You mentioned that California had an energy crisis in 2020 but you didn't mention that the San Onofre Nuclear power plant was shut down and decommissioned prior to 2020 losing California 2.2 Gigawatts of power.
The documentary needs to be relevant to the topic at hand. It was mentioned to give an example in which mechanical batteries can work. I believe nuclear and renewables are needed but this documentary needs to be focused. Take it from an engineer😊
Curveball slightly oddball, why? It seems like a point is being made but the relevance to the actual picture is not quite connected. Personally I have spent decades developing next generation renewable energy technologies that I am only now in the process of implementing with assistance from Green Assist and the European Commission: CINEA. The reason I developed my technologies is because until nuclear means Fusion, I really don't like the downsides. I did also develop my technologies so that they will assist central fusion power production with augmented, fully renewables mitigated energy storage systems for intraday, interday low loss storage and seasonal lossless storage distributed comprehensive energy security systems. So I have some handle on the situation that leads me to make my suggestion that fissile nuclear is really not the way to go. It is one of the many technologies that got us to here and now we really must get ourselves to where we really must be. That isn't fission or fossil.
@@braveecologic2030 It's the safest energy out there. The waste is sealed in concrete that can withstand tanks and then shoved into a mountain. Only downside is the cost. It's massive up-front money for a long-term payoff. Fossil fuels you can just slap a turbine down and then purchase fuel. Also, we are still far from producing anything from fusion.
@@geocam2 it is also the cleanest power source in the world if you don't factor accidents, and no, the electric bill would not be triple of what currently is.
@@geocam2 Provide your source for that and lets see a true cradle to grave cost analysis from a truly unbiased source. The factor of 20 is suspect. It's also about CO2 reduction first and foremost. A governmental report out of Sweden concluded that, for them, wind will produce 40% more lifetime CO2 than nuclear and it will also cost more (in total lifetime costs). Each country, and even region will be different of course. Japan for example can build nuclear power plants (in japan) for nearly 1/5th the costs of those in Europe largely because they have the experience, the personnel, and a bureaucracy that simply allows for it. Once the EU has a few new ones under its belt, costs should come down.
Not an apples to apples comparison. The solar pricing does not include storage, transmission, land, longevity, and decommissioning costs. Also, the OP emphasized "modern" nuclear. If solar electricity is actually less costly, then why is electricity prices in southern California twice the electricity prices in Illinois which gets roughly half its electricity from nuclear?
@@geocam2 France uses predominantly nuclear power (78%) and they have relatively cheap/stable bills as a result, not only that but they export their excess energy as well as owning large portions of other countries' energy (eg. EDF in UK)
The Rocky Mountain Hydroelectric Project was a 1+ gigawatt pumped storage project that was originally an experiment, but has been in use since 1995. It's co-owned by two Georgia electric power giants and has been efficient and effective for nearly 30 years.
"The Rocky Mountain Hydroelectric Project " The Raccoon Mountain Pumped-Storage Plant in TN was built in 1978 and is bigger than Rocky Mountain. But yes, pumped storage has been around for 50 years.
For example, a system based on gravitational energy storage requires a change in altitude of 360 m for a mass of 1 t to store 1 kWh. The average home uses 11,000kWh annually. This would require lifting 1 ton 11,000 x 360m= about 4 km. Possibly 100m towers? that would require 40 such towers and attendant maintenance, costs, etc. hardly practical.
The idea isnt to power homes fully by the gravitational storage. Its meant to fill in the gaps of the energy production because of its fast response time.
Omg, it doesn’t use something drilled or dug out of the ground so it must be complete trash. You fail to see the forest because you are so focused one tree.
@@Michael_G980 tell me what is easier and cheaper. Moving water up and down from a lake to a river using pipes Or A skyscraper sized building with all the risks it poses, the wind changing the orientation of the weights making it difficult to maintain stability, creating those concrete block in the first place and building the pulley system
Multiple patents for skyscrapers elevators cargo systems... sounds good to me. All you need is cheap electricity from grid that would go to waste. Batteries have max 20 years before they get replaced. This is pure permanent infrastructure with a long lifetime
Honestly... The mecahnical tower lift prototype is childs play and could be calculated in a simulation on paper in minutes.. This is a typical story of poor investors being hoodwinked by engineers that have very little expertise . Get a power elecrical engineer in the team ASAP or you will loose all your investments .
2019 our highschool student designed a battery free street light. She proposed a solar pannel would lift a weight during the day and at night the weight would lower powering the street light. Her team built a working model for their science project. They were all from very low income Hispanic community. Very smart and dedicated senior highschool students.
In the age of the internet, who's to say one of them didn't just see it on the internet and use it. They probably watched a video on future energy storage just like this video. Not trying to strip the kids of their achievement but you are giving them a bit more credit than they probably deserve. I won a science fair project contest back in the before times (1990s) with a magnetic train. The idea already existed I just built my own very crude copy of that. They knew I didn't come up with the idea but then again that's not really the point of a science fair project is it?
The point is that a bunch of kids manage to build a working prototype no matter if there was their original idea or not. It is costing millions of dollars and huge engineering teams to tackle those "intricate mathematical modeling". I don't doubt the talent from these engineers but engineering bureaucracy most of the time is the technology/project killer.
That concept is used in emergency lights often handed out by fema aid workers. In the 2010s, when the history channel had history, we could say and post whatever we wanted on myspace, and youtube was great, a young me would always watch kipkay videos, and other old guys build a DIY version, using the mechanisms of a grandfathers clock! Excellent small scale power bank, actually. Enough to charge pretty much any handheld device at least, indefinitely, and all you have to do to adjust the output is add a heavier weight, that you simply reset when you need to.
Small scale, gravity powered energy. Lift a weight with an exercise bike outside, in a deep bore hole. Then harness the ionosphere when ya legs get tired
While mechanical batteries offer an intriguing alternative for energy storage, their practicality is limited by inefficiencies in energy conversion and the large physical infrastructure required. Additionally, compared to chemical batteries, mechanical systems often face challenges in scalability and maintenance, making them less feasible for widespread use in modern energy grids. We need to invest a lot more into this technology if we think its going to be viable.
