This was one of my good suggestions several years ago. Glad to see someone is finally perfecting it. In my concept, the nanofluid is exposed to light using special ceramic roofing tiles.
I've been speaking of this for thirty years now. Glad to see someone taking action on the suggestion. The concept is potentially much better than current methods.
Why haven't I heard of this guy till now? I can't remember, did he say that the storage capacity of this fluidic battery rivals gasoline? This guy better get this thing started. This way America doesn't have to go to war for oil.
i _truly_ like the idea of using nanofluids for energy storage-but _not_ because of "Global Warming" (because i don't believe the climate is _nearly_ as sensitive to CO2 as the "experts" say that it is. and that actually makes sense when you realize that CO2 makes up barely .04% of the atmosphere itself-only 3% of which can be attributed to human activity). instead, i want it to succeed because of _all_ the new technologies and scientific advancements that are sure to follow.
It markets future development. But what about aimed for performance figures, and Chemical formulas to avoid safety issues and explosiveness of normal formulas exposed to shock and water?
If all our vehicles are switched to electricity we won't consume twice the electricity we consume now. The efficiency of ICE is about 35% against 80% with electric motors (including the losses due to battery charging). This reduces the additional need to less than 30% of the electricity we consume now. Knowing that most of this additional need is consumed at night and can be supplied because at night the demand is low, we only need to increase the electricity generation capacity by about 5 to 15%. But the question here is not to say wether nano fluids are better or not. It's just another solution worth to explore !
Its like this guy works for the gas industry. Lists all the problems without really giving proper solutions (of which there are many). The problem theory is already solved, we just need to DO it. Liquid batteries and transporting the liquid is not necessary. He wants to be able to control the flow of fluid (literally), and who will do it but the energy companies themselves? This will keep you locked into their web so they can price it as they see fit. This dude is crazy. The future is LOCAL renewable energy production and storage so the grid doesn't have to be build out and stressed even more.
when we finally take the threat in the near future seriously, efficiency, costs and capitalism will cease to be a part of the equation. Social cooperation is the only savior available at this point and politics is unfortunately going in the opposite direction making the threat awaiting us most likely.... we either wake up or die with ideas galore floating in the ether.... we need a revolution.
Why does Katsoudas never compare the energy density of the Nano battery to car Li cells? He admits that flow tanks are huge, so losing the trunk is a big problem in cars. Also, cars often crash. We don't want cars spewing dangerous electrically charged fluid that is likely toxic and flammable. Why does he not speak of any of these? He is far from "fair and balanced." His speech seems to be propping up the dying petroleum industry. We need a new speaker, who can honestly address these problems!
Jim Whitehead, um not it’s not flammable the current b Flow batteries have a liquid used for putting out fires, there none flammable, and its natural. It’s used for home storage in Australian homes it’s what I want here in the UK, but there not yet exporting! But my partner and I both have electric cars and manage our time to suit, that will change in time, there is no excuse other than being lazy! ...not sure if his nano tech is flammable though! Lol
When you compare stuff you limiting youreself from understanding the true discovery and implication on all sciences.... Each device has it purpose lithium also....for a fiew more months max..super caps and my system deliver more power than lithium.
The ferrofluid he refers to is a traditional ferrofluid an petroleum based (kerosene) product infused with nano magnetized iron, which loses it charge after a while, which also demonstrates how primitive and frivolous the R&D, the concept, and development truly is... 🤷♂️ (see stand alone comment for something actually thought through a bit.)
The petroleum industry transports fuel in one direction. A re-chargeable fluid is re-used and therefore the model changes. If a bio-safe disposable liquid can be created, then the petroleum one-way transportation model can be preserved and the market disruption is lowered further, possibly to the point of business acceptance.
A permanent magnet is a permanent source of energy a permanent source of electricity. An Edison generator uses the magnets to move the coils of copper wire through the magnetic field. Tesla bound this generator.
Using a 220 line with a 20amp breaker assuming a 100% charge efficiency (and DC conversion) means in 60 times the 3 minute refill, 13.2kWH can be put in a battery. Of course, the faster you charge or discharge a battery, the fewer cycles it will last and the more energy it takes to charge the battery AND the less energy you can get out of the battery.
137% increase burning coal... but what over all decrease is there by eliminating the need to transport and store and maintain all those tanker trucks and gas stations. I'm sure far more than 37%
Didn't hear much about his new battery technology but plenty of justifications for fossil fuel! Things have changed a lot since December 2016. Electric cars and solar generation are the future. Why can't people just get used to it?
