The GENIUS Of the Carbon Dioxide Battery
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2024
- CO2 Battery: Save 50% on your Solar Inverters With Hoymiles! geni.us/Inverters
For decades all we've heard is how bad carbon dioxide is for the environment and how it causes climate change! True as that might be, what if that very molecule had some very important properties that made it a great medium for energy storage? From villain to hero in the renewable energy story, this is all about the Carbon Dioxide Battery, and how it can be a game changer. Breakthrough Battery Proves We Wrong About Carbon Dioxide!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
In-Depth Content @ www.twobitdavinci.com
Become a Patron! twobit.link/Patreon
Become a RUclips Member! geni.us/TwoBitMember
One Time Donation: geni.us/PaypalMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Save 50% on Solar Inverters ⟫ geni.us/Inverters
Drone Quotes for Solar ⟫ geni.us/DroneQuote
》》》TWO BIT DA VINCI《《《
I'm Ricky, This is Two Bit da Vinci, and if you're interested in learning about the future of Technology, Energy & Transportation, subscribe & Join us for the ride!
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
03:03 Current Challenges
03:34 CO2 Battery
05:45 Benefits
06:33 Performance
07:58 Costs
09:04 Efficiency
10:58 King of Stationary Storage?
11:58 Where Will We Get CO2?
13:19 Conclusions
things we'll cover
two bit da vinci,battery breakthrough,carbon dioxide,carbon dioxide battery,energy storage,co2 battery,carbon dioxide energy storage,capture of energy and production of carbon dioxide,co2,co2 energy storage,co2 energy,is carbon dioxide bad,why is carbon dioxide bad,carbon battery,c02 battery,c02,solar,solar panels,renewable energy storage,the carbon dioxide battery,the co2 battery,co2 battery energy dome,energy dome,co2 energy dome,energy dome battery, This Breakthrough Uses Carbon Dioxide In the MOST Amazing Way, What if Carbon Dioxide is the ANSWER NOT The Problem?, The GENIUS Of the Carbon Dioxide Battery 
Наука
Checkout Hoymiles & Save Up to 50% on Solar Inverters! geni.us/Inverters
Answer to your question is in India.
''During photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) from the air and soil. Within the plant cell, the water is oxidized, meaning it loses electrons, while the carbon dioxide is reduced, meaning it gains electrons. This transforms the water into oxygen and the carbon dioxide into glucose.'' Wikipedia - On short for the ones that are not so open that they brain fall off: CO2 produces OXIGEN. I rest my case. Some people are just ...
@@wino99999 Sorry dude. I think you're confusing energy and power. 57 W/h? What is that?
You divide 200 MWh (energy) by 350,000 homes you get 571 Wh/home. That's energy per home, and it's consumed across 1 hour, so the power is 571 (Wh/home)/1h = 571 W/home. That's how much power each home is consuming.
Do the same for 35,000:
200MWh/35,000 = 5.71 KWh/home or 5,710 Wh/home. But that energy is consumed by those homes across 10 hours, not 1h like before, so the power is P=(5,710 Wh/home)/10h= 571 W/home, i.e. same power, as expected.
Hope that helps!
@@ipp_tutor Yep you're correct
"Breakthrough battery proves we wrong" 😅
When I was in graduate school I was doing research on hybrid electric vehicles, specifically the Japanese model of the Prius. At one point during my first year in the PhD program I realized that no one had ever analyzed the radiant energy distributed into the atmosphere as a result of the roads which get quite hot as compared to flora that would normally occupy those spots and had asked my graduate advisor if I could do that on the side. The basic answer was that the only way to get funding was to bite off on the CO2 emissions as the primary driver of climate change and since my hypothesis wasn't associated with that end result, no funding could be provided. So if everyone in the scientific community only gets funding if they internalize the idea of CO2 being the primary driver of climate change then you will never have information to the contrary regardless of if it exists. I dropped out of the PhD program about 6 months later after realizing that even in STEM programs graduate school was a complete waste of time and money.
Scary. It’s controlled education. How do you get scientific consensus? You silence, censor and cancel all disagreement.
Good point almost universally ignored!
You went outside of the establishment it’s control and brainwashing they want to achieve
Great reply...could not agree more. Everyone seems to have forgotten basic natural science. CO2 is the necessary component for crop growth. (Not to say that it can't be poisonous in high concentrations) No CO2, no food!
@@CallMeJazz Even Oxygen is poisonous if you get too much of it!
Great content as usual. I had to laugh when I saw a "Google Context Warning". I had to watch the video again to see if I could find anything deserving of receiving a warning. Anybody who has watched Ricky's video know how circumspect he is in showing new cool upcoming engineering in the area of renewable energy. In other words he provides his own warnings and encourages questioning. It really demonstrates the silliness of these "Google Warnings" as not actual warnings.
The title says "carbon dioxide". Nuff said for global interests to declare a contextual narrative warning.
Anything that even seems to counter the prevailing dogma will be censored by the high preists of "Truth". What could possibly go wrong.
Contextual data is important.
If you take the video title at face value, it could be the title of a climate change denial video, so the warning is fair imo if misplaced here
@@ThePurplePassage I wouldn't say it's fair. There's a logic there, but I think these types of warnings shouldn't be needed. What it's saying is, people are too stupid to think for themselves, and they need others to think for them, and that's terrifying.
Because either you have a majority who are too dumb to even work, which means not enough workers for society to function, or those same people are in fact in work, where they can mess things up.
And that's not a world I want to live in.
Grid battery has to be:
1. Cheap
2. Scalable
3. Reliable
Weigh and energy density doesn't matter in stationary batteries.
This looks like a great solution.
Couldn’t have put it better myself
CO2 helps plants grow. Our planet is 5% greener than 20 years ago, thanks to CO2. We are still in an ice age let's get out of the ice age and melt this fucken ice. The dinosaurs had 3000 ppm of co2, and their temperature was only 27 Celsius. We have 430 ppm only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. Our weakening magnetosphere is what is driving climate change, not CO2.
60 years ago Buckminster Fuller said, "Pollution is just a resource that we haven't learned to use yet."
So true!
And in 60 years someone will say: And we never did ...
@@klausnielsen1537 If we keep it political most definitely. The govt sucks at everything it sticks it's corrupt fingers in.
This Fuller character, he sounds like a clever chap!
I think when I look at the Bełchatów Power Station it is the largest thermal power station in Europe with 5420MW
5,472 MW was it in 2017 the Taichung Power Plant hat slightly more capacity
Yes tell that to all of us who run CO 2 generators into our greenhouses to help our plants thrive even better.
I can remember years ago shutting all the doors and windows of my greenhouse full of budding tomato plants. They remained alive, but completely stopped growing. This would also mean that they would also stop releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.
Yep, I run 1500 ppm at 10000 feet elevation here in crested butte. We only have 320ppm here naturally.
You wont get extra growth without ALL the factors required for it-extra nutrients water etc!!! CO2 will not do the same outside a greenhouse!!!
@@MauriceOldis, that's a common point of confusion. The increase in productivity does not cause increased nutrient requirements for *_any_* nutrient, if calculated per unit of crop yield. But if calculated *_per acre,_* then you're right about some nutrients.
But that is not the case for water.
