't work, however the new modular ones look promising
@@backacheache New modular are going to be more expensive than larger ones that are one and dones unlike what France and other countries do (use the same design dozens of times which is basically what modular is but larger). I think it was this channel that had an smr recently and it was going to be something like 20mw for $100m.
The fastest built reactor was built in 39 months and is 1315mw. You would need 66 smr to equal 1 1315mw reactor. At 3 months each x 66=198 months. Thats 5x longer.
"The size and modular building approach means Last Energy’s PWR-20 is under $100 million per unit"
66 of these would be $6.6b.
"The installation cost for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power is said to be 70 billion yen."
That averages to $75m per reactor. One reactor is still cheaper than the smr. Accounting for inflation the 1315mw reactor would be $140m. Still cheaper considering what youre buying.
Gravity energy sounds like such a bad idea. Every time you change energy's form you lose more energy . Entropy at its finest.
I've heard of a pneumatic solution where air is pumped into large balloons, then released when needed to drive the turbine.
Yes, the "Liquid Air Battery" quite literally, is very cool!
The inefficiencies of moving the bocks horizontal mixed with the fact that it's not that high makes this a huge waste of resources.
May all beings be healthy, be happy, be well and be free. Including ourselves.
I appreciate they're trying to mitigate their greenhouse impact by producing the materials locally.
Seriously? Normally, this channel is good and well informed and now you fall for such a hoax? Do the math, how much kinetic energy can be stored in such building. Try to match it with turns of the wind mills on the outside, how many turns can one do, whilst one of these blocks goes down? Because that's the exact equivalent you can get from the building. Even if each block replaces one mill, we are talking about minutes. I really recommend to do some deeper research and take the video down later, it is nothing else than a conspiricy theory for investors.
Well put I agree with your comment 👍
Love these prototypes but... You know that for your base-load you can build NOW nuclear power plants? Which are the cleanest way to produce energy
WHAT....no more Fred!!! Arrraahhhhhh 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤❤
00:00 - 01:00 ➡️ Appears someone forgot to tell you about the atom ⚛ and nuclear power.
Well, great idea, looks very technical. Good luck with the maintenance costs.
That seems insanely inefficient. Each weight isn’t going to move far, and you have thousands of them, so that’s all those conversion losses multiplied across thousands of weights.
Saw this 11 years ago in a German paper, thinking way bigger: cut a multiile granite block out of the ground and move the whole block up an down as power is needed. Nobody built it though
Hello there
This seems incredibly wasteful and expensive, the energy stored in those blocks is not a lot, the structure to hold that much would need to take up an enormous amount of space, and because of all the moving parts maintenance would also be a pain.
Creating hydrogen from excess electricity during peaks is much more viable and is a flexible solution as well to the irregularity and slow reaction time problem of most renewables. Burning hydrogen in a traditional natural gas system would fill the gap natural gas has currently, and requires much less new technology that needs to prove itself for storage and execution. The main problem right now with hydrogen is cost, but in a future full of excess energy during sun/wind peak production that can't be utilised it would make it much more viable.
This is besides the fact that hydrogen can also replace natural gas in many applications nowadays that although can be filled by electricity it would require massive upgrades to the electric grid network. Hydrogen can offload some of that e.g. by being burned directly in homes for heating, and being transported through modified existing natural gas infrastructure.
Moreover, hydrogen can be made in various areas where it is cheapest to produce and then shipped off to wherever demand determines just like petroleum currently.
Lastly it also creates redundancy, just like today how different plants producing electricity through different methods are more isolated from mishaps affecting other plants. An area that is too heavily reliant on wind and solar may be left susceptible to black outs due to a large storm which can damage solar panels and force wind turbines to be stopped to not damage them. This is especially important for coastal communities who will be facing harsher weather conditions.
LOVE THE EDITING IN THIS ONE! That was a joy to watch
of course you are right, as we head for net zero, storage in all its forms will be key and must be taken seriously. The first and most obvious thing to do to reach net zero, is to generate carbon free
electricity whether by wind or wave, solar or tidal, or by nuclear, but because most carbon free electricity generation is subject to variability, we must build 50% more generating capacity than we would need on a typical day, and to complement the additional generating capacity, we need to build energy storage with sufficient capacity to not only even out the daily ups and downs of production and demand, but also to act as long-term storage to meet the demands of a cold winter and for green fuels.