The version that stacks blocks should reverse the process and make electricity while stacking so that it would stack them underground where the sides can be braced to eliminate the problem of falling over in an earthquake. It's the simplest of all the options in the video and going down with it would improve the appearance and safety.
In Tavascan, located west of Andorra in the Spanish Pyrenees, this type of system has been in operation since 1971. The planning began in the early 1950s, with construction starting officially in 1958 with building a larger bridge into the valley. The project was completed in 1974, with its official inauguration in the same year. This shows how long this concept has been around, and it’s exciting to see newer implementations like this one in Switzerland!
Nooo it's a bad idea, that thrust is put in the toilet system on purpose to flush our remains, putting the turbine only slows the thrust, I would advise if you clean it and put it somewhere better
You could upscale the toilet to a 10 million gallon tank toilet and have it in the city center. It would generate enough electricity during power demand.
no one mentioned COUNTER-ROTATIING flywheels. I read somewhere that counter-rotating flywheels eliminate the torque associated with both movement and the Earth's rotation. Please check on this and let me know something...
I think flywheel technology even buried deeply .. just scares the pants off engineers. The massive cost of precision manufacturing such a facility and the coat of a potential (energy) mistake.. think long term fatigue.. 💥 boom and doom. ... small units, they should have one under every slab!
Thermal storage using deep cavens. Allow water to fall down into cavens, get heated up from the earth's fire and then return as steam. Hydro turbines used on way down and steam turbine on way up. It may also be possible to harness the air pressure as the water fills the cavern forcing the air up a pipe.
I'm no scientist but this sounds kind of feasible. The only problem I see with this idea is the creation of a cavity that far down to where the earth would boil water. Roughly 7.5 miles down and at a temp of 350ish degrees Fahrenheit is the deepest hole ever dug by man (soviets) so it's possible to reach far enough, however their experiment ended because their drill bit(s) melted from the heat. You could try to find a natural cavity to hold the water but you would never know if it was sealed off enough to retain any water to boil back up. This would mean you would need to create a cavity, of what size I do not know, without the machines doing the digging melting from the heat. You would have to control the pressure with pipes and whatnot so you don't create a blowout with a natural cavity. Other than that, solid idea.
@@JarofMayonaise where I live in Southampton there is a thermal power plant. Not sure what type or how it all works but old coal mines may be a possibility. Remember, pressure can also be used and a more recent development is using sand as a storage battery. What I am really trying to say is let's use that free and permanent source of energy. Iceland, Norway and Sweden are experts. They use the earth's heat for district heating systems so why are others not doing the same. Heating our properties takes up so much energy. Heat pumps may be a start but there is plenty of room for improvement. Using the heat and pressure from the earth which is a natural storage medium together with modern science could certainly be a way forward.
You didn’t mention that apart from large amounts of electricity quickly and smoothly it also has to synchronised to the grid as well. A small but very significant technical issue all generating plant need to contend with. As the number of small gravity storage systems increase thus will also make it harder for grid operators to control how and where they can be utilised. There more to just building and embedding lots if small gravity systems in our towns and cities. This video whilst good doesn’t address these issues . That why a small number if large generating plant is better.
It's a fair point, but it wouldn't be outrageous at all for these machines to use power electronics to be a buffer between the actual generator they are turning and the rest of the grid. Most large windmills already employ a DFIG for the exact purpose. Rotor synchronization isn't necessary in these kinds of machines since the grid is not directly AC coupled to the generator. The generator produces AC which is converted to DC and then inverters produce grid-following AC power without the need for mechanical synchronization.
I didn't know that. The design us different from conventional and nuclear turbines which have to be synchronised to the grid. They tend to follow the grid to prevent the grid feeding back against the power stations turbo generators causing them to speed up causing automatic tripping of the plant which would take it off from supplying.
Actually! Already been done with a train on a hill lol. Lots of variations of the gravity battery. These ones using blocks are a scam. Except the ones using already made holes or something. A water tower would work better, and companies are doing that. The thing is there are so many companies working on energy storage as it is the future. So many technologies vying for it, and there are many chemical or thermal batteries that work better for cheaper. Redox for instance looks great. It has to be cheap and scalable. So a liquid chemical battery is great since making a container larger is easier than building a bigger tower. Since a container benefits from square cubed adding one foot equals way more volume. I'm all for renewables. Just not with this when there are better solutions. Redox tech looks great.
@@grahammukuyu4660 Water storage already works, shut up. I know more than you clearly. Way better than this scam. And everything else I said was true. Why don't you compare other technologies. Or watch videos that break it down why this idea is hot garbage just from a physics prospective.
Sounds like a very good idea actually, why not have a gondola lift system? A platform on top of a mountain to store blocks, send blocks down to the bottom of the mountain to generate energy, send it back up to store energy. I guess is that the limitation is weight or size constraint due to it going on a very long cable. But with energized rail tracks, the "train" itself could just be a heavy engine moving up and down based on voltage in the track.
They have been using hydro electric batteries in the California sierras for 50 years~ I toured Wishon/Courtwright reservoir’s underground hydro power plant in the 80’s as a kid it’s worth a visit
Anti swing and anti sway functions have been pretty standard on VFDs for 20+ years, so no sure what kind of spin Robert piconi from energy vault was on about
Homes that are self sufficient, powered by natural energy source such as wind, solar, and geothermal, independent from big energy companies. That should be the green future.
Too expensive & resource intensive to have battery storages in every home, instead commonly own the grid instead of big energy companies. You know, communism. Much like instead of cars, we need commonly owned free public transport. Communism is always the most efficient & natural solution.
I completely agree with one caveat. My own technology is designed to distribute, decentralise and democratise energy capture, storage management and prosumer trading, but I still want to work with a centralised grid with all it's connectivity advantages, but secure in the knowledge that my systems will ensure my home, my facilities and those of all the people we support with energy security, will be able to function sustainably for any amount of time cut off from the grid or when grid power fails. The rest of the time it's like everything else, we can make money and gain mutual benefits from social connection but can survive still and thrive somewhat if the extra social essentials are cut off. Our energy security buys us all the time we need to rejig if the social network gets interrupted and we'll need a minute to figure out the next way we socially reconnect if the system goes down and we need to make a new one. I love your idea about self secure energy. I do the same thing with food, water, heating, cooling, cooking, drying, waste and sewage circularisation, renewable fuels, ecologic air transport and regenerative resources.