Goodness.. he is trying to reinvent the flow battery, which already exists... and can be used for neighborhood power storage.. just doesn't scale down to the car level. Current versions have storage box sized "pools"--- not shipping container type size. Liquid Metal is another form of that storage.. and it is high temp, but totally reasonable for storage. (Charge a frozen battery, and it gets back to liquid...)--- About as efficient as the utility sized stored systems. When it comes to CO2...that is Plant Food. Shrink what we have now by 1/2??? ALL plant life dies. You can follow the bouncing ball to see where that leads. All life ends.
Odd that the petro industry is said to be "dying" -- since the available oil appears to be not decreasing at this point. (The US is now an exporter again.) The big problem with electric cars and trucks? Surge loads that will require a huge flow of energy. That means a recharge center out on the interstate would draw the same power as needed by a small to medium sized city. 20-30 trucks and 40-60 cars getting a fast charge of a few hundred amps? Going to need a big substation to provide that power, or a bunch of acres of solar. (50+ acres?) And of course batteries to back that up since people actually drive at night. OR you need a bunch of additional coal plants.... Or you turn off a few small cities to recharge. Not a real positive direction to go in, so to speak. Then start counting trucks at truck stops, and figure those figures are a few times lower than reality. There is a LOT of energy in oil... Replacing it in a mobile environment continent wide will be VERY difficult.
In Other Words lowering the vibrational area the heat is forced to lower temp 'It could could hold or repel using sound to concentrate vain's latis to hexiloidal controlling your placement too the target any where the surface has a state of conductive or a re carg of a one one thousand thats itand lasted for two days tile dim Graphene
what happens if the 2 oppositely charged nano-fluids accidentally came into contact? if it's bad enough, this could be enough to scare people away. but considering how combustible gasoline is and how prevalent it is in society, the safeguards in place have made it incredibly safe to produce, transport, and use gasoline. hopefully, the same holds true in this scenario too. however, when it comes to _charging_ those fluids, solar and wind energy are not great choices. in the production of solar cells, the heavy metals and toxic chemicals can be devastating to the environment, and windmills are much better. if CO2 _is_ the problem, nuclear energy-including standard nuclear power plants already in use and potential Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors-is the _obvious_ solution. nuclear is not only the cleanest option, it's also the safest and most cost-effective and feasible to implement as well, and that _includes_ WIND AND SOLAR POWER (which are a waste of time, money, and resources and end up being much more hazardous and toxic to human life and the environment)!
What about diesel, heating oil and aviation fuel? Most of the oil produced worldwide is produced by state oil companies. It's not the oil corporations you have to worry about.
Bateries will charge overnight while everyone is sleeping the smart meter technology for variable electricity prices already exists at is being deployed it is not a massive change to the infrastructure it deployed home by home when people install solar panels. As the prices of solar panels and bateries continue to come down the price of solar plus storage will become cheaper than grid electricity within a few years.
What you are describing is basically a fuel cell. Fuel cells will probably be the future for vehicles, but will need to use something more storable then hydrogen or methane. The 'nano liquid' sounds expensive. Propane or alcohols would be cheaper, and easier to synthesize.
Just out of curiosity: What happens when this gets spilled in a river, on the ground on a beach? Electrified birds, rusty otters? What exactly would happen? Is there any draw back?
I’m sorry but I didn’t make it to the end of his talk. I’ve concluded that nano fluid is from the lemons (lemon battery). How many lemons will it take to run an EV?
He's probably not the audience cause it would be pretty obvious - by the laughter - when it was mentioned that 'statistically nobody present was likely to own an electric car' :)
how long could such an electrified nano-fluid hold its charge? that's the problem w/ current battery technology-they can only store so much energy before they begin to dissipate. from what i've heard, even the newest and most high-tech electricity grids can only store enough energy in batteries to supply enough electricity to power their customers for about 23 seconds. that said, if issues like that can be solved, it sounds like a clean, low-cost option to gasoline.
Several questionable points here. The suggestion that burning coal causes more CO2 than gas is misleading as coal fired plants are more efficient than gasoline powered car engines. This reference also completely leaves out the fact that many plan to transition primary power generation from coal to alternative energy. Another suggestion that the speaker makes is that any new charging system must match the convenience of filling your tank in five minutes at the pump. This is totally irrelevant when you can charge your car overnight while you sleep. Chargers for long distance trips that can take about 1/2 hr are available but by and large most driving is done within a range that is easily addressed with overnight charging. Transporting battery liquid and moving it through pipes and pumps keeps in place many of the problematic issues of gasoline based power.
Three independent loops of copper around earth could produce sufficient voltage to sustain humanity without burning additional fuel (NASA TSS1 '96). SpaceX is currently on route to send rockets to Mars. During those times, the process to electrify earth with man-made rings could begin simultaneously.