Storage
When it comes to energy storage, we must consider 3 categories, starting with, short-term grid storage, up to six hours to even out the highs and lows of demand and production,
our existing pumped hydro systems work well enough with fossil fuel plants, but as more renewable energy comes online, it will have to be supplemented probably by batteries,
which will also play a role with home energy storage, and light vehicle energy storage, but not lithium-ion batteries, which keep getting more expensive due to rarity of the materials
they are made of like Lithium, cobalt, and nickel, plus there is environmental damage caused by the mining and processing of these materials.
Sodium-ion batteries are already beginning to compete with lithium-ion batteries, as they are made from cheaper and more abundant materials, and batteries using other low-cost
materials like sulphur are making good progress in development, within the next year or two there could be several cheaper alternatives to lithium for batteries.
Then there is the 6 hours to 48 hours segment, there are many hopefuls in this sector, but I am not a fan of lifting and dropping large weights, or huge spinning flywheels. But there is one technology that looks ideal for this slot, the carbon dioxide battery (Energy Dome) basically, a closed loop system where a large quantity of carbon dioxide is repeatedly compressed with surplus energy, then allowed to expand to generate electricity, but best of all there is no Hughley complicated cryogenics system, and it is made from off the shelf engineering components, which should make the system affordable and easy to replicate, the only drawback is the large size of the dome, but I am certain these could be accommodated at the site of fossil fuel power stations waiting to be decommissioned, plus the transmission line would already be in place.
Then there is long term storage, for when the wind and the sun don’t play ball for days or even weeks at a time, plus fuel for heavy vehicles, ships and aircraft, only chemical storage has the density for this, and luckily the latest development for producing Hydrogen by electrolysis is looking very efficient, plus there have been big development in green Ammonia as well.
Every winter the U.K. is subject to weather events, known as a blocking high pressure system, which can last for up to two weeks at a time, and they usually come complete with a blanket of cloud, which further reduces an already limited amount of light for solar panels, plus there is little, or no wind for the wind turbines, leaving us with nuclear but even if we get 8 shiny new nuclear power stations, that is equivalent to only 30% of our energy needs, which will go nowhere near meeting our energy demands, put simply we need a system that can store and supply between 60 to 70% of our energy needs for up to a month each winter, only a chemical storage system has would have the capacity to storage energy for such a period, and we will need to make green chemical fuels
such as Hydrogen or green Ammonia for heavy transport, ships trains and planes, so it would make sense to make these green chemical fuels for long-term energy storage as well.
It has been suggested that large scale energy storage is unnecessary, and that we should rely on interconnectors under the sea to transfer electricity backwards and forwards between ourselves and Europe, on the assumption that some part of Europe will always have a surplus we can use, But I can see a scenario where eastern Europe is suffering a winter cold snap and needs all the energy it can get, Britain and the low countries are stuck under a blocking high pressure system, so no wind, plus Spain and Portugal are covered by rain bearing cloud, so minimal solar power, and such a situation would not be that unusual, and given recent developments with the war in Ukraine to satisfy a small man’s ego, it would be extremely unwise to assume that our partners in Europe will always be willing, or even able to supply us with what we want, when we want it, storing our own energy means we stay in control.
Another idea doing the rounds, says we build the bear minimum amount of renewable capacity and use smart technology to switch on or off an internet of things, as a way of balancing supply and demand, where large tech companies would control the operation of everything from large factories to your domestic washing machine or fridge, I believe this is a Distraction, I believe that the big technology companies could build such a smart system, but I also believe that the tech companies already have too much control over our lives, and I believe our goal should be to build 50% more renewable capacity than we need, so the excess can be stored, and we do not have to rely on a smart system that could be hacked.
Funding for storage, energy storage is crucial to the story of carbon free energy generation, most of which suffers from intermittency problems, to ensure enough of the right mix of storage is built, some long-term incentives such as tax relief will be needed plus, corporate and financial investors will want to see a reduction or elimination of the planning regulations, and red tape.
Electrifying the entire car park of the (western) world is asking for trouble.
The best investments and returns should come from proper public transport. Is there _any_ country that actually gets this right?
I refer you to the recent tesla investor day where
1. It is shown how rare earths such as cobalt etc. will no longer be used in the vast majority of Li-Ion batteries (and definitely not stationary storage which is already Li-Fe-PO4) by 2030
2. They show how incredibly abundant lithium is on earth and present the plan for new refineries which will allow even the U.S alone to meet entire worlds lithium demand (which would never happen but demonstrates lack of lithium bottleneck)
I personally think liquid metal and/or reverse ox batteries mixed with nuclear for baseload is best current option but demonstrates that lithium chemistry CAN serve purpose and is already shown to be SCALABLE, which is the single most important consideration of ANY storage solution
Nuclear reactors would be a better solution as they can produce electricity 24/7
12 hour days + 12 hour nights
I love it
Well that's better than cranes stacking blocks but the needed infrastructure just went up incredibly high to build those frames.
