California's Renewable Energy Problem
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 май 2019
- Be one of the first 500 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/realengineering/
New vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Subreddit:
/ realengineering
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ fiosracht
Discord:
/ discord
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
References:
[1] endcoal.org/wp-content/upload...
[2]
www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/... (verified with own calculation)
[3]web.archive.org/web/200407020...
[4]pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/11/0...
[5] www.ge.com/power/transform/ar...
www.greentechmedia.com/articl...
[6] www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pa...
[7] reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-...
[8]www.caiso.com/Documents/Wind_S...
[9] www.caiso.com/Documents/Wind_S...
[10] www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/ele...
[11] arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/defau...
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Songs:
Unfinished Story - Kikoru
Strange Tech 11 - Gunnar Johnsen
I See Blue - Dye O
Timetable 20 - Gunnar Johnsen
Quietly Tense 1 - Gunnar Johnsen
A Trip To The Moon - Aiolos Rue
Scripts Untold - Magnus Ringblom
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ken Coltan, Andrew McCorkell, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Devin Rathbun, Thomas Barth, Paulo Toyosi Toda Nishimura 
Наука
So I have some big news. I have joined forces with Wendover Productions, CGP Grey, Kurzgesagt and many more EDU friends to start our own video streaming platform. www.watchnebula.com. We currently have some original content from Isaac Arthur, Polyphonic and Real Life Lore/Second Thought online. I will be adding my own Nebula Original series in the next month or two. This platform was created to remove the creative shackles that the algorithm places on creators. I want to be able to make more military content without worry of demonetisation. I want to experiment with new ideas without worry about my views being affected. This platform is going to allow me to make more content for you!
Sounds GREAT! 👍🏻
sign me up
You completely ignored rooftop solar and home batteries.
Great decision! Looking forward to more military stuff!
@@riparianlife97701 1:40 Here he briefly mentioned solar power. Actually solar only become relevant as it's implemented in a concise way with well planned installation. Rooftop is very irregular because not all the house or building have the same height or have a good orientation toward the Sun for peak energy capture. As explained by the video one way to offset peak demand is that each household can storage enough energy to satisfy their own demand by way of a battery storage that charge when the grid is off the peek demand and electricity is easier to generate and kick off when the grid is saturated.
Instead of curtailing overproduction, they should desalinate seawater with the excess. Fresh water IS something California needs more of.
This is actually a great idea.
This does seem like a good idea and they could always sell the excess fresh water
And you’re going to add a huge cost, probably even worse than batteries.
@@kokofan50 Why not use hydrogen
Use electricity to separate H20 into H2 and O2
Store the energy in Hydrogen...
Batteries gone
azmanabdula, because it’s a terrible idea. Hydrogen is a nuisance to store and if even less efficient at storing energy than batteries. Real Engineering even has a video about the problems.
California: ‘Let’s go carbon-free!’
Also California: ‘Let’s close down a carbon-free plant which supplies 15% of our power.’
Try to explain nuclear physics to gluten-free vegans.
California: Let's build an electric high speed rail to provide green public Transportation statewide!
Also California: we're gonna build it from Bakersfield to Merced
Ya as a citizen of the state this upsets me...
Germany: let's go carbon free
also Germany: shuts down nuclear energy plants
also Germany: without nuclear energy, we can't rely purely on renewable energy. We need to further use coal and oil
Cali is strange, no doubt about it, but often 15-20+ years later what they do is followed up by midwestern america. We probably would not have the mass of electric cars we have now if it weren't for their governor back in the 80s mandating 2% be non petrol vehicles.
As a California native I can confirm California’s suppositions of energy reliance is based of magical thinking and NIMBY
They should come and ask u. Yes this qualifies u to be an authority.
100%
Just like solar water heating panels on my roof in Orlando, FL Solar electric panels HEAT the area over these panels as much as 10 F!! I did this experiment on July 15th, 2008, with thermometers mounted 5 feet above on my boat roof with no panels next to my home roof with both solar water heaters and solar electric panels. I see solar panels as causing global warming??? LOL By the way, I switched thermometers and the results were the same the next day!
@@brucesteger2699 wow.... you switched thermometers, want a goddamn medal? So amaze, lol boomers these days getting more decrepit every day
@Ramen Lover I figured out what I saved with the solar electric panels and the cost to buy them/install them/maintain them (the electrical wire connections corroded often with weather/high temps/sun deteriorating the plastic covering) that I did do better than break even but not by much! I bought the the highest output what was at the time most reliable solar panels 1,200 sq ft total. . I found it to be a project that would result in bigger savings and was greatly disappointed. The pool solar heater was a great success though.
When you say “renewables” you are really talking about wind and solar. Geothermal and hydro don’t suffer from the battery dilemma.
Geothermal kind of does, in the sense that you want to generate the power now and use it later - you won't overload if you just shut it off now, but you'll need to store it for later somehow.
The problem doesn't exist for hydro though, because hydro _is_ a battery.
Neither does biomass
Dont forget Nuclear! Although it is technically nonrenewable, it has virtually 0 emissions.
@@xavier1964 The Sun will have engulfed the Earth by the time we run out of fissile material IF we reprocess spent fuel.
@rafael Perez Just FYI, more radiation has been released by fossil plants than has ever been released by nuclear power (barring the Soviet f-ck up that was Chernobyl.) And the environmental impact of nuclear waste is far less than the environmental impact of fly ash and other combustion byproducts. Fossil plants release their waste while nukes contain it.
Obviously the answer here is to dedicate 45% of our population to running on tread mills to produce energy.
You summed up environmentalism.
They better start training rickshaw operators for when AOC plan to wreck the trucking industry, petroleum industry, have massive unemployment, with her "no fossil fuel" plan she conceived while in the lunatic asylum with Greta. The highways will be jammed with rickshaws headed to Walmart with consumer goods instead of 18 wheel trucks.
Plenty of the population is stupid enough to make this an almost efficient idea... Especially in the US with its horribly broken education system...
That’s hidden on page 2,997 in the new UNAgenda 2030.
Just the overly obese murricans
2:30 Storage cannot be in MW - Power unit. Storage/energy unis can be in MWh.
Maybe the output of the storage?
This
I swear all engineers I’ve met can’t understand the difference between the two. It makes me crazy
Yeah I'm annoyed that slipped through. The rest of the script has the correct terminology and I calculated most of the figures myself, so I clearly understand the difference.....I'm just a dumbass sometimes when writing quickly.
@@thestudentofficial5483 but then say power, he was saying energy, still wrong nevertheless
Protest signs made from Hydrocarbons make me laugh.
Yes! Gotta appreciate the quick wit.
I love a deep dive into pumped hydro's ability to be that battery that's required to add more renewables to the grid.
Yes, but he has a video where he discusses liquid-air batteries, not sure of the efficiency comparisons but they aren't limited to large river systems.
Was actually a proposal related to California's biggest source of hydro, Hoover dam.
Idea was to use excess electricity generated to pump downstream water back upstream behind the dam.
Turned out, the proposal is fundamentally flawed.
You should be able to find various RUclips videos and Internet articles on this proposal if you want.