Most lead (70% ish) comes from recycled lead acid batteries. Some solar systems use lead-acid batteries to store electricity overnight, but there isn't nearly enough mineable lead, on Earth, to build enough batteries, and they're finicky and fragile. And lead-acid batteries can't be used to transport energy in the way he described.
I think this technology could have other applications, such as long term energy storage, but I think the small vehicle applications are uneconomic and unlikely. "the petroleum companies already have the tanks and the pumps and stuff" is some pretty weak tea. The roads and bridges are already in place, that's the expensive part. EVs can be programmed to charge whenever grid load is low (some have only a simple timer interface, but even that would completely solve the 'come home at dinnertime and plug in' problem). Utilities could, and in fact do, discount electricity pricing conditional on their control of the load. Possibly that is part of the reason that Tesla is installing large batteries at Supercharger sites. If this technology solves the storage density problem, and doesn't need anything terribly special to recharge the fluid other than available electricity, then it's the solution for our current EV range problem.
Currently here in the uk my car was charged by this mix 36.0% wind, 22.2% nuclear, 19.5 Gas, Solar 5.8%, bio 5.5%, the rest is mixed at 8:51 am. I happy I am trying to my bit, why is he wasting time on this to change public transport, home storage maybe! He’s looking in the wrong place!
This marketing pitch gets my vote for most batshit TEDx Talks talk. Replacing one form of commodity energy with another will kill billions to preserve billions in profits for energy industry corporations. Solar is trending towards zero cost and is solid state, few moving parts, little maintenance, existing grid. Battery storage is trending below $100/kWh and production methods are improving total pollution and carbon footprint, using abundant materials. Go ahead and get R&D dollars from oil companies so they own the patents and lock the technology away so it's theirs to license for future revenue. This technology does not explain "cradle to grave" pollution or carbon footprint, recycling, hazards, handling ... all the things that have been improving in battery chemistry for decades and solar generation is decentralized. The problem of pollution is not solved by replacing one form of energy transportation with another -- and electric energy generation requires the grid, which already exists -- so the argumentation and rationalizations for this being a solution are intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.
In all things the preservation of billions in profits will be the determining factor. A zero emission gasoline would only be a solution if it could be done at costs comparable the cost of current drilling, lobbying, etc. Or a greater profit could be achieved.
@@OneAccord1 right, well, sad but true I'm ready to start sending corrupt politicians and "pollution industry" corporate executives to prison ... they're trying to kill people for money ... that's a pretty well recognized crime.
The subject here is electrifying transportation and the simplest way of charging currently available to EV's is to plug in anywhere that has an available socket, no transport required. What is being discussed requires a whole new infrastructure, so has little chance of going anywhere. He also brought up the rubbish that all the extra electricity needed will come from coal, renewable generation backed up by the flow cell batteries (that he does get right) is already way cheaper than coal and will be delivered using the currently available grid.
Restructure the current sewage system to retrofit a new energy resource system and, each and every house, when fitted with graphene capacitors can converge enough energy to power the entire world, with renewable energy
If you look up the tube cells by stephane fyfe you will find that i shared publicly all the same stament 4years ago to this day. And these guy want to patent it. Its free for anyone to do. Nano tube and all thAt and more... You forgot the lazers...
There are several Redox in Autrailia and i forgot the other but it uses rust and salt water these workk and are in use but this guy got a government grant so not likely (statisticly to see anything) but a webpage and there is one with NO products.
Graphene plus Tesla's remote energy system, plus solar, wind and wastewater energy equals free, renewable energy..... equals, ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT!!!!
The last 18 years the temperature has stop augmented. The CO2 is not related the temperature, while the vapor water is also a greenhouse gaz 1000 time present than the CO2 associated to our created (70 ppm = .007%).
No detailed statistics about the capabilities of this fluid and how it compares to other battery technologies. Most of the talk is about anything but the title of the video. And it seems so backwards to transport this magical fluid the same way we do gasoline. Nikola Tesla’s innovations that are over 100 years old called for wireless transmission of energy - way way ahead of our time. And surely being able to harness and store off-the-grid power of the sun, wherever you are, can’t be beat by some archaic dependency on a liquid transport system. And by definition of physics, a solid is the most stable form of matter. This is the most nonsensical TED talk I’ve seen so far.
Your only RUclips subs are Wesley wuppets and cutie kids so maybe let us adults brainstorm world changing ideas while you get a diaper change because you are full of poop
This is not the only one battery technology which perished before hitting the masses . Reason : The lithium-ion investors pressed it to perish coz it threatens there standings and wealth.