_“In agronomy, the effects of elevated CO2 on plant water use efficiency and drought resilience are extensively studied. One of the key mechanisms through which elevated CO2 levels improve water use efficiency is by reducing stomatal conductance and, consequently, water loss through transpiration._
_“Stomata are small pores on the surface of plant leaves that regulate gas exchange, including the uptake of CO2 for photosynthesis and the release of water vapor through transpiration. When CO2 levels are elevated, plants can maintain the same or higher rate of photosynthesis while reducing stomatal conductance. This reduction in stomatal conductance leads to a decrease in water loss through transpiration without significantly affecting CO2 uptake, resulting in improved water use efficiency.”_
-ChatGPT 3.5
Additionally, some crops (legumes & sugarcane) make their own nitrogen fertilizer, so for those crops increased yields do not require increased nitrogen fertilization.
@@MauriceOldis😂😂😂 Yeah that’s why NASA has already shown significant greening of the planet.
The biggest takeaway for me is that since CO2 doesn't require cryogenic assist to be compressed into a liquefied state, it is much more efficient than compressed air. For utility power plants, I don't think the CO2 battery's low energy density will play much of a factor in deciding whether to use it in comparison to other technologies, though the short vid of the Tesla with a CO2 dome on its roof was a good bit of fun.
Thanks for the great video. I see so many videos like "Graphene Eardrum Replacement Surgery Enables Supersonic Hearing", and it turns out to be nothing more than a calculation someone did on the resonant frequency of a piece of graphene the size of an eardrum, and is nowhere even close to becoming reality. That there is a CO2 pilot plant currently operating and a contract to scale up this tech in a real-world application is just wonderful and makes this video so worthwhile. Thanks for covering this.
be more skeptical. on the diagrams the liquid cooling system has no pumps.
supersonic rocket surgery battery enabled!
You can criticise but this could save us all from the money hungry power companies that bleed us dry.
@@Lorenzo-ew6so I'm not sure what you think I'm criticizing, but to be clear, I am absolutely heaping praise on the utility-scale compressed-CO2 battery explained in the video. It's the best, most sensible advancement in utility energy storage I've yet seen.
🙏💚💚💚✊
@@Lorenzo-ew6so ....to be replaced with money hungry weird new expensive battery companies that bleed you dry.
who knows.
I think you might be missing something: heat transfer during compression and expansion.
--The pumps will generate quite a lot of heat when charging (during compression), and will sink a lot of heat (cool the surroundings) when discharging. Pumped hydro or batteries don't have this problem, but compressed air does though probably to a lesser extent because the air doesn't undergo a phase change. The bigger the battery, the bigger the problem.
--Have you included components for heat transfer to the external environment? (fans, pumps, etc.) A large unit could either frost up and stop working efficiently or overheat and fail. And if you use an external source of energy for heating the liquid CO2 the efficiency drops. If you expand too much CO2 without heating the storage cells the remainder will solidify. (dry ice) I would expect that the problem will get worse as the battery gets larger. There might be a good solution at small size, but not at industrial size. In other words, will it scale? Time to do some thermodynamic modeling.
And finally, CO2 is actually a toxic gas when concentrated. The fatal concentration is about 10%. So leaks are more hazardous than compressed air.
I suspect that the heat exchangers are not part of the simplified diagram, but I think that the water pool that is shown is meant to be the heat exchanger. That pool of water will be warmed during charging, and then cool down during discharge. insulating the tank is actually an advantage in this scenario. while this is some technical hurdle, I don't expect that a water tank will require a lot of extra space, and is still miles less complicated than existing compressed air systems.
As for toxicity, I suspect that's why their system is shown in open air setups (not inside a building).
i worked with the oil rigs and diamond drills back 06' to 15', you can control overheating cooling systems to address that problem, on the drills we had to deal with our hydraulic system overheating so i believe it can resolved, i am not egineer so i cold be wrong .
5:31 "A second Advantage is that the system incorporates a thermal energy storage system to capture the heat released when the carbon dioxide condenses and uses that same energy to evaporate the liquid carbon dioxide when the battery is discharging. This makes the battery more efficient than a liquid compressed air battery which requires external heating to boil and liquefy the air."
Is this what you were referring to?
And yes, CO2 is toxic at that level. I'd still rather be around that leak, than live steam.
A thermal sink system can store the heat of compression and provide it for the expansion cycle.
It's a huge "barrel" of sand with pipes running through it
A thermal mass with a means of transfer of heat, and an insulation blanket.
A simple 4 gallon water heater with normal insulation can keep that 4 gallons above 100 F for 24 hours, starting from only 120 F when the power goes out.
(How would I know that?)
Stirling engine time?
About thirty years ago I was driving on a very busy highway in Spain. Between the two lanes was an area where beautiful bushes with flowers grew. I then thought, car exhaust pipes can't be that bad for the environment.
Thank you for this little dose of sanity in a world gone mad. This is a genuinely impressive development. I am happy to have found your channel, and shall be making up for whatever I missed previously by binge watching.
Yep quit drinking pop or soda. It releases co2. Same goes for beer.
@@warrenpuckett4203 Luckily, I do not drink any of those things, have not since my twenties. Now it is black tea or bourbon all the way :-)
I will be binge watching as well...
Are you serving a sea bird for dinner? If not the phrase is how the table turns 👍
@@demonvalentine1 🤍
Mostly it's just nice to see another option for energy companies that fills the low-budget niche. More good options like this will make it easier for us to find sustainable options in the various conditions around the globe.
Climate change was global cooling in the 70s and 80s explain that
@@ABeautifulHeartBeat I can't post a link, it'll get auto-deleted. Search "global cooling mid 20th century". It's due to sulphate aerosols.
Aerosolized metal nano particulates are causing the warming, barium and aluminum, creating a grid in the atmosphere that can be utilized by haarp
@@ABeautifulHeartBeat remember the acid rains of the 80s and 90s too?
Weird they deleted your comment about sulphates. Google is part of the machine
This sounds awesome. Really hope there isn't something that isn't seen that prevents it from scaling up.
Good information on this video. I think we could build this in Taranaki, New Zealand, as we already have a process that takes CO2 from the vented gas at the Kapuni Gas Treatment plant.
What a cracking episode! A great idea expertly and clearly presented. Thank you.
This is only the beginning. We're just starting to innovate on battery storage. I can't wait for what comes up next.
This is a positive approach necessary to solve problems. All the net zero policies have produced new disasters.
We dont need any more toxic batteries. Period.
I can see this working in conjunction with Li Ion batteries. The Li Ion for frequency modulation and rapid short term response and the CO2 battery for medium to long term storage and discharge cycles.
Manganese/ Antimony / Sodium batteries are the future ! Cheaper, more efficient, materials more abundant & local.
No need for using Li batteries in grid storage, so many other cheaper and easier batteries are available as the grid does not need the performance of Li.
The justification for Li batteries in grid storage is secondary use after they have spent their time in a car. They may be 80% capacity but that does not matter so much in a stationary power storage facility.
But yes your concept is correct, some form of slow mass storage combined with fast response batteries of some kind is cool.
I thought things like flywheels and supercapacitors would be better for this sort of application (ie. frequency modulation and rapid short term grid balancing)
One great thing about this energy storage system is that it works directly with our AC system, since the motors and generators are AC themselves. This means that it could give renewables like solar or wind some "inertia" which mimics the one that normal powerplants have, dampening fluctuations in the frequency of the AC
I am happy to see companies goinng back to basics and using thermodynamics to solve these problems.
Taking advantage of the energy associated with phase change and reusing the heat.