Okay, but how many % of the actual homes can do this ? In apartments NO, those living in streets with the houses build next to each other, i don't think so. In third world country's, they have the not money ...
at least the homes would be worth what they are selling for today…green energized! but of course you’d have to pay a million for 200k home because of it
@33:10 The optimal form for a structure is not square, but hexagonal; optimally distribute forces 'coz is geometrically complete, covering 360º in 2D and 3D, is the only geometric form, that does such covering and would handle the 3 Cranes better, and is good that are 3 Cranes, a sub-multiple of 6; the tower should be made with a *regular truncated octahedron.* It has 6 square faces and 8 hexagonal faces, all of which are regular polygons, for durable structure or honeycomb-like 1; more complex but we have computers and CAD Software. The Compressed blocks need to be protected, or those cracks and holes will create weak points and they'll start to crack down; I think those block are not a finished product
Sorry, but this session is so puerile, I reckon it's on a par with a ten year old's social studies project. It contains so many silly errors, particularly errors of omission, and out of date info that it's almost comical. It's basically an ad for Switzerland. The deprecation of battery storage is ridiculous. Electro-chemical batteries can respond in milliseconds!
silly errors .. Show your project you done with out any silly errors, did you do any first ? , Ad for Switzerland ? May be other countries does not care about anyone!
Hey, I've got one. What about using our seaports, where the huge container facilities are. They are lifting and stacking and lowering heavy containers constantly.
Let's talk about the giant elephant in the globe. Because of greed and corporate controll, the world builds giant power generation grids. The answer is to have a power generator in every home,factory,building. Like everyone that now has a furnace or a.c.unit.
Yep. I have those in the making. I totally agree. It makes everything and everyone more resilient. My systems are designed to democratise energy security (and all the other essential resources in different modules). I still want an organised central grid though for the mutual benefit while and at all time when the social infrastructure is working to the greater benefit of all.
There was a company called Hyperion that was trying to make small (phone booth sized) self limiting reactors. the use case was for power dropped in rural areas (under 20000 population or so) and you would bury them down. They were designed to automatically stop the reaction if it ever got out of control (I have no idea how this works, but to my understanding this is a very common thing in modern reactors) and just go inert, already buried and shielded. Seemed like a great idea, not sure what they ran into or if they ever got it going.
We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface with the potential (pun intended) of pumped hydro. It’s one of the most undervalued approaches with virtually the greatest potential. There are so many ways to solve the “issues” with it that simply aren’t being considered, and the places it can be used are far more diverse than virtually anyone seems to realize. Along with that, I would say something simple like CAES using old mines as pressure vessels would be able to handle short term demand much better than any of the other mechanical systems discussed here - the efficiency is reduced, but that isn’t as important for short term use. Chemical batteries can also fill that role - but they are a bad approach for primary energy storage (too expensive and too energetic/dangerous).
This technology has been around for ages - Formula One Racing cars capture the kinetic energy generated under braking, this is known as KERS and briefly provides additional horsepower for increased speed.
Formula 1 cars need to capture and release that energy very quickly, they don't need to store it for a long time. That's the trade-off. There are technologies that can capture and release energy quickly, but would lose most of that energy if you wanted to store it for a long time.
From my nomadic perspective, solar energy is a game-changer, providing reliable and cost-efficient power without the burden of electricity bills. However, applying solar and batteries to large on-grid houses seems less effective due to the issue of over-consumerism. In contrast, embracing solar energy for nomadic lifestyles promotes sustainability and independence from the grid. While I support the idea of combining solar panels and storage batteries, it may be more prudent to reduce overall energy consumption and reassess our dependence on large-scale housing to realize a more eco-conscious future.
Agree there’s room for improvement in efficiency. But unfortunately every large-scale power generation method has environmental impacts, the problems definitely aren’t exclusive to fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Solar panels in landfills leach harmful chemicals into the environment-cadmium is a known issue, though other toxins may also be involved. Wind turbines are arguably worse. Their massive fibreglass blades are piling up in landfills because recycling them is highly inefficient. The manufacturing and disposal processes also release significant harmful chemicals, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated during production and transport.
While California was going through a massive heat wave and rolling blackouts, the government buildings still had AC on full blast. A friend of mine worked for the state department in Sacramento. There were people inside with sweaters and winter clothes while most of the public struggled outside.
If you generate power as the elevator falls you would need to use more power to get the thing up there in the first place. These systems use counterweights to reduce the power required to raise the lifts. On the way down they have to bring those counterweights back to the top.
Generally speaking most large industrial VFDs or servo drives will feed power back into the grid when decelerating the load. Otherwise it will need to heat something up somewhere else..... For instance, Fanuc robots do this always...
Great video. The only thing I would add is the perspectives such as for the dam it was mentioned how many homes it can supply w power. For the other 2 numbers were not mentioned
Windmills and acres of solar panels have their own environmental impact. Fusion power is a way off yet but in the meantime, developing safe nuclear reactors is the way to go.
My understanding is that we have to mine in order to make the rods used. The radioactive material has to be refined to a level. All done from fossil fuels
@@loulelea even if true, the final product is a nuclear reactor which is wildly more efficient than any of these. Worth it by any analysis that doesn't bake in the dream of people just 'consuming less'.
@@TheTerryscotttayloryou are a few years out of date. Every carpark could have a solar canopy that would cover most of our energy needs cheaper than nuclear, combined with Tesla Megapacks 😊
The blocks on the tower should have been interlocking. Just a simple key and groove that as it's stacked. It locks in. Then you've got one homogeneous unit that still has some movement.
A water pump sends water to an elevated tank. In reverse the water falls back down, and the pump is an electric generator. Simple, scalable, affordable, and integrated into an existing drinking water system. Many towns in the US already have water towers in place. It's like that in many parts of the world as well.