Hey look guys! we got gas just different. now all the pricing and infrastructure is already in place. all we have to do is change the fluid in the tank of the gas station.the real format change he is talking about. with the least amount of true change for the mega corps. I love how it is sold as convenience for the consumers and not the corporations, when he corporations are responsible for putting us all in this catch 22 situation in the first place. I thought the whole point of a new energy was to get out from under the foot of these mega corporations. now these guys have found a way to keep these bastards in power. I'll bet they were curious! One oil exec says to a scientist. We will support electric vehicles when you can get electricity out of oil. and the scientist says I'll just change electricity into a fluid. and you get this crap. Seems like only one party in the whole equation is being pitched to and it's not us little people. look into the hydro torch, it burns water. If you can burn water you can run a car on it. all problems solved. and before you bring up water shortages it works best with salt water.
Most of the oil worldwide is produced by state oil companies, not the evil corporations. You can't burn water, you have to separate it into hydrogen and Oxygen which takes more energy than what is released upon recombination.
Scott Stangler You are absolutely right on! Those already powerful fuel-companies would absolutely love to take advantage of this opportunity to customize their mega-wealth-generating model onto a similar format of what they know best, which would keep them in the same game of making all the money in the world that they are able to.
tarstarkusz You are right about the difficulty of using water as a power-source, it definitely takes much more power to convert water molecules into a practical power-source.
And I've seen hydrogen made with a 9v battery and two pieces of copper tube and some wire. But there is a man that has figured how to burn water. I'll see if I can find it and I will post it here.
This guy has some cool ideas! Flow battery! I like it. This guy is on the right path. But first, No, we don't all KNOW that CO2 causes any climate change. Bad presumption. CO2 helps plants grow. We should pay to convert it.... Fourier (inventor of heat equations and the math for Fourier analysis) said in 1820 that CO2 was not an issue and he was right.... Paying more? How about a lot more. Electricity is 15 cent/kw-hr or $5/gallon equiv. Tesla battery is 300 lbs/gallon equiv of energy vs 6 lbs/gallon gasoline. It is also 22 times move volume per energy (kw-hr/gallon volume). An electric car is 3 times better than an Otto cycle plug to wheel vs pump to wheel. That means the weight /mile is 100/6 or 16.6 times more. 3.66 times volume/mile. Not good.
Blaaah..... Why make it complicated with all these techno nano babble. You can turn water into fuel with a simple electrolysis and store energy that way. It's easy, cheap,super abundant, and it works.
Granted it would take a bit for the system to pay for itself but, the return on investment would be astronomical for both the economy AND for human survival!!!!
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
It's amazing and practical one. It's exciting technology , will be waiting for this.
This was one of my good suggestions several years ago. Glad to see someone is finally perfecting it. In my concept, the nanofluid is exposed to light using special ceramic roofing tiles.
id be interested in the difference in energy density also energy loss over time
How is it possible to ascertain orientation from voice?
There must be a chemical reaction when the electrolyte hits the tonsils or something?
I've been speaking of this for thirty years now. Glad to see someone taking action on the suggestion. The concept is potentially much better than current methods.
Why haven't I heard of this guy till now? I can't remember, did he say that the storage capacity of this fluidic battery rivals gasoline?
This guy better get this thing started. This way America doesn't have to go to war for oil.
i _truly_ like the idea of using nanofluids for energy storage-but _not_ because of "Global Warming" (because i don't believe the climate is _nearly_ as sensitive to CO2 as the "experts" say that it is. and that actually makes sense when you realize that CO2 makes up barely .04% of the atmosphere itself-only 3% of which can be attributed to human activity). instead, i want it to succeed because of _all_ the new technologies and scientific advancements that are sure to follow.
It markets future development. But what about aimed for performance figures, and Chemical formulas to avoid safety issues and explosiveness of normal formulas exposed to shock and water?
If all our vehicles are switched to electricity we won't consume twice the electricity we consume now. The efficiency of ICE is about 35% against 80% with electric motors (including the losses due to battery charging). This reduces the additional need to less than 30% of the electricity we consume now. Knowing that most of this additional need is consumed at night and can be supplied because at night the demand is low, we only need to increase the electricity generation capacity by about 5 to 15%.
But the question here is not to say wether nano fluids are better or not. It's just another solution worth to explore !
Its like this guy works for the gas industry. Lists all the problems without really giving proper solutions (of which there are many). The problem theory is already solved, we just need to DO it. Liquid batteries and transporting the liquid is not necessary. He wants to be able to control the flow of fluid (literally), and who will do it but the energy companies themselves? This will keep you locked into their web so they can price it as they see fit. This dude is crazy. The future is LOCAL renewable energy production and storage so the grid doesn't have to be build out and stressed even more.