Nice review of the tech - thanks!
That's just it. They didn't present anything on using the latent heat or polytropic heat for anything other than reevaporating the liquid CO2.
@@murderdoggg
I make an assumption that those concepts are beyond the mainstream audience.
@@murderdoggg
What else would you use the heat for?
It seems like you would not be able to capture enough of the heat to return the CO2 to room temperature after phase change.
@@JohnBoen In commercial refrigeration we also use liquid CO2 instead of "Freon".
Normally the heat that comes from condensing the CO2 into a liquid is recovered, and used to warm the hot water, or to warm the heating system in winter.
The heat needed to evaporate the co2 comes from refrigeration, salad buffets, drink coolers or freezer rooms.
So either we add generator turbines to commercial refrigeration systems, or we add freezers and heat recovery to the phase change CO2 battery. By the way, there is always more hot than cold in these systems.
@@JohnBoen Yeah I suppose so. I am kinda the Joule-Thompson effect and Logarithmic Pressure, Enthalpy diagram kinga guy.
However most people understand heat recovery pretty well. no?
I'll keep watching this develop. I expect the efficiency will go up over time as data is collected on production units and the process is refined. Very interesting indeed.
That is exciting; I forgot to consider the liquid cycle for CO2 storage. While watching the video, I imagined using the cycle to transmit energy too. The pipe carrying liquid CO2 would absorb heat along the way, increasing its potential. The gas return pipe would serve as the dome. So elegant! I love it. However, the cost factor for pumped storage needs to be explained; I wonder if it excludes the recreational value and agricultural side-benefits of pumped storage. Further, if (not pumped) storage is from a stream, where water is just held back for flow during electrical demand cycles, the cost and benefits may be even lower. I'm especially concerned with this because Pluvicopia includes such storage as part of its benefits. Pluvinergy produces excess water, so percolation into the water table is one more benefit, to remove water from the oceans and transfer it to land storage for sea level adjustment. (Look at the numbers before you brush this off, I am aware that 1mm of sea level equals 361 km3.)
And as it turns out...
It might well be both.
From startup to prototype AND funding for a full scale op in under 3 years... THAT IS STUNNING.
The one thing most people don't know about efficiency is that in a system the overall efficiency will always be lower than the least efficient component.
Hi. The weakest link. P.R.
Most people do know that.
The sun and wind is free. And the system gives an incentive to repurpose carbon dioxide. So that is a better starting point than expendable fuel sources.
@@markharmon4963im not betting my money on it thats for sure, key bottlenecks for industrial scale with this tech werent solved in the pilot, its a scam.
Good content. The titles though are clickbaity…
So glad to have found this video. It looks like the winner to me. I would only prefer that the dome be placed underground so that at least that part is not creating yet more visual damage to precious landscapes no matter where those are.
That would probably require a lot more time and energy when scaling up, so more CO2 created during the process
The excavation of the cavern to place the dome in will require that removed material is put someplace.
Very interesting, especially for areas like Alberta that have high CO2 discharges.
If one of these plants were located near a decommissioned underground mine, the empty space could be used as the CO2 storage space. Depending on the gas-tightness of the mine, of course. I’ve heard of mines being considered for sequestering atmospheric CO2, so maybe not a totally crazy idea.
Or maybe 'refine' the shape of the mine, so the bladder could be put inside. This would also protect it from possible terrorist attacks.
@@TomHolmHansen And storms, surface fires, etc., even earthquakes if the bladder were made to withstand them.
@@TomHolmHansen What the fuck are you talking about? Why would you even bring up terrorist attacks? Why would anyone attack a fucking balloon?
There are many abandoned burried pipelines that could be repurposed and they could be interconnected to other plants to incease reliability. Mines are few and far between. Burried abandoned pipelines are everywhere. The Texas Railroad Commission has online maps of pipelines and their owners and shows the ones that are abandoned. It is just a long horizontal mine that is out of site.
Storing underground makes a lot of sense, it does not upset the landscape or use up valuable space where more solar or wind turbines could be sited.
Why not build in some redundancy to the system and make it multiple smaller domes that could be isolated easily for maintenance or replacement in case of seal failures.
Smaller bags also fit better into mines and could be designed to utilise the maximum space for efficiency in the mine.
A modular and standardised design also means, it could be easily mass produced and scaled. As more sites come on line costs should come down and an industry be created to maintain and produce parts for these systems.
The safety of this system is incredible ! this is a point you have underestimated in this beautiful video .
80 % efficency is not bad at all ! As Hidro on mountains rarely reach this efficency (charge+discharge) due to long pipelines .
In Italy we are used to these Green Domes used to produce biogas in the countryside , (an efficent way to capture C02 and methan from agricolure and farming )
"Safety" in terms of not erupting into a fireball or irradiating a large area after a catastrophic failure. Sure. However, an above ground dome as shown is rather unsafe. A containment failure of this volume of gas would send a river of oxygen displacing CO2 along the ground, suffocating and killing any animal life in its path and pooling in topographical depressions. (There are places in the world this phenomenon happens naturally and it is terrifying how deadly it is.) If implemented, a reservoir of CO2 is much safer to everyone stored underground so that it may not flow anywhere in case of failure. I wouldn't live anywhere below one of these power plants if it used a dome.
@@Syvtek you touch the point . But a massive flow Is highly improbable due to atmospheric pressure . An empty depression like an abandoned cave should be the best place.
Another amazing video thank you da vinci ii love battery's which church from solar and wind then used when not windy and sunny and I love when new battery's come on the market nice and cheap and if their is to be electric cars and aircraft we need a choice of battery's
When liquid CO2 is released from it's pressure vessel, the phase change from a liquid to a gas may cause some of the CO2 to freeze into dry ice at close to atmospheric pressure. If water used to cool the compression cycle is also used to heat the evaporator this would result in some energy recapture, however, it seems that additional energy is needed to evaporate the CO2. What energy source drives the "gas turbine" to run the boiler? Please clarify.
Why a boiler? Co2 vaporizes around -78 degrees celcius, depending on pressure. Just a fan pulling in outside air and a heat exchanger would do. (although you might even try to hook up the cold side to (for example) a cold storage, or other facility that needs cooling).
The beauty with utility scale power storage is that it can be placed just about anywhere. The storage tanks have some hazard to it but minor since 70 bar ain’t that bad. The big dome is a big dome with something we already know.
So sounds good.
We must remember that batteries, for such use, are shifting towards LFP… which is way cheaper and since volumetric and gravimetric density is less important in such batteries, they should do well.
You should also investigate a Calgary cie called eavor (I think that’s what it’s called) which kinda stores energy but not from the grid but rather generates base load energy when needed and when wind/solar are pumping out energy, it simply leaves heat in soil to be used with greater efficiency later. A combo of cheap energy storage, easy to install anywhere base-load energy production with built in delay generation and ever cheaper sun/wind/wave energy generation, we can SERIOUSLY reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
The beauty of the above is that ANYBODY, ANYWHERE can use them to some degree or another. Especially the baseline and storage.
The best part of this technology it's even something that it's not talked about, if we were to accept a higher energy inefficiency this would be the perfect way to export energy for countries with excess production with infrastructure that for the most part we already have, for example just place solar panels all the way through the Sahara desert and then export compress CO2
Using old mines (underground or open air) as the "Dome" would be a good way to not have to have a huge dome taking up land
Well... based on his calculations for 200MW requiring 111,154,000 Litres... it would require a huge amount of land anyway. It would be a tank approximately 110 x 101 x 10 metres... or a little over 1 hectare or 2.5 acres.