They have not built any HPSPPs in the US since Duke completed Bad Creek in the early 90's. Georgia Power completed their pumped storage project in the 90's, These facilities cost billions and are difficult to permit. Finding financing is nearly impossible since payback requires decades, and the market is uncertain. I worked in Hydro Pumped Storage for 28 years, and the future is in batteries. Hydro pumped storage plants were built to absorb excess generation from nuclear power plants. Only way that the economics made sense, free electricity to pump all night.
5 Billion to build a battery that will last maybe a decade, or 15 billion for a nuclear power plant that produces 5 times the energy every hour than what that battery can store, and will produce that for the next 60 years. Yeah not absurd at all....
Nailed it
I wonder if California has any reasons it is uncomfortable with a sizeable increase in nuclear power, maybe some kind of fault line that goes through the state.
Nah, everyone knows that earthquakes have never been a problem in California or nuclear power.
@@isnochaos Just as you can make a building earthquake resistant, you can do the same for a nuclear power plant. Lots of increases in technology in the field recently. I wouldn't expect any building from the 60's, 70's or 80's to be earth quake resistant, so why expect power plants to be? They need to focus on retrofitting and building new plants with new structure standards.
Yeah energy wise nuclear is the best.. The only bad part about nuclear is the worst case scenarios.. If shit hits the fan one day, things can get very nasty. It makes since for desolate places, but for California and their huge population and bad fault lines... It might be best to avoid
The stupid thing is making those batteries out of lithium ion. Salt water batteries exist. Sure, they're not often used because they're not as compact, but you don't need a high density, lightweight battery if it isn't. Going anywhere. Just shove several floors of saltwater batteries underground and call it a day.
California's goal for 2050 will be greatly assisted by the fact that, by that time, most people will have moved to other states.
California will be net zero by 2050 but bankrupt and abandoned by 2035
Thanks to the wildfires and record heat waves obviously not caused by humans
Haha so true !
@@kevinng3563 maybe all the solar panels absorbing all that sun is heating up california 🤔
And they will turn those states blue, lmao you all are toast
What are they going to do in 20 to 30 years when millions of solar panels reach their end of life? Replace them at consumers cost?
Abandon the entire project due to excessive costs? What about the recycling of the panels? Curently there is not one company or program to address this problem. And it WILL be a problem, a really big one. Good luck California.
Watch the jealous dumb trumpers come out to play
just more blackouts
@@m2heavyindustries378 Love how an insult is your only reply. Real convincing argument you got there.
@@m2heavyindustries378 look enviromentalist here
A nuke plant will take 60 years to decommission. What about car tires? their is no absolute panacea just the least dirty shirt. Time will tell about the solar panels. And the panels pay for themselves in a few years. Good luck with your energy bills.
A note about 12:48: you can't just move the solar graph up, the variation size would also increase.
True. And assuming wind will always normalize each point is a dangerous assumption. Both these points are probably well outside the scope of this video, but is anyone actually crunching the numbers or is California just going to blunder it's way to greenness?
@@duckbilldaniel yup, where I live both wind and solar are usually at their minimum at peak load.
Not necessarily. If you spread out the solar installations across different locations you may expect less variation from less impact by local weather patterns.
I am ashamed I didn't notice this
@@easonchan3308 correct in theory, but I believe you would need a much larger area than California for that.
Everyone is here being productive and critiquing your work. I'm still just laughing at "kill me now.pdf 23"
you saw it first, ladies and gentlemen, Real engineering's silent cry for help: "kill me now.xls"
I found it kind of worrying, suicide isn't a joking matter. Some people have real problems in their life and need help of those around them, so turning it in to a joke could make people not want to come forward for support for fear of being laughed at. Sorry to be a downer on the topic.
@@Elesario Get fucked. Virtue signaling is yesteryear.
@@ElesarioGet a grip, brother. Yes, people have problems. However, there's a difference between a cry for help and a snarko-cynical wisecrack made in a youtube video. We all appreciate your vigilance. I want you to know that I'm here if there's anything you need to talk about and that is not a hollow youtube comment.
@@Elesario By the way, stating the obvious is not a virtue.
What you miss is that you do not scale your system for just any January but instead for a historically cold one. Otherwise you will have problems in a 1 in 50 Winter
Excellent video! Small Modular Reactors, including Molten Salt Reactors, can provide reliable and safe and cost effective energy with minimal long term waste. Nuclear waste always comes up as a criticism, but MSR reactors produce only a small fraction compared to traditional Pressurized Water Reactors. Almost nobody is talking about the rare resources required to make efficient solar panels or wind turbine motors. Where do they come from? What happens when those resources are unavailable due to geopolitical or natural disasters? Then there is the decrease in efficiency of solar panels over time and the waste stream when they (and wind turbines and batteries) are at end of useful life. We do need wind and solar NOW, but also need to accelerate the research and development of SMR and MSR reactors NOW.
It would really be foolish to remove Nuclear entirely. It has been stagnating in innovation since the 70's. It needs improvements but it also needs investment for those improvements.
Yes read about molten salt reactors (a.k.a Thorium reactors). One is being built in China and should finsh in 2020
Renewable and Nuclear should be seen as allies, because we need both of them to stop climate change
@@huisbaasbob9844 We don't even need LIFTR. We already know how to make IFRs. IFR reactors, which the U.S. has run and used to create power but never on a mass scale thanks to regulation, are both melt-down proof, and produce 98% less waste, while using waste from light water reactors as fuel. There's already a solution for this. The government just needs to get out of the way: ruclips.net/video/Sp1Xja6HlIU/видео.html
some people forgot that chernobyl almost made europa and half asia toxicated
Yeah. Kurzgesagt did an episode of Nuclear energy iirc, where they mentioned that there are loads of better solutions to do nuclear (Like thorium) but investors want to see results rapidly, which is _seriously_ not how Atomic Science works.
Can you make a video talking about alternative energy storage methods besides batteries?
I am also suprised he didn't talk about this. I used to live next to a solar farm that used electrolysisto store energy in the form of hydrogen.
I'm for pumped hydro.
There are a few, pumped hydro, flywheels and I think a few others. I still think that lead acid may be better for long term storage but nothing is perfect.
@@crissd8283 yeah, in my home country we use it. Because if u just make it somewhere up high and unconnected to rivers, then the damage done to the environment wouldnt be that big, i guess
Surprised he didn't talk about pumped hydro, solves all the issues he mentioned, and is realistically the only way to have a 100% wind/solar grid.
Please don t turn on the lights at night, heat or air-conditioning or charge your car until further notice. Welcome to California.
There is one flaw in your assumptions which is that “battery” capacity needs to cover only one day of consumption. What if there are 2-3 or more of cloudy days?
Germany added more solar panels but the overall production of electricity from solar declined. They checked the weather and sure enough they had more cloudy days.
California sun is not guaranteed either.
he said he was being generous. it just shows how severe this problem actually is: even being super super generous and optimistic in his estimations, renewables are just too inconsistent and are incapable of fluctuating with demand - if we had cheap, long-term, large scale grid storage, that would almost entirely fix it
@@ovencake523 The answer is V2H. Problem solved. Next one please.
@@lesp315 please elaborate on V2H
@@ovencake523 V2H Vehicle to home energy. Tesla Model 3 has it already build in. You can power your home or supply power to the grid from a car.