If you live in a ten meter tall house, you can throw one ton of weight, or a cubic meter of water, off your roof, and that will keep your laptop running for 20 minutes. If you want to make some tea instead, you'll need to do that three times in quick succession. In other words, the amount of energy one can store with your idea is negligible.
@@Alexander_Kale, fair point, so we already pump the water up to fill large water tanks. Almost all of the energy of the water returning to ground level is wasted currently. The system to generate electricity is already built. Adding impellers to turn the cranks on the electric pumps already in place would be collecting the energy that's in the flow of water we already have. These water towers are extremely common in America (I don't know where you're from. You may already know that.) Also, the concept of storing energy with mechanical batteries is not as much about efficiency, but more about having an overabundance of extra energy, and still having energy on demand when the wind isn't blowing your windmills, and clouds are blocking your photo-electric cells.
@@quellenathanar The water towers you are talking about store water. They are not meant to store energy. And what i just told you is that you cannot use them for energy storage, becuase the amount of energy they can store is very, very, very, very tiny. 1 cubic meter for twenty minutes laptop time. Now measure one of those towers for volume and divide by that number.... You would need a water storage tank the size of a house on top of the actual house if you wanted to make so much as a dent. And THEN you would have to build a cistern below the house to store that water while discharging your gravity battery, otherwise all the water given off by both your house and all the other houses would flood your street and overwhelm your sewage system. Not to mention you need it again when you want to recharge... If you want to build a gravity battery, think Hoover dam, not rooftop tank.
Ima bit over “innovation”. None of these things are new. They were just dreamed not efficient, very complex, costly, often resource intensive, requires lot of maintenance and lacks a good business model.
Totally agree that nothing here is new. Belgium has had one of these artificial lakes as energy storage in the 70s. The only thing that is new is the circumstances. Reduced availability may change their business model to feasible as the price of fossil fuels goes up.
I’m very impressed in the quality of your program, definitely subscribing. Some of these ideas on storing power are probably a huge waste of time, money and space and the only way they exist is subsidizing the idea by the government..
This is incredible. I did understand the mode of operation of the Energy Vault's solution. But not being able to fully understand how the last part works which is the storage of air in tanks
We've heard about thorium being "better" in every way for quite some decades. However, one would expect that by now someone should have built at least one thorium reactor that proved commercial viability. This has not happened, though both the Chinese and the Russians poured billions of dollars into experimental thorium plants that turned out to be a bitter disappointment. If you had an example of a working model that succeeded we would be a lot more positive about thorium. Molten salt, though, is proving very much viable in other applications: solar collectors (mirrors) beaming to central point to build heat and then store it in molten salt. Morocco has a very successful project producing power for the whole country now.
@@toddmarshall7573 If you can cite a reference for this, it would be helpful. Because so far the only thorium projects I've read about ended up in proving it was not viable, after wasting a billion dollars each try.
@@ianritchie2102 You're forgetting politics. Uranium was implemented first to obtain plutonium from breeder reactors. Then laws were passed to strictly control fissile material and it's secondary waste materials, because they could be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Hence, Thorium is now perpetually locked up in bureaucracy alongside other fissile materials.
Cost for storage (depending on the type) should be included in the cost of electricity from wind and solar. You could easily make a distinction between the three types of storage: stabilising the grid, daily fluctuations and seasonal fluctuations. At the other end of the spectrum, cost for the negative impact on climate and environment must be included into the price of fossil energy. Then, an equal playing field is established.
At the present time, why should it when the grid can actually take it all except in special circumstances and just replaces conventional power. Around half of power generated is base power, the other is variable and diurnal.
This is not being reported in a manner that's meant for people to analyze it easily. That's because the push for solar and wind is a political initiative. It's not about efficiency. Modern Nuclear is so much better than any of this that you would have a hard time graphing them all together and even seeing these other options. Best power generation: 1) nuclear by a large margin 2)burning coal/gas 3)WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY less efficient options If you care about the environment, and you're realistic enough to handle that most are not passionate enough to never use more than one sheet of toilet paper per bathroom trip (or any other use reductions measures that reduce their comfort) then you should be 100% behind increasing use of nuclear. Period.
@@TheTerryscotttaylor - Oh please, the ONLY aspect of power generation that is not being reported is storage costs. Levelized costs of power COVER most aspects of generation. Infrastructure, capital and interest on capital are included, amortized over the lifespan and capacity factor of the generation. The best levelized cost of production is green power. NOT NUCLEAR.
Please learn you physics. Potential energy E[J] = Height[m] * 9.82 m/s2 *mass[kg] . so 1000kg 1000 meters up = 9.82 MJ. If we let the crane dump it back to 0m altitude in 1 hour we will in theory produce 9.82MJ/3600s = 2,727 kWh . And we have not yet subtracted for friction etc. 1000m/1h = 28 cm/sec in velocity - not so much Should be possible with 2727W/746 = 3,7 hp motor.
I am still surprised no big company has done "gravity power plants"... there are lots of great ideas not explored and are shown on RUclips, unless if I am clueless on the company doing so at the moment.
@@paulvarn4712 I am talking about ideas that are different from old ones, there are some great ones that would make serious money but not affecting the environment. Hydro power depends on the rain and we’ve seen a lot of them running dry, so now I’m talking about the ones where nothing but gravity will solve the actual problems and gravity requires nothing from Mother Nature except gravity itself.
@@paulvarn4712 @ I am talking about ideas that are different from old ones, there are some great ones that would make serious money but not affecting the environment. Hydro power depends on the rain and we’ve seen a lot of them running dry, so now I’m talking about the ones where nothing but gravity will solve the actual problems and gravity requires nothing from Mother Nature except gravity itself.
One thing with the crane battery is that it, would only work halfway down.. Or 60% of the hight. Cus what juse is it to have it a few meter above grund? Why not have a copperpipe with a big iron cylinder. With Air pocket. So u lift it with water, pump it out get where u get some of energy back, then the ironcylinder will drop in the pipe, where u get a lots of more energy. There is a few more things u can do with it.. Well good work do. How do u get the foundings for sumeting like this?