Interesting... We need to keep an open mind on exploratory research.
Thee are no easy solutions.
Efficiency and costs are the determining factors
when we finally take the threat in the near future seriously, efficiency, costs and capitalism will cease to be a part of the equation. Social cooperation is the only savior available at this point and politics is unfortunately going in the opposite direction making the threat awaiting us most likely.... we either wake up or die with ideas galore floating in the ether.... we need a revolution.
Nick you state a simple truth that should be obvious
When can we we look at products and see for our selves to see if it's feesable to purchase?
What company or companies are currently testing this? I wouldn't mind looking into investing in this.
This is years old. You charge at night and wake up to a charged car. Liquids are bulky and heavy.
Why does Katsoudas never compare the energy density of the Nano battery to car Li cells? He admits that flow tanks are huge, so losing the trunk is a big problem in cars. Also, cars often crash. We don't want cars spewing dangerous electrically charged fluid that is likely toxic and flammable. Why does he not speak of any of these? He is far from "fair and balanced." His speech seems to be propping up the dying petroleum industry. We need a new speaker, who can honestly address these problems!
Jim Whitehead, um not it’s not flammable the current b
Flow batteries have a liquid used for putting out fires, there none flammable, and its natural. It’s used for home storage in Australian homes it’s what I want here in the UK, but there not yet exporting! But my partner and I both have electric cars and manage our time to suit, that will change in time, there is no excuse other than being lazy! ...not sure if his nano tech is flammable though! Lol
When you compare stuff you limiting youreself from understanding the true discovery and implication on all sciences.... Each device has it purpose lithium also....for a fiew more months max..super caps and my system deliver more power than lithium.
The ferrofluid he refers to is a traditional ferrofluid an petroleum based (kerosene) product infused with nano magnetized iron, which loses it charge after a while, which also demonstrates how primitive and frivolous the R&D, the concept, and development truly is... 🤷♂️ (see stand alone comment for something actually thought through a bit.)
@@showme360 The energy density of redux batteries is lower than li-ion, but Will be relevant if refueling is fast.
Bruh he got the earpiece and his cards with him we sure he’s a scientist.
The petroleum industry transports fuel in one direction. A re-chargeable fluid is re-used and therefore the model changes. If a bio-safe disposable liquid can be created, then the petroleum one-way transportation model can be preserved and the market disruption is lowered further, possibly to the point of business acceptance.
A permanent magnet is a permanent source of energy a permanent source of electricity. An Edison generator uses the magnets to move the coils of copper wire through the magnetic field. Tesla bound this generator.
Using a 220 line with a 20amp breaker assuming a 100% charge efficiency (and DC conversion) means in 60 times the 3 minute refill, 13.2kWH can be put in a battery. Of course, the faster you charge or discharge a battery, the fewer cycles it will last and the more energy it takes to charge the battery AND the less energy you can get out of the battery.
137% increase burning coal... but what over all decrease is there by eliminating the need to transport and store and maintain all those tanker trucks and gas stations. I'm sure far more than 37%
Seems like a smart enough guy. I wonder how he completely missed that the Chevy Volt is a car that would handle all of his electric car objections.
Didn't hear much about his new battery technology but plenty of justifications for fossil fuel! Things have changed a lot since December 2016. Electric cars and solar generation are the future. Why can't people just get used to it?
Goodness.. he is trying to reinvent the flow battery, which already exists... and can be used for neighborhood power storage.. just doesn't scale down to the car level. Current versions have storage box sized "pools"--- not shipping container type size. Liquid Metal is another form of that storage.. and it is high temp, but totally reasonable for storage. (Charge a frozen battery, and it gets back to liquid...)--- About as efficient as the utility sized stored systems. When it comes to CO2...that is Plant Food. Shrink what we have now by 1/2??? ALL plant life dies. You can follow the bouncing ball to see where that leads. All life ends.
Odd that the petro industry is said to be "dying" -- since the available oil appears to be not decreasing at this point. (The US is now an exporter again.) The big problem with electric cars and trucks? Surge loads that will require a huge flow of energy. That means a recharge center out on the interstate would draw the same power as needed by a small to medium sized city. 20-30 trucks and 40-60 cars getting a fast charge of a few hundred amps? Going to need a big substation to provide that power, or a bunch of acres of solar. (50+ acres?) And of course batteries to back that up since people actually drive at night. OR you need a bunch of additional coal plants.... Or you turn off a few small cities to recharge. Not a real positive direction to go in, so to speak. Then start counting trucks at truck stops, and figure those figures are a few times lower than reality. There is a LOT of energy in oil... Replacing it in a mobile environment continent wide will be VERY difficult.