@@lesp315 Great, so it's cloudy for a couple days and suddenly nobody can drive anywhere. There's no way that goes wrong at all.
Nuclear is a good measure for filling the gaps. And sure the waste is a problem, but letting that hold back what really is one of the best energy generation methods would be just dumb. Since it's a problem we can work around. Having a lot of the grid be renewable power sources is good and ideal. But we are simply stuck from a practical stand point when it comes to filling in the gaps. And if we have to go and use a non renewable method, nuclear is the best option.
The problem with nuclear: You get waste you have to take care of forever. These costs are so high, that everything else is much more cheaper.
@@stieeleon99 There's much better ways to do nuclear that are in development right now. They're currently hamstrung by regulation due to their designs being radically different from the types of reactors that the regulations were built around.
@@stieeleon99 Yeah true, it's expensive but their main goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Having just a few modern nuclear plants (which are safe) you could have them as backup for when renewables can't meet demand.
France receives about 75% of their energy from nuclear and use second generation reactors that can reuse nuclear waste and reduces the waste's lifespan to 200 years. The US doesn't follow these practices and instead processes our waste into unusable lumps of radioactive glass. If we could change our practices and public opinion about nuclear, it would solve the compounding problem of renewable.
@TerkToSpec i think by then we will have better solutions. If you realy think we are going to be using fission for thousands of years then you underestimate the speed that technology will progress. I know its a meme, "FuSiOn Is OnLy TwEnTy YeArS aWaY!" But im pretty confident that given a thousand years we will have a solution.
In Switzerland they use dams to store energy and when there is surplus they pump water up the dam making it a huge battery.
Yes use pumped hydro instead of curtailing that wasted solar
There are several pumped hydro-solutions in use in Missouri. You don’t need to go to Europe to come across energy solutions
@J G 😑😡
@@BlJkScTr which is even better, people have a hard time learning of good examples they think are foreign to 'their way of life'.
Google: do the math pump up storage. The short version is that there's not enough land for the world to follow this example. Not even close.
You should talk about progress in long-term power storage, such as using excess power to pump water to a higher elevated reservoir and then using a hydroelectric power as converting the water back into power.
It does not work. ruclips.net/video/aO5K2SjNsaI/видео.html
Great video and ironic that this is exactly related to the August 2020 Power outages that occurred in California
Fossil fuels 🔥 are solar energy chemical batteries 🔋
The British Company Moltex is building a nuclear plant (shock horror) in Canada which will burn the high level waste fuel from an old nuclear plant next door. It's zero CO2 with a very low waste profile.
The cost built on site is cheaper than a gas fired plant. When they go to factory modules it will be cheaper than coal - the cheapest (dirty) source there is. Moltex plants are cheap and safe because they have designed out the hazardous components which need expensive engineering to make them safe. They also use a thermal store to iron out the daily load fluctuations but that wont give months of energy storage.
Kill me now (15), Milk of poppy for the pain (5) 🧐 12:12
Came looking fir this comment. Hilarious file names
Poppies contains trace amounts of opioids, including heroin. Pain relief?
@@davidv.3865 thats the joke
My thoughts exactly sometimes.Tbesr light particles are intense.
@@davidv.3865 O I thought he was talking about a hamburger.
Great video explaining the supply and demand problem we have to solve with renewables. Smart grids will play a key role but so will micro grids and storing electrical energy in the batteries of our electric cars known as vehicle to Grid / House (V2G or V2H) as we do currently at our experimental facility at Helios Eco Lab. Always thinking of the 'Big' grid / national/global wide solution can sometimes obscure the opportunities of a multitude of small solutions. A multitude of small has the benefit of engaging the individual user and making them more aware of their consumption and how they can manage this consumption in a better way. This is the first time since the start of the industrial revolution that a multitude of decentralised energy 'Prosumers' (co producers and consumers) as opposed to mega centralised projects becomes viable.
Unicorn farts 🦄 ☁️ 🌤
This really is an awesome video. One of the best youtube creaters I know (or just the best!)!
Please do a video about nuclear energy and the major benefits it has over all other types of production!
Nuclear doesn't have nearly enough positive PR as it should. They're closing so many stations all over the world just because they are expensive. However I would argue that it is worth it given the fact that it is the safest, most reliable and best way of getting lots of clean energy that the world needs!
He should also look into waste storage methods to get the facts about that out too.
Save? Fukushima.
Clean? Radioactive waste.
@@NoName.was.taken. First of all, Japan shouldn't even have nuclear reactors in such an earthquake and tsunami ridden place (And they are getting rid of their's for that reason) and second of all, they killed more people by moving them and the panic they caused than the radiation actually did, (Look into the actual numbers of people that died in Fukoshima and what they died from).
And about the waste, there are modern plants that have very little waste, expensive ways of completely getting rid of it or just burying it under tons of concrete. The amount of waste that humanity has created in total would only be the size of a football field, and it is all dealt with with strict rules on how to dispose of it so it does not affect the environment (Unlike some production methods like solar where extremely dangerous materials have no rules of how they should be dealt with, and they often negatively affect the environment, unlike nuclear.)
Totally agree about the fact that it's way cleaner and pretty safe. But in California, I'm pretty sure it isn't a good idea building new Nuclear Power plants... Earthquakes aren't rare, and San Andreas fault could potentially be disastrous if there was a nuclear power plant anywhere near.
Also, 4th Generation overcomes meltdown risk, and can use nuclear waste as fuel, and so is a very promising future nuclear technology pathway. At the very least there needs to be significant R&D, and especially regulatory support for getting new designs tested and certified (the biggest block currently).
"policymakers won't want large hydroelectric dams watering down their efforts" nice pun, intended or not
I laughed when he said: for our purposes this is silly. About large hydro.
Just wait until everybody drives home in their electric car and plugs it into the grid, in the summer, at 6pm.
Insightful!
Only in the movies
@@markj1069
Fossil fuels are solar energy chemical batteries 🔋
The obvious answer is that personal cars will become a patrician privilege. Folks should get ready for USSR style overcrowded buses.
At 12:40 when you scale the graph, you dont actually scale it. What you are doing is adding a baseline. As an example: you did cos(x) +1, when you were supposed to do 2*cos(x). The variance of energy production from solar will increase proportional to production.
Me: how’s that research going?
RE: 12:11
Tyler Hall I saw this and I loved it 😂
Research? He talked about downloading data... and did it. So it's not going. Because it's done.
um, Mr. Real Engineering, are you doing okay?
@@therealctoo4183 yeah everything's archived.His brain is a time machine.
Always gotta be the assholes that cant seem to not RUIN the whole fkn field trip with their own social love of doing so....we ALL fkn know MOST of this skeleton of this extinct ANIMAL is....imagined by what we actually have....but gd .....its STILL A GD TARADACTYL (edit:that someone even bothered to collect and put together !!!) skeleton.....now....lookit how many more "Kardashians" you made vs ....one....Bill Nye in this crowd of 13 kids .....
Future of ..."whats important" vs....how snooty your ass FELT wasn't worth it was it ....BRYCE ....
I have no beef or even know a Bryce...I just feel like thats what his name would be as I rolled my eyes not even TURNING when I hear him just clear his throat first behind us all ....