And why not just do a konstruction around the tower so it cant fall? And why not do half a meter of poles like lego on them? And why not.. And the last with licuid Air, what if gets a spark ujuj. And why not aa to mutch info xF
How much energy could I store for my home if I were willing to dig a 10 meter hole under the house, and raise/lower a weight of 100 tonne? E = F.s = m.g.h = 10^5 * 10 * 10 (rounding g off to 10). This is 10 MJ of energy, enough to power a 2400 W heater for just a few hours if the conversions are 100% efficient in both directions. (Actually its quite a bit worse than that because I have not accounted for the volume taken up by the mass of eg rock).
after long research people have come to realise that the new and old ones' are all the same different side effect on nature and humans. it's all about marketing
An interesting point. I don't have any expertise on AI but a lot of RUclips channels appear to use AI to generate the voice overs from text and get punctuation and grammar wrong. I know there are issues with bias in facial recognition systems. There are systems that do seem to work well. Guess it comes down to the quality of the software and how long it needs to learn an optimal solution. National Grid would have be respond quickly to any unusual responses from AI.
I'm deeply skeptical of the solutions in this video to scale. Wind/solar have multiple flaws, but the lack of dependability is the biggest. I think people don't grasp the sheer scale of energy storage we're going to need if W/S are really going to be the backbone of our energy future. Bill Gates gave an example at a TED Talk about 15 years ago where he said that if you took every single battery humanity has ever constructed, imagined it had the full 100% capacity it had when it was brand new, and dedicated it to backing up the world's energy grid based on current (15 years ago) consumption, you'd get 10 minutes of energy backup. And we need storage for not just overnight, but weeks, and potentially MONTHS because even if W/S is producing SOME energy, it's likely producing LESS than it's ideal, and can underproduce for months of overcast winters, or lower wind trends. It isn't just compensating for when it's producing ZERO power. It's why Gates was/is skeptical of W/S, and I am too. We're going to need a wonder-of-the-world caliber energy storage solution next to EVERY population center in the world. Probably MULTIPLES. It's why we really need to stop acting like W/S are going to be the backbone of our energy future. They're more likely to end up as supplementary sources. Leaving storage and transmission and grid enhancement costs out of the LCOE metric distorts economic policy planning in favor W/S. But these are NOT separate problems. These are inherent costs OF W/S. Other energy solutions don't have these problems. I think enhanced geothermal and fission ought to be higher on our list. Geothermal is a great way to take advantage of the drilling expertise currently developed by fracking companies. Fission is mainly expensive because of the political/legal environment that has been crushing it with extra costs. These produce steady base-load power. These should be the backbone of a low-carbon energy mix until we arrive at commercially viable fusion (likely after I'm dead). The entire US pacific coast is a treasure trove of geothermal potential. Instead of dumping all their money into unreliable W/S, they should be drilling geothermal wells.
At 43:40 mins he demonstrates by how much the volume or air in the lab would refrigerate down to a liquid - down to the size of the fridge (700 times less volume). I was quite surprised at how much liquid there would be, or how much mass air has! I think this is a good demonstration of how much air weighs, and why moving through air causes so much drag. When James May took the Veyron up to 270 mph he said at that speed the effect of drag is like driving through a fruit cake. Which is also another good analogy.
The success of the green energy revolution depends on how much funding they can extract from investors for their own pockets for projects that mean nothing. Pump storage gravity batteries are not built for power generation, but are used to utilise excess power during low demand periods to boost high demand periods. They don't generate any new power. 1 brick of uranium stores energy waaay better
These constructs look absolutely alien! Fantastique! ‘.... sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.’
Lol. Energy vault seems to be souch a scam... Although I like the usage of holes to lift it more easily, not the edges as previously shown in their marketing.
22 дня назад
It’s amazing that elevators all around the world have a counter weight on them to reduce the load up and down saving energy. There is also CO2 batteries that can start and be on line in under a second using multiple small turbines that spin up quickly. They have them in Italy recovering the CO2 and then re compressing when energy is available, can be scaled to run a city for 8 hours
In california the geysers geothermal plant could be expanded to many other areas, its worked for decades. PV panels produce less in high heat, solar thermal produces more in high heat, consider restoring the 350 mega watt mojave SEGS system that ran for decades that was dismantled.
The only PRACTICAL way out is building new fail-safe nuclear plants. China is now running a Thorium plant that they got from us in the late 50's to early '60's. Thorium reactors are immune from power loss, like what happened at Fukushima. They also require no operators to shut themselves down in the case of overheating. Gravity shuts them down, and gravity is always there. The place that was pumping water up to a lake, then using its reverse flow for power, took 10 YEARS to build. If we put that time into many nuclear plants that require no mining to power them, there would be no need for these energy storage units. Not that I'm against them. We have huge stores of radioactive "waste" that can run the new plants, already pre-mined. I emphasize no mining, because it produces huge amounts of CO2. Also, we are taking old nuke warheads from our own stock, as well as buying THOUSANDS of Russian warheads,(This is already been happening, we have purchased 26,000 from the commies already) all which is ready for minimum processing before use. As compared to mining, for starting up MANY plants. I just can't believe Nuke power is not even being considered, when it is safer than solar when you factor in the mining for elements that are required to make solar possible. As well as the very carcinogenic chemicals needed to process solar panels. This gets way too complicated to explain quickly here, but the simple way out of our energy problems, as well as the safest, is nuclear. Has been for several decades. With no Fukoshima's or Chernobyl's. So why haven't we been building more NEW safe Nuke plants already? Fear by the uninformed American people. Oh yes, and mostly.... GREEDY OIL COMPANY'S !!!
Could you quote your source for this? I had read that both China and Russia had each built thorium reactors decades ago, but they were both very expensive boondoggles that didn't work. They gave up. But if you could quote from a more recent source, and a reliable one, then I might have to rethink it.