Just ignoring Nuclear aye
I learned about all this from "undecided" by Matt Ferrell
Wait, the weights only go straight up and down, & inside of a weather safe building, instead of by a bunch of cranes, outside, building a weird cement block tower? Doesn't sound complicated enough.
Why the hell have we got an energy volt video? This has be debunked by a number of RUclipsrs as useless compared to batteries or pumped hydro. It does not scale easily, it is not land or resource efficient, and has many moving parts with massive associated costs in maintenance and repairs.
this is why nuclear energy is needed
You produce more co2 producing those concrete blocks than you save.
This isn't a solution but a way to get VC money.
I feel like the technology would be rather inefficient
Storage are NOT a solution. That is because periods for supply deficit can be as long as a month. For example pan-European total average wind per YEAR fluctuates normally about 30% year to year, but the difference can also be as much as 50%. In Northern Europe there's a meaningful solar energy production only between March and October.
When it comes to this Energy Vault then only looking at that storage facility SCREAMS: Money. I.e. building such a facility costs. A lot. Imagine building hundreds of high capacity elevators side-by-side. Not to speak about the fact, that the same thing can be solved more elegantly and cost effectively.
Make the weighted blocks out of very dense compacted waste from landfill.
Sand storage for heating your house needs to be added here. And you really need to equip the viewers with the basic terminology for Kilowatt-hours and the current cost per KW-hr for each type.
Pumped hydro is fine, but you need the proper topography.
We need to investigate and use multiple storage schemes based on the local circumstances.
A big question is how much storage is required.
at tesla investor day they estimated 240twh storage for 30tw power production at cost of 6-10 trillion dollars for earth
They are also looking into pumping liquids denser than water. They take less space.
can't this be used in the foundation of buildings? I'm thinking especially in skyscrapers that use piling (learned that word on B1M)...
Glad to finally hear about how mining for batteries is terrible for the environment and how it is a finite resource which we cannot mine enough of for the impending electrolysation of the world. Will we have enough even for all of the electric cars we are supposed to want? And what impact will this mining have on the scale we will need to supply said electric cars?
Why are we not talking about hydrogen more? Yes, this video is limited to the gravity solution but a video on hydrogen energy storage would be really useful as another alternative.
People need to stop thinking in one-and-done solutions.
Our energy grid will have to have a myriad of multifaceted solutions.
Just like you don't build a megapolis economy on a single company or have a single system making a living being you can't expect us to move forward with Hydro or solar or thermal. Or even a limited combination of those few.
Complex systems are supported by complex systems.
Yes, the grid will become a chessboard of different pieces all played by algorithms
If it's night GO TO SLEEP. Cities should be dark. Everyone will be healthier, and so will the environment.
Some streetlights dim at night, maybe buildings should be encouraged (by stick or carrot) to shutdown (or dim) too
SMR/MSR tech is already at a fraction of the cost of these options.
Great video. The UK has the world's largest electrolyser plant near Sheffield as part of the green hydrogen phase of an industrial and energy plan started last May 2022.Several storage facilities are being built around the country and on the continent. The world's largest offshore renewables and innovation with hydrogen will surely meet our energy needs well into the 21st century.
Hydrogen is NOT efficient at the most basic energy equation level, is DANGEROUS and destroys the metatscinnjustva decade, tanks, pipes, turbines, and then lastly is a single electron, and WILL migrate through thecsteel, meaning a single spark in a plant can blow a whole suburb off the map
The oil industry's solution
Looking forward to seeing how this rort ends.😥
Using hydrogen for energy storage has terrible round trip efficiency. Apart from some niche industries that will be hard to decarbonise without some form of "green" hydrogen, it is not a solution to much of anything. It is certainly not a good store of energy versus many other systems that already exist.
@@mentality-monster Not to mention that all of this infrastructure is being built in an overall environment where fossil fuel powered mining, transportation and construction vehicles are still legal & extremely cheap in comparison to any other option. This hydrogen stuff already sucks in the current paradigm, imagine how much more it would suck if the electrolyser plant had to be built from concrete that is 5x as expensive as before.
It would be much more energy and cost efficient to significantly improve the infrastructure for energy transmission and better integrate it across state and country borders. This way surplus energy can be shifted across a continent to where it is currently needed. This would alleviate a huge chunk of the fluctuations. The remaining peaks and troughs may be buffered using centralized (hydro, batteries, ...) and decentralized (domestic batteries, plugged-in electric cars, ...) energy storage.