California wants carbon free energy
Also closes their nuclear plants 🤦
Also solves intermittent energy shortages by simply shutting the power off enmasse and saying it was because of climate change.
Leftists in California are not good at the science thingee.
Earthquakes?
While nuclear is much better than coal or oil it still is nowhere near CO2 neutral. Mining and processing uranium, and reprocessing the used fuel costs quite a bit of energy (and is responsible for a majority of the waste). Solar Thermic Plants would do much better in CO2 and cost factor, and the liquid salt based ones can store energy for the night. The bigger the storage the more efficient it gets.
@James Muecke Very true, but the idea is that with a panel it will last far longer than other sources of energy, with nuclear you have to obtain the materials for the rod which will only last so long, where as with the panels you obtain the materials to create the panels that last longer and output more energy than a nuclear power plant....provided you have enough panels rated at a high enough conversion rate. not only that but in the near future with the ever increasing efficiency in solar we can take the older models and recycle them into the newer, modern, more efficient panels
One of the possible solutions to the storage question may be the Liquid Air or Cryogenic Battery being Utility 5MW scale tested in Manchester UK by HighView Power. It is eminently scalable and can complement ordinary Batteries by occupying the niche above, longer duration and more power. The Liquid Air Battery absorbs excess wind and solar generation thus avoiding curtailment of these systems. I am impressed and believe it’s one of the storage answers.
Thank you for this great content. looking forward to your next video.
Closing down nuclear facilities is surely a questionable move which looks like more of a political decision rather than a choice made from an energy context.
Nuclear power is easily the best and most stable form of energy available while being carbon-free. However there are reasons to be cautious about it but I believe nuclear power can be our best hope to have an alternative power supply.
Nuclear power should be the last to close if we ever truly want a conpletely renewable-dependent world. Without it, we may have some rocky unstable days ahead of us.
In the US nuclear plants close purely due to economic reasons.
Except nuclear reactor vessels are subject to neutron embrittlement which presents a physical lifetime limit.
molten salt reactors for the win
Nuclear Power waste is Pollution. Solar Energy has no waste and thus no pollution.
@@nicevideomancanada well its not like you can totally ignore the " harmful waste" from solar cell production but, it doesnt compare to that if battery production.
eitherway. coal is cheapest. you are scared of plant food. thorium for the win.
Wait until they start plugging in all the electric cars which need to charge in the evening your usage graph will change
Just wait until PG&E does a public safety power shut off and all those electric cars will be stranded every time the wind blows.
What of people charge up their electric cars at work during the day? It's a free perk at my office.
Martin Balber
Long trips definitely are the challenge for EVs. But the big majority of driving miles are 50 mile trips or less which EVs are perfect for.
Even longer trips are getting easier but it does depend on your car and the infrastructure around you. If you have a 250KW charging Tesla 3 and plenty of superchargers on your route then you are stopping only as much as you would to rest.
But most EVs can't match that yet.
But they are coming.
Michael RCH the problem going all electric, once there are more on the road the government bails out, and you will be stuck paying more for electricity than gas, unless you want to invest big into solar charging but that is probably a slow charge, and then road tax guy will be after us and insurance is already, Higher so unless you’re will to help polar bears , I don’t think it’s worth it, there great for smog control like it’s funny LA has not band all gas burning cars it’s coming there they have band it in some new homes,
Martin Balber
All the cheapest electric generation contracts that utilities are now doing are renewable. Indiana did a deal for solar at 2c per kWh.
In the UK they just did a deal for offshore wind at about 5c per kWh. Just 4 years ago, offshore wind cost 3x as much. And onshore is even cheaper.
And those costs are all much less than coal and gas.
And every year they get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.
Coal and gas are getting MORE expensive as regulations on extraction and generation increase (the Trump slash-and-burn policies notwithstanding). Same goes for regulations on car emissions.
Right now the cost of driving electric is anywhere from half to a fifth the cost per mile of using gas.
Electricity is getting cheaper and gas isn't.
VW expect the sticker price of their EVs to be the same as a comparable ICE car by 2023. And then your driving is up to 80% cheaper per mile.
This thing is going in one direction only.
Here in Europe many people work from 8AM to 4PM and also we have way less problems with traffic because of public transport and urban planning. If the work starts half an hour earlier at 7:30 AM, most people will be home by 4PM which means that in May renewables will provide lots of energy for a whole hour after people come back from work. However, during winter you will always have problems because the Sun sets before 4PM.
At 6:50 it is not just that batteries are not providing energy as opposed to nuclear power, there is also the fact that nuclear power plants last 40-60 years once you build them. Car batteries for instance are done after less than 20 years, solar panels and wind turbines don't last over 20 years either, which means that during the period one nuclear power plant lasts, you will have to pay for 2 or 3 sets of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries in order to keep up with that nuclear power plant.
At 12:45 it is assumed that somehow the added renewables suddenly became steady instead of intermittent. Since solar is intermittent the graph for solar must be multiplied by about 50 instead of just adding to solar generation 90% of total energy demand. The way it was done in the video (adding to solar 90% of total energy demand) assumes that all the added solar energy isn't intermittent. If done the correct way (multiplying solar by 50) the dips and peaks would be much larger, the losses would be much bigger than what was shown in the video.
At 13:40 I don't understand why anybody thinks small hydro is better than large hydro. Large hydro facilities are way better than the small ones. The small ones have much worse ratio of electricity that they produce / destroying the environment. Mini hydro power plants are death to the environment considering how little energy they produce. This is typical delusion of many people living in the West that smaller is always somehow magically better and the notion that everything which is new must be good and everything that is old (large hydro power, nuclear power when it comes to this topic) is bad. That's why people like Elon Musk, Elisabeth Holmes, Trevor Milton manage to trick people. They prey on people believing in everything which is futuristic, fashionable and fancy looking. That's why the new campaign for nuclear power (and renewables) in the US had to be about cold fusion, thorium reactors, mini nuclear power plants, small hydro power stations or something of the sort. It has to sound futuristic, fancy and if possible, it should be small. I myself on the other hand am convinced that the best way of generating electricity are nuclear power plants and bigger hydro stations (I and everyone in my country is harshly against small hydro! This delusion for small hydro probably stems from them never having to deal with small hydro and their detrimental consequences). I have also seen an American guy be against trolleys and instead he is pro buses with batteries because the wires look ugly to him. Superficial look is more important than the destruction of the environment. And I understand why he thinks this way. Of course he thinks this way because the lithium for these batteries will not be mined in his country. Which is another thing that people rarely talk about. The destruction of the environment that mining some of these elements cause. On the other hand there are people who always prefer the old technology no matter what. I have heard people who want the trains to go back to fossil fuels, despite the fact that electric engines have way smaller losses when converting energy into useful work compared to fossil fuels, electric engine trains can go much faster and are better for the environment and global warming than the trains which run on fossil fuels. When it comes to global warming and fighting it, the most influential graphs that I have seen on the matter are how France decarbonised the grid with nuclear power plants without even trying to lower the greenhouse gas emissions, versus the results of countries that consciously tried to make the grid clean by only investing in solar and wind.
Thanks. Very informative. Technical but mostly understandable. Would like to hear more about the nuclear option today without all the paranoia that goes along with that.
2:20 556 MW is NOT a storage capacity. It's the power the facility is able to provide. Rated at four hours, the total capacity is 2,27 GWh.