@@ianritchie2102 It was too long ago to quote the source, however I would disagree that China's use of Thorium was anything even CLOSE to a boondoggle. It was more of a dongboogle. It was a success, and now China is going full scale on a Thorium Reactor! As far as Russia goes, their economy has been in the crapper for so long, even before their boondoggle in Ukraine. Now their economy is totaled. Plus, I would not trust them to build a reactor of any type that I would trust. Despite Chernobyl, I would expect them to cut every corner, safety related or not. They are too tapped out to be in the business of being in the business of building ANY safe reactor!
33:10 as kinetic energy depends on MASS it makes sense in production, after tests are completed, instead of concrete (which typical density is 2.5g/cm3) use relatively cheap Lead (11.34 g/cm3)
This is insane. We have the technology to produce clean energy, let’s put it to further use. All these battery farms, solar farms, windmills, these take up a land, so why not have a system for each individual residence, put it in our hands to monitor our own power consumption and we will learn how to stop wasting electricity.
And then people explode because they don't have a college degree and then years of on-the-job training not to hurt themselves. Like, I get what you're saying, independence is the better idea, but unless you're going to package and install systems for individual homes _and_ stand by its safety...
@@ClockworkGearhead that’s exactly it. Put that money and construction companies to work installing complete ready to go systems on every residential home, farm, you name it.
This was great! thanks for the documentary. In that last liquid air plant, though, I have to admit that the physics teacher in me cringed when they talked about capturing and storing the "cold" when they really just mean low-temperature substances. :)
The supercooled air seems like the least feasible because you have a lot of energy and dependency on a supply of some material or method that is going to super cool the air without that, you're screwed.
Democrats slow down innovation because they are against nuclear. Trump and Republicans LOVE nuclear energy because it's the ultimate solution to our energy qualms. We ain't afraid. Democrats, socialists and communists want to hold us back
Would it not be possible/feasible to use flywheels as a sort of "bridge" energy storage? I know it can't store energy long term nearly as efficiently, but it provides a sort of energy inertia that can bridge between main generators going down and slower storage kicking in. No?
Bio gas generators 4 Cooking gas from a farm and Urban System, Make our waste Useful ❤ 1 trillion strong Humanities Tree will be 1 day lets spread hope instead of Greed and Envy.
Wonderful video! Percentage of efficiency was addressed in the last method, I was curious about the other methods too. Of course using surplus energy to generate this energy is a consideration. Also cost wise, which is easiest to build in terms of return on investment.
So, how long can the weight drop one go for? Seems to me that if it's a minute, then just install one in the design of any of the slow to react ones. Say it's 30 seconds, install two. Even 6 of them dropping in sequence would give the dam enough time to spin up. Also, that one (and the dams) seem least prone to mechanical failure.
This documentary is pure hype. Most engineers who work in the renewables industry know that hydrogen and ammonia are the sanest ways to store excess renewable energy.
Hydrogen has many flaws, it is at best 25-30% efficient in a Power to power configuration. H2 is very low density energy (in volume), to contain big amounts of it requires a lot of space, expensive tanks that limit the loss due to it's small size and a lot of energy. Even worse, current tecnologies are way too expensive because of the use Platinum or rare earths catalists, which also require a lot of mining.
You are right about compressed air, but it`s a tough sell for a huge power grid, of course it is much smarter than raising weights with the excess power, less moving parts, less stuff to break down.The problem is the scale. It would be the most proper mechanical battery for a small community with a large solar array.I wonder if combined with the added pressure of being in deep water could bump up the air pressure as a multiplier.
@@tedzehnder961 أنا اقوم بأبحاث في الجامعة التي اعمل فيها عن طريقة جديدة اكثر بساطة لخزن الهواء المضغوط وطريقة رائعة لتشغيل تورباين يعمل بالهواء المضغوط ... النتائج ممتازة جدا وقد وصلت لكفاءة تشغيل وانتاج طاقة كهربائية تقارب ال ٨٥% ناهيك عن الهدوء التام اثناء التشغيل والموثوقية العالية للنظام ككل ... المشكلة الوحيدة التي تواجهني هي عندما اضع تصميم لمحطة كبيرة اجد ان الموضوع يصبح غير عقلاني ولايمكن بناء محطة قدرتها تتجاوز خمسة ميغا وات
Wow it seems like I watched a video a few months ago about how crazy this storage idea was. The room for error, the cost to build, the wear over time and so on. Wouldnt using a pump to move water be more efficient. Wether in a tower or a whole reservoir.
Suyun özgül ağırlığı 1ton/m3 , Toprak ve taş türevlerinin ise 2-2.7 arası. Eğer su kullanırsan hem sistem 2 ila 3 kat daha büyük olmak zorunda hem de suyu bünyesinde barındıracak korozyona dirençli (muhtemelen paslanmaz çelik) kaplar üretmelisin ki bunların da maliyeti oldukça yüksek olur. 25 yıl dayanmaları da çok zor.
Let's build nuclear or thermonuclear reactors and produce energy when needed - no large storage required. Gravity store is economic with water but not with concrete blocks. I recommend thunderf00t video debunking this idea.
Your nice British-accented narrator states that Energy Vault will generate energy at 6.5 cents per megawatt-hour (at time stamp 41:00). Considering that I am paying over 20 cents per kilowatt-hour (retail), is it possible that you have slipped about 3 orders of magnitude in this estimate? Also, since Energy Vault is just an energy storage technology, is the estimate intended to be the final cost of the electrical energy (including initial generation, storage, and re-conversion to electrical energy) or is it for the incremental cost of storage and re-conversion, which would be added to the initial generating cost?
for the lego energy battery, what would the block's dimesions be, cos at full capacity the block at the bottom of the pile is holding the weight of all the blocks above it, i didnt see them reenforce their soil mix
Another dumb green idea but apparently building nuclear takes too much resources. This doesn't I guess and the maintenance costs I'm sure will be so cheap...
They keep telling us nuclear would take too long to build. They've said it for so long we could have already built several generations of nuclear power plants in that time.
I remember drawing up a similar design about 10 years ago though mine had a large capacitor load bank for momentary load shedding in power transfer lag.