In Other Words lowering the vibrational area the heat is forced to lower temp 'It could could hold or repel using sound to concentrate vain's latis to hexiloidal controlling your placement too the target any where the surface has a state of conductive or a re carg of a one one thousand thats itand lasted for two days tile dim Graphene
Just saying if you spill the electrified fluid and you step on a puddle, will you be electrocuted?
what happens if the 2 oppositely charged nano-fluids accidentally came into contact? if it's bad enough, this could be enough to scare people away. but considering how combustible gasoline is and how prevalent it is in society, the safeguards in place have made it incredibly safe to produce, transport, and use gasoline. hopefully, the same holds true in this scenario too.
however, when it comes to _charging_ those fluids, solar and wind energy are not great choices. in the production of solar cells, the heavy metals and toxic chemicals can be devastating to the environment, and windmills are much better. if CO2 _is_ the problem, nuclear energy-including standard nuclear power plants already in use and potential Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors-is the _obvious_ solution. nuclear is not only the cleanest option, it's also the safest and most cost-effective and feasible to implement as well, and that _includes_ WIND AND SOLAR POWER (which are a waste of time, money, and resources and end up being much more hazardous and toxic to human life and the environment)!
instead of gasoline as the liquid, what fluid would this nanofluid be made of, water? Salt water?
I like whwhere you're going with the gasoline metaphor!
What about diesel, heating oil and aviation fuel? Most of the oil produced worldwide is produced by state oil companies. It's not the oil corporations you have to worry about.
Bateries will charge overnight while everyone is sleeping the smart meter technology for variable electricity prices already exists at is being deployed it is not a massive change to the infrastructure it deployed home by home when people install solar panels. As the prices of solar panels and bateries continue to come down the price of solar plus storage will become cheaper than grid electricity within a few years.
What you are describing is basically a fuel cell. Fuel cells will probably be the future for vehicles, but will need to use something more storable then hydrogen or methane. The 'nano liquid' sounds expensive. Propane or alcohols would be cheaper, and easier to synthesize.
WhAt yOuRe BasiCaLLy DesCrIbiNg iS a FuEl cELl!!
Another year, vanadium flow batteries will start showing up in the market and will be an option for home energy storage.
Liquids are heavy 1 ton per m3 and not so efficient to transport unless in trucks or trains.
Might be good for charging stations or grid storage.
Just out of curiosity: What happens when this gets spilled in a river, on the ground on a beach? Electrified birds, rusty otters? What exactly would happen? Is there any draw back?
Yes, it's not easy to make it and this itself would be a 1st drawback.
I’m sorry but I didn’t make it to the end of his talk. I’ve concluded that nano fluid is from the lemons (lemon battery). How many lemons will it take to run an EV?
Quick somebody get Elon Musk.
He's probably not the audience cause it would be pretty obvious - by the laughter - when it was mentioned that 'statistically nobody present was likely to own an electric car' :)
He's already seen mine, what hope does this lunatic have!?? 🙄🥴
how long could such an electrified nano-fluid hold its charge? that's the problem w/ current battery technology-they can only store so much energy before they begin to dissipate. from what i've heard, even the newest and most high-tech electricity grids can only store enough energy in batteries to supply enough electricity to power their customers for about 23 seconds. that said, if issues like that can be solved, it sounds like a clean, low-cost option to gasoline.
This may be a better tech than solid lithium, but first to market and efficiency of scale means lithium will still be best bet for many years.
Several questionable points here. The suggestion that burning coal causes more CO2 than gas is misleading as coal fired plants are more efficient than gasoline powered car engines. This reference also completely leaves out the fact that many plan to transition primary power generation from coal to alternative energy. Another suggestion that the speaker makes is that any new charging system must match the convenience of filling your tank in five minutes at the pump. This is totally irrelevant when you can charge your car overnight while you sleep. Chargers for long distance trips that can take about 1/2 hr are available but by and large most driving is done within a range that is easily addressed with overnight charging. Transporting battery liquid and moving it through pipes and pumps keeps in place many of the problematic issues of gasoline based power.
What does a nonofuel spill look like?
Three independent loops of copper around earth could produce sufficient voltage to sustain humanity without burning additional fuel (NASA TSS1 '96). SpaceX is currently on route to send rockets to Mars. During those times, the process to electrify earth with man-made rings could begin simultaneously.
lugo lugo Please provide sources of 'copper loops'. I don't see the connection with the NASA TSS-1 satellite.
Harm Hoeks watch "Shell 1991" I'm sure it will explain everything.
Why can't we use the common lead acid battery for this?