So would the cost of storage be higher than the 3T he predicted?
@@electronichouse0fficial321 yes about 4.08x times more expencive
@@RubySapior no. Not at all
That's an important point. Is there a reference?
Found it: "PG&E came back in July with an ambitious proposal: four projects, totaling 567.5 megawatts/2,270 megawatt-hours, to go into the transmission-constrained Moss Landing area south of the San Francisco Bay." www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pges-recording-breaking-battery-proposal-wins-loses
Note that Daniel Hermes is foreign and uses a comma instead of a decimal point, so what he said was 2.27GWh.
"policymakers do not want large hydro facilities watering down their efforts". Nice pun
The problem for large hydro is the silting up of the area behind the dam. Oh and catastrophic ruptures, but we still need dams and I feel bad the environment is often ruined by them.
@@bobchainey5280 I guess you don't feel bad about all the wild lands that are covered up with solar power cells? Solar star power plant takes up 3,200 acres of wildlife land. Now those solar panels need to be protected from animals chewing on them or breaking them so. It only produces 579 MWH at peak levels. Thanks for destroying so much wild lands to build such minimal power levels.
@@keinlieb3818 Consider using less electricity.
@@bobchainey5280 I already live in a studio apartment, have a mini fridge instead of a full size one, don't drive a car, about the only electricity I use is a room fan, my PC, and a cell phone. Maybe Al Gore should consider using less electricity considering his one mansion uses 34 times the amount of energy the average family home uses. Funny how you leftists expect me to reduce my carbon footprint while your fearless leaders who preach the end of the world uses over 60,000 kWh just heating their fucking swimming pool.
Concrete is soooo 1950s...today the money in in high tech
9:38 the pain in his voice when he says billion X''D
Interesting video, thanks!
A few questions and food for thought. Why is hydro not able to provide storage services instead of base-load. From your graph, it looks like it could be part of the answer? Also, adding a battery at the gas peaker facility seems a good idea, even if the gas peaker remains operational, doesn't it? This way, they maximize the use of the grid connexion asset and can try and reduce gas production (even if it remains operational). Also, you highlight the difference in solar production between summer and winter but what's the difference in peak demand between summer and winter? Finally, hopefully demand management and reduction in energy consumption will also play a part.
No comment on nuclear closure, the topic is too complex (the problems with nuclear are of a different nature, yes but it is carbon free and carbon emission are the emergency, yes but given its reliance on cooling can it continue producing on the very hot days when we need it the most, yes but as a carbon free technology, isn't it a waste to close it down etc. etc. etc.)
Reduce energy demand after there is a mandate for electric cars, and a prohibition of the sale of ICE car sales.
Are you forcing a round peg into a small rectangular hole. Calls for a brain overhaul.
The way you illustrated the scaling of solar up to the demand wasn't correct, it should be stretched, not offset.
Yeah, that was a pretty bad mistake.
im not an engineering student, do anyone mind explaining why is this so? 😅 thanks in advance
天吉Mark let’s say on a sunny day you generate 10MW, on a cloudy day you generate 2MW. So you generated 20% of your expected energy. If you add more solar panels and generate 100MW now, then on a cloudy day you’d generate 20% * 100 = 20MW. Which is a stretch. An offset would be expecting to generate 92MW which would be wrong.
Obviously this is all an oversimplification but it’s the basic idea.
I was thinking that, too. The offset is actually optimistic. The stretch emphasizes the vulnerability of scaling an uneven power source.
Agreed. If you triple the solar, you have to multiply each data point by 3. This means the difference, in MW, between the low production days and high production days increases by 3 times. By simply adding a fixed amount to all the days, it greatly understates the problem.
You know, it baffles me just how much information you have to curate and summarize for each of your videos. It does not go unnoticed. Then you present it in such a well thought out script AND go into all the math to help those of us who speak engineer to help us understand the scale of what you're presenting in the video. Bravo, you bright Paddy, you.
Lol at the "kill me now" file name
He is also doing it in a very unbiased and logical way, weighing all the options available. It also seems like he is doing a better job looking at the California energy issues then government funded think tanks and reports.
@@Swarm509 Good points. Real Engineering is the antithesis of fake news
yeah, but... this is bull shit information. key facts are neglected.
hey, "scientists" i got a question? where are you going to get all the different poisons and pollutants that you help put into our food and water once you trick everyone into "renewable" energy?
hey, clowns, where do you fucken sheep think they get all your precious fluorine and bromine and other "natural flavors?"
molten salt reactors for the win. just gotta wait for all you retards to die first.
Too bad alot of shit is wrong... lol we are going away from coal because solar is getting cheaper? LOLWUT?
Thank you for the great work
Very good information. Thanx.
I noticed an error. When you visibly "scaled" renewable energy, you just shifted it. You did a + C, not an × B. Multiplying renewables would create larger peaks and deeper valleys, not just raise the line to meet the demand curve.
politicians: we want to reduce carbon emissions
also politicians: lets close down all our clean nuclear power plants
And hydro too, oh wind is loud NIMBY, oh my favorite forest has to have transmission towers - wires thru it? No way! Etc...
They still produce radioactive byproduct which is very hard to dispose of..... maybe that's why they decided to close
Greenpeace is cancer
Nuclear waste sticks around for 50000 years so... yeah, not that clean.
@@hdfhvcftyv There are plenty of reactor designs in the pipeline that will happily eat the remaining 98% of energy available in the waste from an old reactor. There's only one good reason to kill old nuclear plants: we've built new better ones.
You should make a video on energy usage and what technologies can reduce it. For example: if air conditioning is a huge energy consumer, what is a carbon free solution for this? or a technology that reduces drastically the energy consumption of air conditioners?
Great video by the way!
And what about the costs of disposing of all those solar panels? And the batteries?
should just build more mechanical batteries e.g. pumping water up hill. has the long term stability necessary and is scalable
That's what I thought aswell, similar to a water tower. The only problem is it is not verry efficient. Think of all the enegry loss from the pump and friction and back through a turbine. Not to mention that California has a lack of fresh water.
They have one in California that I'm aware of, San Juan reservoir in central California. It operates as pump gen to store energy. If you drive to Monterey via I-5 you'll pass by it. Pump gen is actually the most efficient form of energy storage, far more than batteries.
There are also incline railroad storage solutions, although I don't know how the efficiency compares.
Also what I was thinking - we have one in Michigan that pumps Lake Michigan water into a reservoir and strategically releases it.
@@bob14775523 It is efficient compared to all batteries. The highest capacity batteries with the most efficient charging (lithium ion) also have the worst retention and lose charge quickly. Water pumping can be as efficient as 40%, has huge capacity, is cheap to install, and has no losses over time. Perfect for storing summer energy.
The key here is that California may not be using coal or oil IN STATE, but they are benefiting from coal and oil based energy by borrowing it from 'other' states. Not so self sufficient Cali.
You are true, but it is not the point, ....the point is that ... you are a HERETIC!
@@jirichuran NUCLEAR ENERGY all the way!
Everything else is too inefficient.