I think hydrogen fuel cells are superior. They can be scaled from a home sized power generator, to a bus, to a cargo ship. There is an endless supply of hydrogen in the universe. The big problem with H is storage. I think we can figure this out in the next 25-50 years and hydrogen fuel cells will be powering many homes and buildings
Hydrogen has it's uses but it's not like long term storage is all we need, but when it comes to short term storage... lihium and sodium batteries are already there, prices are falling. Sure we need all technologies we can get, but in general we do have lithium iron phosphate and sodium batteries that just can be improved upon
If only they continued with gas and coal power plants. All this energy storage would not be required. The concrete block idea: Lower blocks won't store much energy. The blocks in the full scale structure look suspiciously like regular concrete.
Are elevators in buildings ever used to generate electricity or serve as ballasts for parallel elevators? Since they are so plentiful in urban areas, it seems like they might be retrofitted (or contructed in new builds) to serve as something of an energy vault by hauling fluids and tanks to be released or carried back down at peak hours. Not as innovative as some of these ideas, but if we can add solar panels to a building in addition to creating solar farms, why not he same for batteries?
1) you're talking about a low level form of torture, 2) the cost of feeding them is far higher than the power you get out. Despite your desire to punish them more than they already are, humans are a horrifically inefficient power generation machine.
2) they are fed anyway & they are burning calories in the gym anyway - so they could generate electricity - doesn't matter how much they'll generate - better some than nothing.
25:34 Why don't they just reduce the speed while it's dropping with a gear box? Raise it at one speed then shift it to another gear that lowers the weight slower but spins the generator just as fast? This would increase how long they would get power and slow down the weight to reduce occultations
Scientists told me 35 years ago that my ocean front home would be underwater by 2010. They said the science was settled, they were positive sea levels would rise by over a meter. Melting glacier and arctic ice was being carefully measured and there was no arguing with the data. Smallish problem with their models. When I walk out my front door, the high and low tide mark hasn't moved at all in 50 years. Obviously my lying eyes are wrong and we'll all be dead because Eric wouldn't stop driving his V8 go-cart through packs of penguins.
You mentioned that California had an energy crisis in 2020 but you didn't mention that the San Onofre Nuclear power plant was shut down and decommissioned prior to 2020 losing California 2.2 Gigawatts of power.
The documentary needs to be relevant to the topic at hand. It was mentioned to give an example in which mechanical batteries can work. I believe nuclear and renewables are needed but this documentary needs to be focused. Take it from an engineer😊
Huh... Nuclear is a great source.
Curveball slightly oddball, why? It seems like a point is being made but the relevance to the actual picture is not quite connected. Personally I have spent decades developing next generation renewable energy technologies that I am only now in the process of implementing with assistance from Green Assist and the European Commission: CINEA. The reason I developed my technologies is because until nuclear means Fusion, I really don't like the downsides. I did also develop my technologies so that they will assist central fusion power production with augmented, fully renewables mitigated energy storage systems for intraday, interday low loss storage and seasonal lossless storage distributed comprehensive energy security systems. So I have some handle on the situation that leads me to make my suggestion that fissile nuclear is really not the way to go. It is one of the many technologies that got us to here and now we really must get ourselves to where we really must be. That isn't fission or fossil.
@@dankomancer It is, if it isn't fissile.
@@braveecologic2030 It's the safest energy out there. The waste is sealed in concrete that can withstand tanks and then shoved into a mountain. Only downside is the cost. It's massive up-front money for a long-term payoff. Fossil fuels you can just slap a turbine down and then purchase fuel.
Also, we are still far from producing anything from fusion.
Seems easier to just build a modern nuclear power plant, and or don't shut down present nukes and start up shut down nukes.
@@geocam2 it is also the cleanest power source in the world if you don't factor accidents, and no, the electric bill would not be triple of what currently is.
@@geocam2 Provide your source for that and lets see a true cradle to grave cost analysis from a truly unbiased source. The factor of 20 is suspect.
It's also about CO2 reduction first and foremost. A governmental report out of Sweden concluded that, for them, wind will produce 40% more lifetime CO2 than nuclear and it will also cost more (in total lifetime costs). Each country, and even region will be different of course. Japan for example can build nuclear power plants (in japan) for nearly 1/5th the costs of those in Europe largely because they have the experience, the personnel, and a bureaucracy that simply allows for it. Once the EU has a few new ones under its belt, costs should come down.
Not an apples to apples comparison. The solar pricing does not include storage, transmission, land, longevity, and decommissioning costs. Also, the OP emphasized "modern" nuclear. If solar electricity is actually less costly, then why is electricity prices in southern California twice the electricity prices in Illinois which gets roughly half its electricity from nuclear?
@@geocam2 France uses predominantly nuclear power (78%) and they have relatively cheap/stable bills as a result, not only that but they export their excess energy as well as owning large portions of other countries' energy (eg. EDF in UK)
Even better is to not shut down working nuclear powerplants. I'm from Sweden and thats what the Chin...sorry Green Party did here.
The Rocky Mountain Hydroelectric Project was a 1+ gigawatt pumped storage project that was originally an experiment, but has been in use since 1995. It's co-owned by two Georgia electric power giants and has been efficient and effective for nearly 30 years.
"The Rocky Mountain Hydroelectric Project " The Raccoon Mountain Pumped-Storage Plant in TN was built in 1978 and is bigger than Rocky Mountain. But yes, pumped storage has been around for 50 years.
For example, a system based on gravitational energy storage requires a change in altitude of 360 m for a mass of 1 t to store 1 kWh. The average home uses 11,000kWh annually. This would require lifting 1 ton 11,000 x 360m= about 4 km. Possibly 100m towers? that would require 40 such towers and attendant maintenance, costs, etc. hardly practical.
The idea isnt to power homes fully by the gravitational storage. Its meant to fill in the gaps of the energy production because of its fast response time.
I have a solar powered calculator. that's offsets my carbon footprint. Now I can bun my trash and not feel guilty.
@@lennyfeisreal life example. In Germany during the winter you have about TWO HOURS per day of useful PV production. It's a huge issue.
It's junk. Even if the reality was 100 feet, weather would down it so often it would be unusable. People need to drop it.
@@kevinroberts781 it was 100 M or 300 feet of tower.