What about 14 days of no wind and very little sun in January? How much storage for that scenario, I'm worried when somebody says we're going to replace reliable energy with something that turns off randomly for an indeterminate time that they've considered every scenario. So after 14 days we've got flat storage then we get 7 days with just enough to cover demand then another 14 days of nothing. What happens then?
Are all of these structures earthquake proof. A lot of places in southern Europe are seismically active Greece, Italy the Balkans and next door in Turkey and Syria; then Japan and California. We know what can happen if you get earthquake proofing wrong
Here in south africa we still use coal, but I still won't have power tonight :(
5:20 - There's a cost no matter the technology deployed and used. In the end, our environment is going to continue to go through cycles of warming and cooling, as it always has, and we can do nothing to stop this natural process. But it is in humanity's best interest to develop as many sources of power generation as possible to meet our energy needs. And we can do this without destroying the world around us, nor each other.
Are you implying that there is no human caused global heating?
That would be silly because since your grandmother was a child we have DOUBLED the ammount of CO2 that used to be in our air, which is trapping more heat and global temperatures are rising every year
@@hunternewberry5860 Unlike a great number of people, I am not what is considered a 'climate alarmist'. Nor am I a scientist well-versed in the science behind climate change. I do know that there are enough scientists working today that do not agree with the narrative being pushed primarily by the left, that being essentially "The sky is falling!" I believe that there is enough evidence available to show that human activity has had an effect on the environment, though to what degree is still not a settled and irrefutable fact.
I also know that another well-known and proven fact of science is that our planet has gone through numerous warming and cooling periods throughout its existence. Currently, we are in a quarternary glaciation period, slowly entering yet another time of warmth for our world.
If we had done nothing for the last 200 years but sat around and looked at each other, the planet would still warm up. And then it would eventually cool down again. Warm, cool, warm, cool...I'm sure you see the trend.
I also believe that as we progress technologically, socially, and economically we have a general responsibility to take care of the world around us, and that is something I try to do as often as is reasonably possible. I neither believe in nor subscribe to the Chicken Little version of science that says we are doomed unless we immediately stop using fossil fuels, coal, etc and switch to renewable options.
As a side note, I find it rather laughable that people in the US and other "1st World" developed countries mostly confine their whining and complaining and hostility to the places they live (where life really isn't all that bad), instead of taking it to nations like China and India which are by far the worst contributors to global emissions than pretty much anyone else.
But then those protestors would likely not get very far with their protestations in either China or India. And in China they would undoubtedly be simply....removed, shall we say, from public view. Permanently.
So, I really don't take climate alarmism as an ideology, nor those who subscribe to it, at all seriously. You can be good for a laugh sometimes, but that's about it.
I stopped watching when you said the "hidden" crisis with renewable energy is that we will need lots of battery storage. That "hidden" crisis has been known for years. It was obvious as soon as we started using solar panels that we would need a way to store energy on a large scale when we began switching to renewable energy.
It would have been nice to mention that all of these energy storage solutions aren't 100% efficient and they're all losing power in the process; some info on which are more or less efficient would have been good as well.
I think the cost per megawatt and a megawatt per square would be more enlightening.
Is waste and efficiency an issue when the problem is over capacity in generation versus under capacity in storage?
Moving water is convenient an less expensive 👍👍
I'm 1 minute in and in screaming Nuclear
how we going to get energy in winter in the north solar panels only work in summer here
Wind?
Or we could just build some nuclear power plants as well.
Honestly some potential opportunity in South Africa, use abandoned shafts almost 2-3km deep and approx 6-10m wide. as well as open pit mines for pumped hydro systems post closure
Instead of gravity, could it not be stored in springs like how a watch works, so it takes up less room?
This one was a good one
I'd have more faith in this if the CG renderings looked more amateur
Nuclear please
Nuclear.
My interest is the electrical energy grid and it's transition to renewable based energy. This transition is based on decentralizing energy generation. Examples are the recent addition of massive solar and wind parks and rooftop type solar panel arrays. What is happening is a daily overproduction of renewable electricity. Local and grid level batter storage will create the ability for grid wide energy sharing over a wide area. Because peak sun intensity travels from east to west, load shifting of battery levels could lessen the need for long-term storage. The question is can the USA using just renewable energy meet it's energy needs on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis?
Hopefully that future energy mix includes nuclear
What a crock. That gravity energy storage could NEVER work. Just do some basic maths around materials and construction cost/area used, storage capacity etc. vs a very very small dam.
This is like listening to bitcoin miners telling you it's the future of all trade.