Wow, to think the humble CO2 pellet gun cartridge could be parlayed into the World's potential future energy storage solution. I saw another video on heat storage batteries, that extracted energy from an insulated hot mass ,to drive steam turbines. The technology there of heat storage could be combined with this (maybe already is with water heat exchangers to liquify the hot compressed CO2).
I'd have questions about the flexible membrane inside the dome. That's probably the part most likely to leak and break.
I wonder if telescoping gas-holders might work better instead. I imagine they might be easier to build and construct, and inspect, than large domes and their associated membranes are.
Quite remarkable how all the Gasholders that could be used for storage were demolished......rather like demolishing all the smaller and local power stations, whose retention would have been suited to more localised Combined Heat & Power (CHP).
The idiocy of those who cleared these things away when we most need them......
Talk about re-inventing the wheel...........obviously now at far greater cost..
Madness....!
James Hennighan
Yorkshire, England
The efficiency of li-ion battery is always miscalculated, if we only consider the energy to produce those batteries, the efficiency drops to about 80% and if you take all the energy consumed during mining and transportation, the efficiency is around 70%.
I think that it shows promise, mainly because it mostly uses existing technology. My main concern is the longevity of the bladder. Will it weaken after many charge/discharge cycles? Another advantage is that much of this technology would be very familiar to existing fossil fuel power plant operators, thus providing a readt transition path for those workers.
Use salt domes if available, no need for bladder?
I believe the 30 year lifespan of the system is probably the the life span of the bladder… all the rest the components would probably be replaceable on an ongoing basis
I would be more concerned with the Suns UV rays deteriorating it from the outside.
@@randybobandy9828 The bladder is not the outer dome, it is housed inside, so it is protected from UV light.
In the days of municipal coal gas production, the gas was stored in big domes that were floating in water (look up "gas holder"), so this is very old tech. I'd be interested in whether this company has evaluated the old gas holder technology before opting for this bladder thing.
I agree it should capture co2 from the atmosphere. One way they could do it partially would be to capture straight from the factories producing it. Technology could find a way to connect straight to those stacks and use a vacuum system, then take it to a plant that could separate it from the other gasses. Sure, startup for that would be high. But again, so are water and sewage treatment plants. Then, they could even add on to other high carbon producing areas. Sure, it costs money to start as everything does. But in the end it would cost less in the long run and cost less. Once you can find a way to capture carbon straight from the air itself the means of separation will exist and the only major issue would be how much could be taken from the atmosphere before an ice age would result. This could be dine for other gasses such as methane, which seep out of the earth, land, and oceans. Again, we could do many things to help the environment. To what extent would we then hurt the environment and need to produce vs take away. For instance, if we take too much growth of plants, they would suffer. Removing too much could cause cold climate etc.
You pointed out that with a microinverter the shading of one panel reduces the output for just the one panel, not the entire strong of panels. Is this true for the 2- and 4-panel microinverters as well, or do you lose the output of the other 1-3 panels, when any one panel gets shaded? This is important to know, since your stated 50%+ cost savings was based on using the multi-panel microinverters, wasn't it?
Turn on subtitles during the intro:
"I'm Ricky, and this is stupid DaVinci"
The youtube subtitles hate you....
But actually thanks Ricky for making entertaining and informative content about climate related tech.
Mine has it right. Maybe it got fixed somehow?
There are 2 cost factors that weren't mentioned in your video that I'm curious about. The price of the land needed for such a large battery, and the cost of maintenance needed for it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but all cost factors should be considered into the true cost per MW.
Without question land cost will be an issue sometimes, (ie to store output from a big wind turbine array in Napa Valley California vs. offshore wind farms in a remote area) while in other places it’ll likely be a negligible factor. I’m also curious if this can be located anywhere within the grid as opposed to close to the generation site, I don’t see why not. That’d make it much more adaptable and less influenced by land cost. Making the components vertical might also be worthwhile, you could literally attach one onto the side of a new building and have backup power for the building. I’d expect maintenance to be pretty low as it’s pretty much all just standard plumbing, piping and other equipment but it’s a very valid point, typically it would be factored into the LCOS that was mentioned. Not doing so would be a large divergence from the normal way of calculating long term LCOS.
What about the biggest one missed, Where does the co2 come from, thats is still too expensive to capture.
Because the location of the battery is not dependent on anything except the location of the generated energy, the land use should not be that much of a factor. Plus I believe he mentioned the energy density of the battery being low, which for stationary batteries is basically the land use factor. As for the maintenance cost, it should be quite similar to a coal power plant or any power plant that uses a heat exchanger via a working fluid to make electricity.
@@sjsomething4936 Seems to me that it could be located anywhere between the source and the customer without adding losses, and I love the idea of a future cityscape with big white insulating bubbles and rooftop greenspaces on top of all the buildings!
Of course, they probably include them with generation because a 100MW system is a lot cheaper than 100 1MW systems, and the grid's already designed with a high-power node at the source.
land cost could also be reduced/removed if this system is vertically integrated into the facility providing the energy input.
or to put it more blunt: just put (parts of) the solar/wind farm ontop of the building that holds your CO2 battery system. not like those facilities care much if they are a few dozen m's higher up or not.
In saskatchewan Canada we have many oilwells that produce an excess of CO2 at the refinery. This is then pumped back into the ground to flush more oil from the deposit. We also have coal fired power station that is fitted with a carbon capture device to reduce CO2 emissions. Only drawback to this system is -40c temps in winter.
You are a great explainer
Im always informed and never dumbed down by your stuff.
Smart, and still accessible.
thank you, that seriously means a lot!
Regarding the "doubling of wasted energy", we could co-locate this storage near somewhere that needs heat, and capture the waste heat - e.g. in Scotland (plenty of wind) for heating greenhouses
FAR too long and wordy … I listened but missed the essential point
You could even try to not only capture the waste heat, but also the 'waste cold'. Put this facility near a cold storage, and you have cooling with basically no added energy cost.
So, do we know what happens to the efficiency when environmental temperatures drops below -15c? On the Great Plains where most of the wind farms are located, it is not uncommon to have temperature below -28c for days at a time. At these temps the wind mills have to be shut down to prevent damage. Do we know how much efficiency is lost as we get close to the critical point of -31c?
They view the world as though everyone lives in warm places, that's the whole problem with the green energy movement. Most solutions are NOT useable in most of the world. That being said the density of CO2 can probably be altered for various climates to make it useable in the most environments possible. I suspect that will kill the efficiency curve however and kill the concept. In warm places like Sardinia...........it may be viable however. I predict the longevity of the system will be a serious issue. Inflating and deflating any type of bladder is going to be what kills the longevity. They'll weaken and burst quickly I suspect. Or they'll have to be made out of some time of material that kills the cost factor again.
Haha I think you meant wind turbines 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣Unless you want to grind grain.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 “Wind turbine” was a term created by a marketing team to imply an exciting new technology which wind power is not…. 🥱 It’s an arcane technology that still experiences the same limits of Physics it did hundreds of years ago. The only difference between a 19th century aeromotor hooked up to a dynamo and the current monstrosities out on the Plains is their size and reliability. Many of the 19th century versions are still standing and providing power for irrigation and livestock pumps.