Southern Utah and Nevada have installed huge photovoltaic farms, because California does not want to purchase coal produced electricity. If you fly from Salt Lake City International to LAX, you can look down and see the lake-size photovoltaic arrays, as well as concentrated solar.(heliostatic controlled mirrors, with a big collection tower in the middle)
True, true... Agreed! Calif is governed by a bunch of SCAM ARTISTS and MORONS!
@@jirichuran lol
This video is a great job youve made !!!
Why not use pumped storage? Water doesn't become less efficient over time, has huge amounts of storage, and can help store the extra energy when solar/wind production is high.
I think a Power and Water Park at San Onofre CA could be done if the Department of Reclamations gets motivated. ruclips.net/video/jPHSWM4Lmsk/видео.html Here is my 13 minute video. Any thoughts?
Nuclear has come a long way since the last generation of plants. Nuclear waste can be re-used in certain reactors and meltdowns are an impossibility in some.
It's cheap, stable and is much safer than coal.
They said the titanic was unsinkable. Be careful with impossibilitys
@@emrefifty5281 Don't worry. The new power plants are iceberg proof.
@@Kirealta They might not be terrorist proof, however :/
@@unvergebeneid THOSE ICEBERGS WERE FREEDOM FIGHTERS!
Reusing nuclear waste is illegal in America federally
'capacity' of batteries has been confused with storage/output, just as is done with windfarms. Ask anyone with a boat/yacht about having to manage the flow and retention of juice in a battery to keep them functioning and not dying fast
There is als a huge misunderstanding between Generation capacity Vs actual average production. Fact is, YES we have about 10 - 15% of our national generating capacity tied up in wind power, However said wind generation capacity operates at around 20 - 30% average output depending on the season meaning actual wind power makes less than 3% of the national natural energy production despite representing 10 - 15% of the national generating capacity.
Solar has the same problem. Advertized generating capacity isn't the same as average production value which as the video points out is typically about 20 - 25% of nameplate capacity values.
@Dean It's like a car, the car has a motor, which determines how powerful it is, in a battery that is the amount of Volts. The car also has a petrol tank that determines how far it can drive, it's capacity, that is indicated in Amps for a battery. More powerful batteries use up their Amps faster then a lower power battery, just like a car with a less powerful motor uses less petrol from the tank.
aka, a total headache. Batteries are worse for the environment also, from their production to their scrapping ... but the 'Green' movement isn't about outcomes, they're about the movement; it's a pseudo-religion servicing a selfish need to proclaim virtue and in the process it will kill the environment faster while slapping themselves on the back and taking part in their 2 minutes of hate screaming at their ideological opponents with lovely, delicious, prejudice .... Mmmm, prejudice! Gotta love that left-wing prejudice fix, so warm and fuzzy.
@@russianbot4418 Most (serious) economists and scientists don't work with the optimum for their calcs since they are trying to fix a real problem. The only time the optimum matters is when attempting to get a stable average closer to it with storage and distribution technologies.
@@mandelbro777 You should rename yourself to "EyesClosedDueToPoliticalBias." Battery production is not nearly as much of a problem as you state. They can be largely (~98-99%) recycled. Research is going on to get rid of the rarer/more annoying to deal with components and its making more progress than the fake campeign you fell for.
i think there are other methods of storing energy like hydroelectric dams that can pull water into the reserve using electricity to store it (or anything else that lifts wights to store energy) or putting energy into chemicals like hydrogen and probably other ways right ?
Not enough land for pumped hydro storage. Not even close. See: Google: do the math pump up storage.
As for chemical storage like hydrogen, round trip storage efficiency is like 30%. There's also the problem that the industrial equipment to make it probably can't run on spare electricity - it needs to run 24-7, which also complicates matters.
The problem of the battery storage is very simple to solve in CA. All you need to do is use the excess energy generated during the day to pump ocean water into the Salton sea which is disappearing anyway. During the night this water can be drained again to reverse the pumps and generate electricity.
California imports their coal plant electricity from adjacent states. California just shifts the CO2 to out of state
I can't speak for southern California, but northern California is now down to less than 2% coal produced energy. We get more from geothermal.
Mostly Southern California due to the bulk of the population being there.
Source
@@randommodnar7141 This is easily verifiable with a 2 minute google search, and it's a well known fact within the industry, which is why you're the only person asking for a source.
@@benbosco7904 if its so verifiable provide a source then
You cannot store 567MW... It's either 567MWh or 567MJ. The facility has a capacity of 2.28GWh with a peak output of 567MW...
I was in the comments to check if someone has spotted it already. Please correct!!!
As a science teachers this instantly triggered me as well :D. Dont mix energy and power units. People have enough problems telling them apart in the first place!
He is supposed to be an engineer...
Thank you. I remember getting into an argument with a journalist about this once. Peak output is a useful thing to know, but it's kind of a pointless stat if you don't know how long it can sustain it.
Can you do a video on the feasibility of electrolysis and using hydrogen as a peak-delivery power source? I am considering this as a masters or independent research project as I have not found much info on it
There is another option for energy storage that we have developed here in the UK.
Quietly under the radar a company called Highview Power have been through building test plants over the last decade made work an old idea of compressing air in a cryogenic system to store energy over long periods.
This cryogenic system is not as efficient or as quick as a battery storage unit but it has many advantages that make it a good partner to battery where long term storage is required.
The way it works is by using spare electricity to compress air and cool it as a liquid in storage units; this has the advantage of easy scalability as you just build more storage tanks to match say winter needs. When the demand is higher than the renewables can produce you just re-expand the stored air generating electricity filling the gap.
The other advantage the Highview Power system brings to energy storage is it uses off the shelf components & technology and reduces battery demand that can be redirected to cars, buses and lorries were there are fewer options. It is the scaleability and mechanical nature of this cryogenic storage system that brought it to my attention many years ago and made me a fan. It's been a long time but I think it has found its moment.
This is the link to their site were the tech is explained better than I can...
www.highviewpower.com/
I don't get why they would shut down the nuclear plant. Seems like keeping it open would fix some of the problems in this video. They already spent the 13b to build it, might as well use it.
Californian greenies are more anti-nuclear than they are anti-climate change, unfortunately.
Because politicians have investments in solar companies. Dumping public funds into these businesses raises their stock value and the politicians make bank. This is the real green scam
Earthquake anyone?
diablo canyon is being closed because of economics, not because of an irrational fear or nuclear. my roommate is working on understanding how the closure will impact the local economy and is working with the people who made the decision. its unfortunate, but is also why we need new next gen nuclear plants which are cheaper and safer than these plants developed in the 60s and 70s
@@ssimarsawhneyExcept that part of the economics was that the state was requiring PG&E to increase Diablo Canyon's structural stability to withstand above a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. This is rather bizarre considering the following:
1. Diablo Canyon has highest seismic rating of any piece of infrastructure in a 500 miles radius of Diablo Canyon, if the risk of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake was so high why is no other piece of infrastructure in the entire state being regulated to same standards of Diablo Canyon?
2. The evidence presented against Diablo Canyon was in the worst case theoretical scenario that Hosgri-Shoreline fault would produce a compounded slip fault resulting a 7.8 magnituide earthquake, but whats more bizarre is that the State of California presented the scenario resulting in a Fukushima type disaster. This means the state is more concerned about a tsunami than the actual earthquake.