Most lead (70% ish) comes from recycled lead acid batteries. Some solar systems use lead-acid batteries to store electricity overnight, but there isn't nearly enough mineable lead, on Earth, to build enough batteries, and they're finicky and fragile. And lead-acid batteries can't be used to transport energy in the way he described.
I think this technology could have other applications, such as long term energy storage, but I think the small vehicle applications are uneconomic and unlikely. "the petroleum companies already have the tanks and the pumps and stuff" is some pretty weak tea. The roads and bridges are already in place, that's the expensive part. EVs can be programmed to charge whenever grid load is low (some have only a simple timer interface, but even that would completely solve the 'come home at dinnertime and plug in' problem). Utilities could, and in fact do, discount electricity pricing conditional on their control of the load. Possibly that is part of the reason that Tesla is installing large batteries at Supercharger sites. If this technology solves the storage density problem, and doesn't need anything terribly special to recharge the fluid other than available electricity, then it's the solution for our current EV range problem.
Currently here in the uk my car was charged by this mix 36.0% wind, 22.2% nuclear, 19.5 Gas, Solar 5.8%, bio 5.5%, the rest is mixed at 8:51 am. I happy I am trying to my bit, why is he wasting time on this to change public transport, home storage maybe! He’s looking in the wrong place!
Battery component is graphene wrapped with copper
Wow! This discovery will change everything. Way to go!
This marketing pitch gets my vote for most batshit TEDx Talks talk.
Replacing one form of commodity energy with another will kill billions to preserve billions in profits for energy industry corporations.
Solar is trending towards zero cost and is solid state, few moving parts, little maintenance, existing grid.
Battery storage is trending below $100/kWh and production methods are improving total pollution and carbon footprint, using abundant materials.
Go ahead and get R&D dollars from oil companies so they own the patents and lock the technology away so it's theirs to license for future revenue.
This technology does not explain "cradle to grave" pollution or carbon footprint, recycling, hazards, handling ... all the things that have been improving in battery chemistry for decades and solar generation is decentralized.
The problem of pollution is not solved by replacing one form of energy transportation with another -- and electric energy generation requires the grid, which already exists -- so the argumentation and rationalizations for this being a solution are intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.
In all things the preservation of billions in profits will be the determining factor.
A zero emission gasoline would only be a solution if it could be done at costs comparable the cost of current drilling, lobbying, etc.
Or a greater profit could be achieved.
@@OneAccord1 right, well, sad but true
I'm ready to start sending corrupt politicians and "pollution industry" corporate executives to prison ... they're trying to kill people for money ... that's a pretty well recognized crime.
Mr clean here is all talk nothing will ever happen!!!!!!
Sorry complete rubbish anything that requires transport from A to B by anything other than a wire has no chance of beating current systems.
Edwyn Corteen think about head phones how often do you break those wires you can't break a fluid only that which contains it
The subject here is electrifying transportation and the simplest way of charging currently available to EV's is to plug in anywhere that has an available socket, no transport required.
What is being discussed requires a whole new infrastructure, so has little chance of going anywhere. He also brought up the rubbish that all the extra electricity needed will come from coal, renewable generation backed up by the flow cell batteries (that he does get right) is already way cheaper than coal and will be delivered using the currently available grid.
Restructure the current sewage system to retrofit a new energy resource system and, each and every house, when fitted with graphene capacitors can converge enough energy to power the entire world, with renewable energy
Brilliant idea
Because it is renewable and constant
If you look up the tube cells by stephane fyfe you will find that i shared publicly all the same stament 4years ago to this day. And these guy want to patent it. Its free for anyone to do. Nano tube and all thAt and more... You forgot the lazers...
Its 2018 and dont see any liquid battery, what happened??
There are several Redox in Autrailia and i forgot the other but it uses rust and salt water these workk and are in use but this guy got a government grant so not likely (statisticly to see anything) but a webpage and there is one with NO products.
Next phase energy system
FOR EXCESS ELECTRICITY RUN 350 MW DYNAMOS IN A CASCADE
How toxic would this substance be to the body or the environment?
Graphene plus Tesla's remote energy system, plus solar, wind and wastewater energy equals free, renewable energy..... equals, ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT!!!!
The last 18 years the temperature has stop augmented. The CO2 is not related the temperature, while the vapor water is also a greenhouse gaz 1000 time present than the CO2 associated to our created (70 ppm = .007%).
It already does!!! The liquid is wastewater!!!!!
AN ELECTRIC GRID HIGH CAPACITY FLOW LINE OR JUNCTION
Aggregate footprint versus time.
I just here eatching my dog spew CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere. We're all going to die.