@@scottwendt9575 The word "mill" means something.
I think it’s important that it remains emphasized that this doesn’t mean we can still keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the rate we are currently (which is still rising at an alarmingly exponential rate) CO2 and other greenhouse gases from burning hydrocarbons like fossil fuels, will not be canceled out by CO2 Batteries and Carbon Capture alone. The battery tech and Atmospheric CO2 capture, removal and storage are all still very expensive and inefficient and or complicated technologies that are very much still in their infancy and thus will both need more time and significantly more funding and research to further develop their capabilities and assess their feasibility. As both are still only variables in a very long and complicated equation where the only constant really, is it’s continued variability. Also, something to consider, is many companies with “Green Initiatives,” pledging to be Carbon Neutral by a certain date are heavily relying on Carbon Capture technology which is currently way too expensive to feasibly be economically capturing CO2 produced by industry, energy generation and transportation even with the efficacy and financial cost benefits that would come with economies of scale of these technologies as they continue to evolve.
Propane has a specific gravity of 1.51. When Propane is released it sinks immediately and pools in the lowest area. CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.49. How does CO2 rise?
Another great, educational video Ricky! I’m interested in the concept of balcony solar systems. Can you shed some light on this? Would they be good for a small house that can’t justify a full system? And how do they integrate with the grid? Thanks
@@ihateemael Yup solar and wind are actually horribly inefficient and not cost effective at all despite the claims here.
@@MrBottlecapBill I have a new 5kw system that I'm very happy with. It will pay for itself in 3 yrs.
@@MrBottlecapBill hard to say what is and what will be cost effective when they're constantly increasing the price of energy and all the material to produce it.
From your presentation this is a very promising tech. It's relatively easy to implement at scale and is already standardised due to the component parts in use. No need for exoctics or training in new tech. As much as individuals wish to use carbon capture tech to supply the CO2 it's, as you have pointed out, a drop in the ocean when compared to what is being pumped into the atmosphere. I believe that governments will look at it from a economic and security perspective, especially as OPEC+ (which includes Russia in their cartel) are manipulating oil production world wide.
Biden also manipulated oil production by shutting down pipelines and reducing drilling but then attempting to buy more oil from other countries to make up the difference as if the U.S. burning other nations oil causes less pollution.
The CO2 being discharged into the atmosphere by human activity is actually beneficial. Benefits include increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.
The real issue is that fossil fuels are a finite resource.
@@johngeier8692 At one time adding CO2 gave some benefit. Plants started growing faster, decades ago. CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth anymore. Adding more does not increase plant growth much.
Increasingly violent and unpleasant weather due to the increasing amount of heat stored in the oceans and atmosphere is causing major disruption in food production, housing and manufacturing. Not good.
@@nedames3328 Seems to be a balance. Co2 isn't effective unless there is ample nitrogen.
(Makes me question why they would limit the allowed amount of nitrogen to be used by farmers).
Good one. Two thumbs up! Any good idea for energy storage that works is another step forward.
I live in Queensland,Australia a lot of our temperature collection areas are now surrounded by bitumen and buildings where once they were surrounded by the natural environment
For possibly the first time ever, an item about the environment has left me in a positive frame of mind. This is really exciting. At the risk of seeming to make a political point, it is clear that independent technological and entrepreneurial endeavour is the key to survival. The murmurings on the loony left (here in the UK) about renationalising energy utilities make my blood run cold.
How the turn tables indeed.
😂😂 Was scrolling to see how far down until this type of comment appeared.
@@goofsaddggkle7351 lol, same
Anything that can reduce the overall cost of storage is great, we unfortunately need to work with the system that is driven by cost/profit. Will be good to see the tech once matured also. Good vid, not sure about the title though 😊
Less than 9 Cents per Kwh .
What are the costs for other systems ?
I agree with everything except the unfortunately the profit motive is the most effective way of getting things done.
We had free flight model aeroplanes that used CO2 motors in the 1970s (Though dumping the gas out the exhaust, sorry) They worked well.
This idea gives a lot of hope! Investors look at money and care about little else but will invest like with wind and solar if the money is there.
Simple, old tech, cheep and efficient, fingers crossed on this one 🤞
Unlike grid scale batteries, this actually looks like a sensible and practical answer to the intermittency problem (excepting perhaps the nordic thermal battery). Presumably it can use existing caves and abandoned mines to help limit the need for large gas bladders consuming lots of land (although surely the old cylindrical gas storage stations would work better and could be taller, using less land).
Big Energy will do the most cost-effective things, unless required by government. That includes fighting the government at risk of civilization.
The gas/liquid conversion cycle reminds me of the very commonly used Direct Expansion Refrigeration systems we see everywhere. If only refrigeration weren't so bad for the environment we might try to think of some kind of hybrid system.
The refrigeration allegations area furphy, that story was concocted to explain the damage to the Ozone layer from U.S. FRENCH, RUSSIAN AND BRIT NUCLEAR ATMOSPHERIC EXPLOSIONS. Despite scientific concerns such experimantation might set the atmosphere alight, they all went ahead with them anyway. The damage to the ozone layer is the DIRECT result. Nothing to do with refrigeration gas.
When showing "smoke" coming out of powerstations, wouldnt it be sensible to tell people that its not C02 but water vapour / steam coming from the cooling towers?
That does not fit the "Climate CHANGE" agenda. Ever notice they never give us the IDEAL Climate [what ever that might be] or IDEAL average temperature of the earth? Also the entire phrase "Climate Change" is deliberately ambiguous as "Change FROM WHAT to WHAT" is never addressed.
Its actually condensed water droplets. Steam and water vapour are invisible.
@@dewiz9596 Wrong
Finally someone is saying something to say that CO2 is nothing to fear. CO2 occurs naturally in the world and has an important place.
Ricky, you wonderful person you have presented with charm and finesse another excellent start up but ONE THAT ENDURES!!!
Of all of the things I have seen on your program as well as many others, this looks to be the most promising. It's simple, inexpensive, safe, and scalable. That last part is the most important to me, this could be affordable to install in small communities, or small towns that otherwise would be stuck paying the high prices from big corp.
Another advantage is that the equipment will be off the shelf. Meaning workers from other industries could more easily be retrained to work with this battery
@@AJSSPACEPLACE that is a big issue, but a positive one. Years ago I owned a manufacturing plant. I had two commercial grade CNC routers. The first was an Axyz, and I found out quick about the cost of proprietary parts. The second was a CR Onsrud, and they used off the shelf components. The machine cost about $75,000 more, but it quickly made up for it with repairs and maintenance. When you run this equipment for 16 hours a day it takes a real beating.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Living in a third-world country myself, I've always felt that most of the technologies that could help the world steer away from fossil fuels are way too out of reach for us. But solutions like these would really make a difference.
We wouldn't need to bring in engineers from overseas and pay them 100X what engineers here are paid. Any good team of local engineers could easily oversee construction and operation and we could employ local steelworkers to build these structures. Not to mention use our own steel, piping and everything else. Turbines we'd probably need to import, but the rest makes a difference you wouldn't imagine.
And an important point to make: governments in countries like mine find it way too easy to blame China and the west for all the pollution, and the upfront cost of going carbon neutral has always been the perfect excuse not to do anything. But if we are to fight climate change, it can't be just Europe, China and the US, everyone has to do their part.
I think this type of technology helps a great deal in that respect.