Heres the problems with this scenario. 1. Diablo Canyon is a PWR, versus Fukushima was a BWR nuclear facility. 2. Hosgri-Shoreline is locate about 3 miles off coast, versus the Tohoku Earthquake impacted about 70 miles off coast. 3. The elevation by which Hosgri-Shoreline is relative the coast is significantly smaller than the epicenter of the Tohoku Earthquake. 4. Diablo Canyon sits at 54 feet above sea level, and the maximum wave height of the Tohoku Tsunami that impacted Fukushima was 44ft.
So miraculously a 7.8 magnitude earthquake will effect a smaller volume of water, yet will create a higher maximum wave height than a 9.3 magnitude earthquake on a larger volume of water. Id love an explanation on this one....
3. If the risk of the scenario is so high, why on earth does the Municipal Government of San Luis Obispo have a public emergency preparedness plan for just a 6.5 magnitude earthquake? Youd think if the state of California is so concerned about the possible structural failure of one nuclear plant they would at least inspect the city government's plans to prepare for such an event.
There is an insane amount of convenience regarding the non-compliance of this plant for you to claim that its purely economic reasons for this plant to fall.
San Francisco has electric buses getting their power from overhead lines. They proudly flaunt signs "Zero emissions vehicle". On one such bus, someone lined out the word "Zero" And wrote in "Outsourced". There is a smoke stack somewhere providing the power
Not true: SF Municipal Railway is powered 100% by the Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric system. As is SFO airport.
Chromium Brand+Culture Consultancy SF does not have its own grid. It is on the grid just like any other city
There are a number of natural sites in the western USA that can be used as pumped storage. These would be "closed loop " (not connected to flowing streams). The Mwh of storage would far exceed battery capacities considering these sites vary from 1 GWof capacity to up to 10 GW capacity. I found one in California that would utilize two existing reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada, that could generate over 180 GWH daily. No new dam construction required.
I think a Power and Water Park at San Onofre CA could be done if the Department of Reclamations gets motivated. ruclips.net/video/jPHSWM4Lmsk/видео.html Here is my 13 minute video. Any thoughts?
Honestly the cost of curtailment is probably a lot lower than the human cost of pollution. Plus the variable supply problem is fixable, making hydrocarbons work in the long term is literally impossible
12:52 The scaling should "extremefy" not just add a flat value (by moving it up)
yeah, scaling by def is multiplication operation instead of addition.
Came here to say this.
I noticed that as well. The peaks and troughs would be much more aggressive which would further exasperate the issue hes exploring.
But did he plot scaling or just combination of sources on that graph?
What he did there was a rigid translation, not scaling. Scaling would have produced peaks that were 6 times greater than the lowest point, just like the original graph. In order for the minimum output to satisfy full demand, then the maximum would have to be 6 times higher, which means a lot more solar, and a lot more solar wasted. Unless we find something else to use that electricity for. Usually, when you have an excess of a resource, somebody will invent a way to make money off of the excess. If you had access to large amounts of electricity for a variable amount of time each day, what would you use it for?
How advance we would be if people didn't become deathly afraid of nuclear due to Godzilla films.
Eh, thats the wrong question, having more nuclear power plants would not make us more advanced just least dependant on oil and coal
@@carso1500 what i mean is if we continued to develop the technology, we would likely be closer to things such as fusion etc.
@@soul1d Sadly, people only hear nuclear and go...well, nuclear. The average joe doesn't even differentiate between nuclear fission power plants and fusion power plants.
People fear what they don't understand. Two great examples are nuclear energy production and climate change.
@@Quotenbrtchen It's like this evil invisible thing people are irrationally scared of. Like being scared of radiation exposure if you have a nuclear power plant in your town (even though you could stand a couple meters away from the pressure vessel and barely read above background levels) but don't even consider that there is uranium in the bricks of their house, or in the coal that is burned in power stations, so the fly ash would likely give you a greater exposure to radiation than living near a nuclear plant would.
So basically assuming that this is linear is a pointless thought exercise although I am still entertained
14:25 What's happening with these two windmills in the background on the left. 😅
The only answer that I see as viable at the moment is nuclear powered by thorium.
Almost, mini nuke plants is the better way to go. Less cost build faster and nearer to demand.
Actually, Bill Gates company, TerraPower, is developing a Traveling Wave Reactor, and Molten Salt Reactors that can use multiple types of fissionable fuels, including Thorium.
Columbus1152 I heard the Terrapower concept was a flop because they didn’t moderate the neutrons. It sucks because this is the one Bill sunk a lot of money into. But he does know about thorium, he mentioned it in his talk “innovating to zero”
@@robertweekes5783 TerraPower is pretty secretive, but as I understand it, they are still working on the TWR using molten salts as a coolant, so it's shifted more towards the breeder concept. They were supposed to begin building a full scale plant in China this year, but the current administration has placed technology embargoes on several countries which includes China. So, it seems they're still alive and still working on power by fission. Hope they can iron it out.
Robert Weekes hopefully the money he paid went to individuals who spent their income wisely and didn’t just buy more lollies and Gold bullion.
Heat and air conditioning are by far the largest part of our electric bill. The reason California became so popular is the weather.
@M Detlef apparently my comment went way over your head.
What I was saying is if California can't make it work despite having the best weather in North America those of us who have the full spectrum of temperature will never be able to rely on solar and wind for much of our energy needs.
vertical axis wind exceeds eficiency of pinwheels for wind energy as it captures swirling wind better. plus low speed wind better.
One factor over looked in equating solar farms production in winter versus summer: if the existing and new solar arrays were switched to 'tracking' over fixed the increase in production would change the projected sizing by greater than a 25% reduction.
I got it! They could scoop up all the poop in SF's sidewalks, and burn it for energy.
Liberal egos are a limitless source of hot air.
Sorry that is a fossil fuel. It should be dumped on politicians properties
and use the urine as a form of bio hydro
@@caseymuni4097 No, it's Organic!
@@wallishaines7247 Window cleaner, cuz it's got ammonia for a streak free shine.. Although some yellowing may occur.
At 12:10 onwards you scaled solar capacity by shifting the line up, but kept the variability in output unscaled. The highs and lows should also be exaggerated in proportion as well, assuming that the panels are installed in the same area. I'm not sure that this visualization truely represented the scope of the engineering challenge presented by solar and wind. Scale is _hard_.
Liquid Air Energy Storage, for example, Highview Power, offers a lower cost storage solution with reasonable efficiency .
Hello.
Is there any dam suitable for a pump using excess power and release it at peak consumption, in California or its neighbourg states ? What about biomass in the most profficient agricol state of the US ?
Battery charge retention can be expected to diminish by about 2% annually. The cradle to grave environmental consequences of scaling up solar, wind, and LiFePO4 storage are rarely accounted for. Closing Diablo Canyon is dumbest thing ever. We should be adding nuclear capacity.
If sufficient forethought into safety can be considered concerning Nuclear power, By all means Yes!. Unfortunately stupid people can be in charge of nuclear power projects and end up building them on fault zones, by the ocean, like in Japan in a tsunami prone zone and then add another layer of stupidity on top of that, by positioning the emergency cooling pump generators on the friggen seawall where they will end up getting submerged in the event of such an event, which is guaranteed to happen. Nuclear as well as hydro electricity is the most cost effective , reliable and cleanest forms of energy production.