No detailed statistics about the capabilities of this fluid and how it compares to other battery technologies. Most of the talk is about anything but the title of the video. And it seems so backwards to transport this magical fluid the same way we do gasoline. Nikola Tesla’s innovations that are over 100 years old called for wireless transmission of energy - way way ahead of our time. And surely being able to harness and store off-the-grid power of the sun, wherever you are, can’t be beat by some archaic dependency on a liquid transport system.
And by definition of physics, a solid is the most stable form of matter. This is the most nonsensical TED talk I’ve seen so far.
Your only RUclips subs are Wesley wuppets and cutie kids so maybe let us adults brainstorm world changing ideas while you get a diaper change because you are full of poop
@@colonel_popcorn your tone and choice of words reminds me of that awkward kid trying to fit in the playground by assaulting the minority .
Until we destroy ourselves
Okay, maybe far fetched on the last part
Please show a prototype of this fluid! (not in pieces, and become a billionaire in the process)
Dialysis for cars.
This video was 4 years ago where is the liquid battery today nowhere all you hear about is lithium where's this technology hello
This is not the only one battery technology which perished before hitting the masses .
Reason : The lithium-ion investors pressed it to perish coz it threatens there standings and wealth.
Tesla code being cracked by a Gerald .... RF and magnets zero point .. every home has its own Power plant ..
Also about grid. You don't need coal there is natural gas. So an argument- REEE ELECTRIC CARS WILL DOWN THE GRID is invalid
Hey look guys! we got gas just different. now all the pricing and infrastructure is already in place. all we have to do is change the fluid in the tank of the gas station.the real format change he is talking about. with the least amount of true change for the mega corps. I love how it is sold as convenience for the consumers and not the corporations, when he corporations are responsible for putting us all in this catch 22 situation in the first place. I thought the whole point of a new energy was to get out from under the foot of these mega corporations. now these guys have found a way to keep these bastards in power. I'll bet they were curious! One oil exec says to a scientist. We will support electric vehicles when you can get electricity out of oil. and the scientist says I'll just change electricity into a fluid. and you get this crap. Seems like only one party in the whole equation is being pitched to and it's not us little people. look into the hydro torch, it burns water. If you can burn water you can run a car on it. all problems solved. and before you bring up water shortages it works best with salt water.
Most of the oil worldwide is produced by state oil companies, not the evil corporations. You can't burn water, you have to separate it into hydrogen and Oxygen which takes more energy than what is released upon recombination.
Scott Stangler You are absolutely right on! Those already powerful fuel-companies would absolutely love to take advantage of this opportunity to customize their mega-wealth-generating model onto a similar format of what they know best, which would keep them in the same game of making all the money in the world that they are able to.
tarstarkusz You are right about the difficulty of using water as a power-source, it definitely takes much more power to convert water molecules into a practical power-source.
Sorry but I disagree. If you can have it in your garage it is feasible
gessweincanada.com
And I've seen hydrogen made with a 9v battery and two pieces of copper tube and some wire. But there is a man that has figured how to burn water. I'll see if I can find it and I will post it here.
cannot be underESTIMATED
This guy has some cool ideas! Flow battery! I like it. This guy is on the right path.
But first, No, we don't all KNOW that CO2 causes any climate change. Bad presumption. CO2 helps plants grow. We should pay to convert it.... Fourier (inventor of heat equations and the math for Fourier analysis) said in 1820 that CO2 was not an issue and he was right....
Paying more? How about a lot more. Electricity is 15 cent/kw-hr or $5/gallon equiv. Tesla battery is 300 lbs/gallon equiv of energy vs 6 lbs/gallon gasoline. It is also 22 times move volume per energy (kw-hr/gallon volume). An electric car is 3 times better than an Otto cycle plug to wheel vs pump to wheel. That means the weight /mile is 100/6 or 16.6 times more. 3.66 times volume/mile. Not good.
And, the liquid you're talking about is WASTEWATER!
Graphene Tesla Solar battery
El-Choctaw-lord-De-CalifasMexicoAztlan Antz-that-walks-in-sky iAnTz Cali
I will charge my fuel tank liquid on board the vehicle. dont want to visit fluid station.
Wisconsin accent?
Yay! Start the video with the climate change trick.
Stefan Reich scam, Stefan, scam.
The world is short on CO2. Anthropological global warming is not in evidence. This guy makes claims that not provable.
a battery gasoline
superBoring guy
Blaaah..... Why make it complicated with all these techno nano babble. You can turn water into fuel with a simple electrolysis and store energy that way. It's easy, cheap,super abundant, and it works.
he s talking more about knowledge from the book than talking about his Nano Liquid Batteries, boring
Granted it would take a bit for the system to pay for itself but, the return on investment would be astronomical for both the economy AND for human survival!!!!
His speech seems to be propping up the dying petroleum industry.