@@ipp_tutor where do you live?
@@rwells3376 Venezuela
You could store the uncompressed co2 in the actual windmill tower and have each windmill provide a constant voltage.
Bruh. That's kind of genius.
What? How can uncompressed CO2 provide any benefit?
That would require suspending a huge tube bladder in the tower. and due to the smaller size a reversible screw compressor and just one Co2 tank could be used per wind turbine. Kinda makes me want to try it with the junk screw compressor I have laying around. They are looking larger, but smaller could also scale since if you can do wall cooling during compression the temperature would be lower. And then there is the fact that the tower could also be a massive heat sink.
There was a company a few years ago that wanted to use extra large wind turbine towers. Inside these towers they would pump water for energy storage.
@@andrewday3206 Pumping water makes some sense, still debatable.
1. You need a good pool of usable water nearby. It sust be clear.
2. large mass of water greatly uncreases construction demands. You now need to use corrosion-free materials and much beter founsation.
I have seen this reported before except that the storage dome was under pressure by a couple of atmospheres to have more CO2 in a lot smaller volume. They would take a strip mine seal the ground from leakage, give it a roof then have it have around a pressure of about ten or atmospheres.
If the figures quoted are realistic when scaled to industrial levels, this certainly provides an answer to the intermittancy problem and the demand problem of wind and solar power generation. Lithium batteries are not going to be the answer, the demand for Lithium in the coming years just to satisfy the demand from transport is going to make it expensive and in short supply. Its good that technology like this is being developed, I hope that it proves practical and successful.
really good video and very well explained... I'm not convinced that wind and solar are realistic alternatives but this would certainly help!
@Ukepa It's nice to see people like you who are open about not being convinced with solar and wind, yet at the same time keep an open mind to the possibility that it just might, given the right technological developments.
Tackling a major challenge like climate change requires people who are critical thinkers, not just blind followers. Keep at it and it'll be good to have you on board once you come around.
@@ipp_tutor
So what's your solution?
(Don't say Unclear)
I like this idea. But I have a question. Or actually a future question. I understand the layout _now_ during the early stages when all sorts of things need to be checked. However, it seems to me that this would be so much better if buried. For example, take a plot of farm land. Scrape off the top soil. Use standard strip-mining procedures to dig down 20 or 30 feet. Build everything on that flat. With all sorts of extra dome space. Fill it back in. Put the top soil back. Continue growing. Even with huge combines, there isn't that much added weight to have to account for. And if CO2 _does_ escape, the plants growing on top would gobble most of it up. Hell, you could even make that part of the the overall cycle. Continual bring in CO2 from industry to replace the old CO2 you release carefully into the crop. Which would generate bigger and faster yields which would help offset the cost of getting it from manufactures that capture it for you.
I think an even better idea would be to use one of those huge caverns they use for compressed air wherever it's available, don't you?
@@ipp_tutor not all places have the geologic formations for that kind of storage when applicable it can be used however they need to design the system to be used in more locations to be vaible.
The weight of the soil on top will be a issue as the tank will be compressed by it. Under different loads when full and empty will also add issues which is now additional cost. The benefit of burial is in case of a leak it will slow the release. Which will now be harder to fix and much more dangerous to fix. Nope better to leave it above ground. It does bring up the issue is what is the impact caused by a leak, as name a company that doesn't put profit first in the long haul.
Bury 'em - great idea. Much better than having to look at the horrible things. They take up so much space that we 'should' be using for crops, rewilding, forestry, or some sort of 'greening.'
Not sure that 'leaks' would be taken care of by plants soaking it up, a leak might produce too much for them to cope with -
Goodness me! You realise you might have stumbled across a potential disaster situation here.
CO2 sinks right? Well, you'd have to be really careful where these are sited, because if they did leak and the escaping gas sank into a hollow in the landscape, possibly where people live, there's the danger of suffocation - it's what happens in low areas where there is volcanic activity. I remember there was some little village around an African lake, everyone perished because CO2 bubbled up from the nearby lake.
Wow some acutely good news about a battery that seems practical for large non-mobile storage. Thank you.
Could they use natural gas as the compressed gas? Would be able to use that for backup fuel as well should the unit go offline and could be connected to existing pipelines.
You spoke a lot about scaling to larger systems, I’m curious what the likelihood/feasibility of small scale compressed CO2 batteries would be. It seems like off grid or battery/grid hybrid residential situations would benefit a lot from an energy storage system that doesn’t need replaced every 10 years and doesn’t lose capacity along the way. Thoughts?
Interesting idea for energy storage, something that's essential to the success of wind & solar power. Thanks for this review of that.
You made a little gaffe at 3min+: Ni and Co are NOT rare earth elements. They are transition metals; numbers 28 and 27, respectively, in row 4 of the periodic table.
The rare earths, aka, the lanthanides, are numbers 57 (lanthanum) - 71 (lutetium), in row 6.
I've seen/heard this same mistake made elsewhere, and it makes me wonder where it started, and how?
Fred
By non technical people just repeating information they don't question or understand.
@@alwayscensored6871 Yup! I'm sure that's how it propagates, but who started this mess?
@@ffggddss Someone whose grant money depends on a certain agenda.
@@alwayscensored6871 There's no support or conflict with any agenda, in the mislabeling of chemical element categories.
It had to be merely someone whose knowledge of chemistry was, at best, incomplete.
If they also had an agenda, that was irrelevant to this mistake; I've heard this error from different people whose politics are mutually opposite.
@@ffggddss That was sarcasm, both sides want more technology, profits to be made. Program people to consume more.
Kudos again for your efforts! Blessings!
Not sure if I missed it during your presentation. Where did the energy to drive the CO2 compression come from? If taken from the system electrical generation, then it seems that would at the least reduce the system efficiency even more or reduce the time electrical generation is available for retail/commercial consumption. This seems to me to be an important component of renewable energy generation that is often missed. Or at least not clearly stated.
The 'round trip efficiency' by definition includes any and all losses due to operation of the system, in this case it takes into account the energy needed to compress the gas from the bladder into the liquid tanks. As to where the energy originally comes from, all energy storage will have the same overhead in terms of making the power so its dropped from the "equation" because it appears on both sides as it were. These types of comparisons are really for just talking about the cost of storing the power once you have made it from a renewable source (coal, gas, and nuclear fuel are the storage for their types of power). As such to determine the actual cost to the consumer for the power you will have to include all the costs (Generation + Storage + Transmission) to get the per KWH price. In this video he is just comparing storage costs.
A side note: talking about energy storage is relatively new due to the inherent energy storage of fossil fuels. This is one reason why I often respond when people say "solar is now cheaper than coal", that its really not yet, due to the oft quoted articles not taking storage costs into account for solar. There of course is the also not included environmental and health costs of burning coal (smog and CO2 emissions) but power companies are not required to pay those costs as of yet, so for the present the economic reality is that solar + storage has to be compared to coal by its self; and its not cheaper yet. I hope that helps you understand the video better.
It was easy to miss, but that's the whole point. The electrical power comes from the excess renewable power (wind mill or solar panel) being generated. During times when windmills and solar panels have more wind or sunlight that can be used at that moment, the excess can be stored as it is generated by powering the equipment that compresses the CO2. The pressurized CO2 is then released and vaporized and then in turn, drives a generator which provides electricity to the grid.