Important to also note that South Australian battery backup is designed for emergencies... Not regular power use.
At the same time the payback on that battery has been incredibly quick since the "emergencies" can be small enough that it saves the company costs related to transmission, distribution, or other various fees associated with unreliability or congestion.
Why not use pumped storage? Pump water into massive lakes in the summer and use it in winter for hydro. Cover the water in reflective balls, which has already been done elsewhere, to minimize evaporation.
I think a Power and Water Park at San Onofre CA could be done if the Department of Reclamations gets motivated. ruclips.net/video/jPHSWM4Lmsk/видео.html Here is my 13 minute video. Any thoughts?
Love this page!
Something to keep in mind when a power company speaks of batteries, they're often speaking of stored energy. Often this is a pond on top of a hill to which they pump water using the excess energy. then they will later send the water through turbines to recover the energy using gravity. A lot cheaper than Tesla batteries.
and when the tesla batteries become old and are taken out of service, what then (to the individual batteries), what toxins do they have -- better, or worse than the problems of nuclear fission spent fuel?
@Christopher "even the solar/wind folks acknowledge this"
Do they reeeaally now?
@Christopher the Lazard levelized cost of energy report puts solar and wind cheaper per MWh than coal, while nuclear is much more expensive. It's cold hard economics that is boosting installation of wind and solar and no new nuclear plant in America for decades. I completely support the research & development of next-generation nuclear, but it'll take $15 billion and 15 years for each of the four competing designs.
@@skierpage Thorium Salt Reactors y'all
@Christopher by making a market for it to make it viable faster. Which demonstrably worked... It was ready to compete way faster than it would've been but beyond that gas is very heavily subsidized so the other sources should get at least the same or should be diverted away from it. Also it is sustainable to have a plan that includes having a planet in 50 years so change is necessary.
I can see this short 20 minutes video is fed with weeks of researchs and data collections. Great job and thumbs up.
Shame he doesn't know the difference between power and energy.
@@rogerborg We see that so often. It can't always be accidental. Electricity comprises less than 50% of current energy demand in the US, and a lot less in many other countries.
Amazing information and data I hope we get our act together soon
No phones, no lights, no motor cars
Not a single luxury
Like Robinson Crusoe
It's primitive as can be - Gilligan's Island
You need nuclear, California’s prices went up 6x on renewables , I can’t imagine who will be able to afford to live there in a decade or so.
Jeremy that’s what they want. Just very rich people and poor people to be their quasi-slaves.
@@Orandu That's what all liberals want, look at every socialist nation in existence and you will see a very rich political class on top and poor peasants on the bottom no middle to be found
I don’t think this is a rich person conspiracy, misguided do-gooders most likely
The ultra Hollywood elites in thier gated communities and their serf slaves clinging to survival. When they die off thet will have many more hungry serf bastards to choose from.
Adam Smith it’s easy to spot the people who don’t understand what socialism is. What, you think despots are going to call their country the “Oligarchy of Korea”?
I'm surprised there was no mention of pumped hydro. In Australia we will be building massive 2GW systems,
Kind of hard to use pumped storage when all your water comes from other states.
@@ssholum you can use seawater for that, california certailny has some Hills next to the sea :)
We have a large pumped storage project planned for Big Chino Valley. It will also be rated at 2GW, but I would not call it massive. It is primarily for dealing with the increasing solar in California and wind in Arizona. The Great Plains states, particularly Texas. have no locations suitable for pumped storage.
California has lots of pumped hydro storage: Helms, Castaic, and San Luis to name a few. Even Oroville can be used as pumped hydro storage.
In California pumped hydro has some major issues with building reservoirs in a seismically active area. No one wants another Saint Francis dam disaster. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam
As soon as summer approached we had to look for more energy resulting in power cutoffs because of lack of energy. So if we had excess electricity as you stated in the past for battery storage where was this energy when we were in constant energy constraints? Getting more EV will also add more demand on the Grid, I don’t think we are going to be able to generate enough energy using this method.
Instead of battery storage for excess energy (chemical energy), how about potential energy storage? When the sun shines or the wind blows, pump water uphill into a dam. Use the hydro generation to supply the grid all the time, rain or shine. Thus, the dam acts as the storage medium and a low-pass filter in the system (like a huge capacitor). Ignore the losses in the pumping system, because those losses can be traded off against the energy that was not converted into potential energy. The reliability of traditional motors and generators far exceeds the reliability of semiconductor switching power supply systems.
I think a Power and Water Park at San Onofre CA could be done if the Department of Reclamations gets motivated. ruclips.net/video/jPHSWM4Lmsk/видео.html Here is my 13 minute video. Any thoughts?
Build a bunch of desalination plants and run them off the excess electricity. Kill 2 birds with one stone.
All the birds have already being killed off from the windmills
That is a good way to use wasted production, but it doesn't solve the problem of underproduction at night and during the winter. If you aren't using batteries at those times, you need another source of power.
Excess electricity can produce hydrogen.
@@jacquesmersereau4173 hydrogen generation is just not economical at this point. Especially for electricity generation.
I only see nuclear energy that is both reliable, powerful, and is not polluting the air. Too bad that people still view our 2019 nuclear technology like a 1986 technology. The majority don't want it so nuclear funding is heavily reduced. Only statistics shows us this. Just compare the emission and electricity cost charts between a german gold renewable energy vs an active french nuclear energy.
Only the storage in waste is the problem, but the technology isnt advancing further in this case as people dont wanty it.
ps typed this in one hand while eating buffalo wings xd sry 4 bad englIsH@
2:25 567 MW is just the maximum power that batteries can deliver. The batteries will last 4 hours at this demant. The actual energy they can hold is 2268 MWh, which is 567 MW * 4 hours rating
I love you for this.*demand
I hate MWh as a unit. It just feels so... unintuitive to me, compared to just using Joules. Kinda ironic.
Another point is batteries are not perfect and the capacity drops over time this starts to become a problem in costs and then disposal.
Does California have any pumped hydroelectric energy storages or are there possibilities to install some?
So... pumped hydro storage hasn't been invented yet and wouldn't work if it was. OH WAIT.. It has been.. and it does.
At 13:30, you can't just start scaling Solar+Wind by sliding it up and down the grid without changing the volatility scale. That volatility would also grow 10x if you scaled the capacity 10x.
Also if you're going to count environmental damage of hydro, you have to count the environmental damage of solar and wind killing wildlife by cooking or smashing them or by habitat displacement.
You lost me in the first half, but got me with cooked and smashed animals
@@agent_bedrock5844 the point I was making in the first half stands even if you don't agree with it. Volatility is proportional to the amount of solar and wind.
How is wind and solar going to cook wildlife? Also many more birds die from windows on your house and from traffic than ever will die from wind turbines
Sssshhhh🤫 you’re not supposed to state the obvious!👍🏻
Close Nuclear, the cleanest and safest form of energy because of a few news reports, we'll regret handing our trust over to those companies developing batteries. This certainly proves how much influence the media has on twisting the perception of those policy makers.
What?
Super, informative!
Congratulations on this major achievement in the delivery of green energy!
Thank you for being part of this project.
Mega Solar Power Plant - Benban Aswan Egypt.
Connect with us