The costs of maintaining all these mechanical moving parts that wear doesn't seem correctly communicated in total cost of operation overtime. Also is the CO2 being captured from the atmosphere or being sourced elsewhere? Seems like a generally great option to have overall.
Would the mechanical wear not be comparable to pumped hydroelectric storage?
Never believed even when I was young that CO2 was bad.
Don't worry, you don't need to believe, that's what the scientific research is for.
i pull the covers over my wifes head and expel methane.
she says was that you? No dear its global warming.
Nice! But can it scale down to home unit size (say of a small 2ha/5acre or so block)
How much maintenance is involved per year? Do you need to have staff to run it, so it would only work on a larger scale? (Scales of efficiency).
In short, apart from the setup cost, could this be efficiently setup on a small block of land? Or would it need a neighborhood to support it on a small-medium scale?
I would love to know more.
Small scale wouldn't make sense, only would be cost effective for larger scale use.
I love the idea of storing my own energy and being totally independent form the grid, but all the storage options I have come across are just so much cheaper to do on a massive scale its hard to justify the infrastructure just for myself. The closest I have come across is a thermovotalics battery system, seems like it could be done on a small scale for less of a maleus than other tech, but still most efficient to be done on a large scale. IDK, maybe we will never develop a system capable of personal energy independence.
Seems like we have dozens of capable energy storage options. Hopefully some of these gain traction and really go mainstream. I couldn’t care which takes off.. whatever the market decides will work best, or first or most efficiently or whatever their requirements are.. just get ‘em in production already! There’s gigawatts of green energy out there that needs storing.. and terawatts in the future. Get ‘em crankin!
Well, that's a short-sighted attitude. I'd want an energy capture system to be reliable, efficient, cost effective, and safe, cheap, and easy to build, operate, and maintain. This looks much better than a typical water reservoir/dam/hydroelectric system. It doesn't require dangerous or exotic or expensive materials, or the extraction and processing of those materials.
@@oahuhawaii2141 neither does a sand thermal storage system.. an ‘air battery’.. a dozen different kinds of mechanical energy storage.. there are LOTS of energy storage options that don’t require anything in the way of rare materials. Now, how efficient they are in comparison.. is worth a glance if you were the investor, but my guess is there isn’t Huge variance in their efficiency and they all seem reasonable in cost. The energy storage piece is the only thing lacking in making renewables a 100% viable option across the entire globe. Some will work better in certain locations than others.. i say get some savvy investors to get a whole range of these systems into production. Sooner the better. There is no reason to wait for any one to ‘win’. Get ‘em all going. We need a mega ‘shit ton’ of energy storage globally
CO2 helps plants grow. Our planet is 5% greener than 20 years ago, thanks to CO2. We are still in an ice age let's get out of the ice age and melt this fucken ice. The dinosaurs had 3000 ppm of co2, and their temperature was only 27 Celsius. We have 430 ppm only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. Our weakening magnetosphere is what is driving climate change, not CO2.
I wonder if it could be scaled down for micro use tacked onto your house. For a complete off the grid system. I live in a rural area I've got room.
Near my home in Maine, Solar Developers have clear cut and bulldozed 900 acres of mixed growth mature forest and replaced the forest with solar panels and power lines. I fail to see this as a positive outcome for the environment.
From a geologist, remember that if the gas bag releases the CO2 to the environment there is a significant danger of asphyxiation to the local population. Example the lake CO2 release in Africa a number of years ago.
This idea is actually pretty smart, and safe. It won't catch fire in case of leaks. However I wonder if the dome burst, will the CO2 storied suffocate the machine operator?
Nitrogen is a bit less dense than air, so probably not unless they got stuck in front of a large gap in the dome.
Would the average volume of a windmill's column be close to enough storage space for what that given windmill could pump store in a 24hr period?
Interesting idea but inside the column is a stairway to get to the top for maintenance. Can’t have it filled during maintenance and that would add complexity to the system that would drive up costs. Not to mention that if something went wrong, you’d have technician lives in danger.
@@russellklegraefe6425 or they could climb the outside 😁
suspending a huge tube bladder in the tower would work. and due to the smaller size a reversible screw compressor and just one Co2 tank could be used per wind turbine. Would need C02 leak detectors, and the tower already has to be ventilated while working on it.
Didn't know about that inverter bit with. The one shaded effects all in loop.
Given the alternatives of a world heated to the point north of 2C above per-industrialization (where we are headed), I would see this as a cost-competitive option to build out storage on the cheap, thanks to the materials involved. Along with the sand battery developed in Finland, I see these sorts of products as like the equipment that got America to producing the atomic bomb: Not the most efficient way there, but given the budget and the knowledge of the time, something that could be done now.
Probably what I love most about this idea is that... it basically adds a economic reason for carbon capture, aka capturing CO2 at the plant, and extraction out of the air/ocean, in order to produce these large scale batteries. They never listen unless they can see a profit in it!
I think you mean _immediate_ profit, but I could be wrong.
Would be great if Carbon Capture was easy and efficient.
But it isn't.
It takes so much energy to power carbon capture if that energy is created with fossil fuel burning it actually emits more than not doing CCS at all.
So they use green energy for their CCS.
Which is stupid at best and downright evil at worst. Why not just plug that green energy into the grid, stop powering things with fossil fuels in the first place and cut emissions at the source instead of inefficiently scrubbing them later?
Other high emissions industries may be able to justify CCS later if it gets more efficient, and help justify it with after market value like this.
But for now CCS is just a big steaming pile of petroleum industry propaganda to keep us burning their products longer and maintain their revenues.
@@5353Jumper Because fossil fuel power sources are dispatchable, whereas renewables tend to be intermittent and grid demand is variable, so you can get spikes of renewable supply when demand is low that exceed the present capacity of the grid to store. At that point you can either furl the wind turbines and otherwise waste the renewable power, or you can put it to use.
@@ThePurplePassage still does not mean CCS is a good idea for the petroleum industry.
And did I say replace fossil fuel generation 100% with solar and wind? Nope. A blend is best but we need to get to a point where we are actually meeting daytime needs with green generation before that is even a problem, long way to go particularly if the petroleum industry keeps sucking all the materials, labor and funding from actual green generation projects.
In some regions natural gas peaker plants make great sense, as long as they are relegated to secondary fast spin up generation instead of the primary generation. Still does not mean CCS on them is a good idea.
@@5353Jumper I agree that where CCS is a net emitter (the emissions generated in powering the plant are greater than the volume that is captured) then yes it is obviously foolish to use, and yes most jurisdictions are not at the stage where electricity generation is wholly or even mostly carbon free.
But in the event that it was, or if like I said the low carbon energy generated would not be stored or used (favourable wind conditions for example) then why would you be opposed to the use of the technology then?
If your goal is to abate the effects of climate change then negative emissions technology is a good thing (and I stress again, provided it is a true case of net negative emissions). The less the volume of green house gases in the atmosphere the better and the fewer the number of extreme weather emergencies, migration flows and possible water wars will occur
Excellent video! A comprehensive review of this technology's attributes, pros, cons, as well as current and near future state.
Keep up the good work.
you bet, thanks for the kind words!
Great video, as usual! Thanks!
Great video and interesting technology. But, a 200 MWh storage "utility scale" plant is far, far from being utility scale. I do like the no-rare-earth materials needed, but I'm skeptical of can this really scale up. It looks like it may be limited to diurnal (daily storage, not weekly, monthly or seasonal) energy storage. What is really needed is a way to take future built out hydro, solar and wind power and store it for weeks and months. That is the key, not just daily storage. Note, weekly and monthly storage means having the ability to cumulatively store excess energy the same way a large reservoir stores water during the rain season and releases it during the dry season months later. For compressed CO2, that means having a massive amount of usable storage, which I don't think will ever be practical unless you inject into depleted gas wells in the ground. I'm a consulting engineer with utility hydropower clients in California. One such hydroelectric pumped storage project can daily store over 10,000 MWh. To really play a part, compressed CO2 would have to scale that large and then we need to build 10 or more such plants in my state. That is grid scale!
I think the term "grid scale" is pretty subjective, it depends on the grid your talking about. California is one of the most developed areas of the world and has the requisite amount of energy consumption. But we can compare the actual numbers 200 MWh to how much is needed and know that it would take (for your example) 500 of such "grid scale" plants to provide the needed reserve. Then it becomes a numbers game, as everything is, to weather or not it makes sense to use it.
Now, I think it might be able to be used as seasonal storage. It would depend on the losses of the stored liquid CO2 would it not? if it can be stored for 3 months with negligible loss then you can pump the tanks full and then leave them until you need the power. That would severely impact the profitability of the plant, but if you have no other option it could be possible. The energy density is an issue though. I'm not motivated to do the calculation but that seems like a LOT of volume needed to store months worth of power via this method. Ideally we would find some form of storage that can get closer to fossil fuels in terms of density.
The only real problem I see is the bladder. Presumably it must be gigantic and gas tight. A huge plastic or rubber thing possibly, although I don't know the details. May not last long and hard to keep from leaking especially after many cycles. And how do you fix and maintain it? That will be challenging.
Likely graphene fortified rubber
Then let it leak. It's CO2. You can simply capture an equal amount somewhere else and replenish it.
Could we see home based versions of these?
As was mentioned in the video, the energy per volume is very low, so you'd need a looot of space. Additionally heat exchangers and turbines afaik become more efficient the bigger they are, so tiny scale home based versions would certainly result in lower system efficiency. I think for home owners sodium based batteries are the most interesting current/upcomming battery tech.
Nice find man! great video too!
Uk 🇬🇧 get involved we need battery storage as we need it with our massive tidal wind and solar we still need cheap efficient battery storage
This seems like a more promising energy storage solution than almost all of the 'breakthroughs' I have heard of in the past. This will be very interesting to watch. Without some massive improvements in storage, renewables will remain a non-solution.
But without renewables we're screwed
Again your damn absolutism. What's wrong with you guys. "Mask don't help 100% against Covid so they are useless. Vaccine do not prevent Covid so they are useless.". And now renewable has a flaw (intermittancy) and you put a label on all of them "no solution". That's shortsighted and stupid and lacks nuance. Only people with a small mind doing that.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Yes, there is only enough coal and oil for a few hundred years and most of the Nuclear power plants have been closed.
@@rogerstarkey5390 no what makes us screwed is trying to change overnight and allowing solar pannels and windfarms that pollute more in their process to be made than anything their lifespan produces, not to mention the power companies will declare bankruptcy once all the renewables lifespans are up and hand over the cleanup to the government ( the tax payer) this is a scam, im all for a solution but currently there is no "renewable energy" new generation of nuclear power is the only promising solution but we have time to solve this problem so theres no reason to destroy the american way of life for the lie of saving the planet right now.
There is lot of good information from thorium energy alliance conferences spanning for last 14 years. Elysium industries molten chloride salt fast reactor and terrapowers natrium reactor is my favorite. The annual luminosity varies from season to season. How is storing co2 supposed to compensate for the varied annual luminosity the solar panels get for 100% renewable solar? Since the wind doesn't always blow at all and not at the same speed annually. How do you expect to load follow with critical co2 storage in a big way. The dept. of energy is looking at testing molten salt to critical co2 heat exchangers for concentrated solar thermal plants molten salt reactors , but I haven't found anything like this guy is talking about.
Nice reporting! Interesting that CO2 can liquify at ambient temps. It's just a matter of pressurizing it. That round-trip efficiency (75-80%) and scalability are surprising. This concept is so simple, one has to wonder why it wasn't done before. All good wishes.
look closer at the diagram, you'll notice that there are two types of energy needed to run this thing, electricity, and hydrocarbons, and there's transition losses going between matter states, this isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Peltier devices could help recoup some energy lost if attached to either the hot gas discharge or anywhere with a big swing of temperature difference.
What size unit would be needed for on standard size home? Could the technology fit with a home attic and provide night time power for a home that uses solar during the day and the excess to charge the system?
One question I have is how quickly can the CO2 storage react to changes in demand? Battery storage facilities are really great at near immediate releases of electricity to respond to demand spikes. It seems like C02 storage would need at least a few minutes, so perhaps great for longer term demand increases, but in conjunction with other "instant" demand usage smoothing facilities.
Maybe they could add a small lithium battery to handle instant demand while the generator starts.
As the gas is powering a turbine, the volume/pressure of the gas could be regulated to provide the required turbine speed, and adjusted to demand. This is how a typical steam turbine generator works, steam pressure is constantly being adjusted.
@@tomrogers9467 Agreed. Although you can only adjust it so much based on the input pressure. I think he makes a fair point as one of the stages of the process involves vaporizing the CO2, and that takes time. If you deplete the CO2 going into the turbine too quickly, I think it's possible to hit a bottleneck and perhaps there's a cap on how much power it can deliver.
The answers are in the video;
6:37; Small scale plant; 4MWh at max 2.5MW (62.5%)
6:54: Bigger scale plant; 200MWh at max 20MW (10%)
So the true answer is; it all depends on gear used in the steps/design manual.
@@ipp_tutor On a related note, I’ve had the privilege of touring an atomic energy plant with an employee, my cousin. Standing next to a 550 MW turbine is something to experience! The noise is deafening!
I’d love to be working on a project like this - in another life and with the proper education! Too late now at 70! Maybe next time around!
Yes. This sounds practical. It could actually work at a quite reasonable cost and scale.
Can it be miniaturized for home use?
Seeems as if we have learned a lot over the year since this piece was produced. Right now it is becoming clear that the EV program has been collapsing, several EV manufacturing plants have been closed apparently for good. Ford for example has somewhere north of a 560 day supply of EVs on the lot. Next, suddenly it is clear to those who haven't a clue on electrical power distribution, have been learning that we don't have the grid to support this increased load. Presently the grid is nearing breaking point without the EV load alone added in, then Federal Law is forcing a tremendous increase on the grid load.
Notice you didn't toss in flow batteries in the mix. I just read that China turned on the world's largest flow battery.
yep, and liquid metal, which also brags of being cheap,
and also the sodium batteries made by the same guy with liquid metal.
but also true, those two seems to take forever being released at scale.
and there is that rust battery, also bragged as cheap, but size is really an issue.
and anyway, actually the biggest issue is making those big solar and wind farms.
Till there will be cheap storage the old coal plants can be converted to run with heat stored in sand or in rock.
There was a company a few years ago that wanted to use extra large wind turbine towers. Inside these towers they would pump water for energy storage.
The tradeoff between this and lithium is the cost of that deficit in round trip efficiency. For stationary storage, size of the installation isn't as important as long as its cost effective. Money, as always, has the final say. With the Co2 storage, parts are common, easily replaced, the medium is regenerated and never wears out.