Didn't thunderf00t already debunk this? Like- we already got this kind of energy storage with water, a hill and some pumps 🤷
You are right. This video is BS²
Omg, it doesn’t use something drilled or dug out of the ground so it must be complete trash.
You fail to see the forest because you are so focused one tree.
Who care what that 🤡 says?
@@Michael_G980 tell me what is easier and cheaper.
Moving water up and down from a lake to a river using pipes
Or
A skyscraper sized building with all the risks it poses, the wind changing the orientation of the weights making it difficult to maintain stability, creating those concrete block in the first place and building the pulley system
Multiple patents for skyscrapers elevators cargo systems... sounds good to me. All you need is cheap electricity from grid that would go to waste. Batteries have max 20 years before they get replaced. This is pure permanent infrastructure with a long lifetime
Honestly... The mecahnical tower lift prototype is childs play and could be calculated in a simulation on paper
in minutes.. This is a typical story of poor investors being hoodwinked by engineers that have very little expertise . Get a power elecrical engineer in the team ASAP or you will loose all your investments .
Agree. We have been powering clocks this way since the 17th century. We need new things, not 400-500 year old technology
Graviticity, using 3 kw to lift the weight and producing 1 kw by lowering it! Plus the cost of materials and maintaining.
Great invention !
@@danimardani ya its dumb battery storage already makes sense and as the price decreases and density increases everything else becomes pointless.
@@danimardani Overall lift lower efficiency achievable should be about 70% to 80%.
@@ButtonBrand should be, but it realy is?
2019 our highschool student designed a battery free street light. She proposed a solar pannel would lift a weight during the day and at night the weight would lower powering the street light. Her team built a working model for their science project. They were all from very low income Hispanic community. Very smart and dedicated senior highschool students.
In the age of the internet, who's to say one of them didn't just see it on the internet and use it. They probably watched a video on future energy storage just like this video. Not trying to strip the kids of their achievement but you are giving them a bit more credit than they probably deserve. I won a science fair project contest back in the before times (1990s) with a magnetic train. The idea already existed I just built my own very crude copy of that. They knew I didn't come up with the idea but then again that's not really the point of a science fair project is it?
The point is that a bunch of kids manage to build a working prototype no matter if there was their original idea or not. It is costing millions of dollars and huge engineering teams to tackle those "intricate mathematical modeling". I don't doubt the talent from these engineers but engineering bureaucracy most of the time is the technology/project killer.
That concept is used in emergency lights often handed out by fema aid workers. In the 2010s, when the history channel had history, we could say and post whatever we wanted on myspace, and youtube was great, a young me would always watch kipkay videos, and other old guys build a DIY version, using the mechanisms of a grandfathers clock! Excellent small scale power bank, actually. Enough to charge pretty much any handheld device at least, indefinitely, and all you have to do to adjust the output is add a heavier weight, that you simply reset when you need to.
Small scale, gravity powered energy. Lift a weight with an exercise bike outside, in a deep bore hole. Then harness the ionosphere when ya legs get tired
Can you make a video of it? Easier the get interest if its viual. :)
While mechanical batteries offer an intriguing alternative for energy storage, their practicality is limited by inefficiencies in energy conversion and the large physical infrastructure required. Additionally, compared to chemical batteries, mechanical systems often face challenges in scalability and maintenance, making them less feasible for widespread use in modern energy grids. We need to invest a lot more into this technology if we think its going to be viable.
The version that stacks blocks should reverse the process and make electricity while stacking so that it would stack them underground where the sides can be braced to eliminate the problem of falling over in an earthquake. It's the simplest of all the options in the video and going down with it would improve the appearance and safety.
In Tavascan, located west of Andorra in the Spanish Pyrenees, this type of system has been in operation since 1971. The planning began in the early 1950s, with construction starting officially in 1958 with building a larger bridge into the valley. The project was completed in 1974, with its official inauguration in the same year. This shows how long this concept has been around, and it’s exciting to see newer implementations like this one in Switzerland!
What does it produce ?
Does it work well really interested
I remember watching this same documentary two or three years ago.
I'd like to know if they finally finished the project?
I put in micropower trubines in my toilet tanks - every flush is enough to add .005 watts to a battery storage 😁
How do the turbines cope with the solids.?? 😂😂
urinals could use water wheels to aim at, a fun way to generate electricity
Nooo it's a bad idea, that thrust is put in the toilet system on purpose to flush our remains, putting the turbine only slows the thrust, I would advise if you clean it and put it somewhere better
You could upscale the toilet to a 10 million gallon tank toilet and have it in the city center. It would generate enough electricity during power demand.
@@patrickmckowen2999 genius !
For the fluctuating power output of the gravity tower, couldn't they use banks of super-capacitors to even it out?
no one mentioned COUNTER-ROTATIING flywheels. I read somewhere that counter-rotating flywheels eliminate the torque associated with both movement and the Earth's rotation. Please check on this and let me know something...
It is indeed true
No true.. I know because I have a solar powered calculator connected to the grid..
@@brookerobertson2951 so I am incorrect
@@brookerobertson2951you don’t know what your talking about.
I think flywheel technology even buried deeply .. just scares the pants off engineers.
The massive cost of precision manufacturing such a facility and the coat of a potential (energy) mistake.. think long term fatigue..
💥 boom and doom.
... small units, they should have one under every slab!
Thermal storage using deep cavens. Allow water to fall down into cavens, get heated up from the earth's fire and then return as steam. Hydro turbines used on way down and steam turbine on way up. It may also be possible to harness the air pressure as the water fills the cavern forcing the air up a pipe.
I'm no scientist but this sounds kind of feasible. The only problem I see with this idea is the creation of a cavity that far down to where the earth would boil water. Roughly 7.5 miles down and at a temp of 350ish degrees Fahrenheit is the deepest hole ever dug by man (soviets) so it's possible to reach far enough, however their experiment ended because their drill bit(s) melted from the heat. You could try to find a natural cavity to hold the water but you would never know if it was sealed off enough to retain any water to boil back up. This would mean you would need to create a cavity, of what size I do not know, without the machines doing the digging melting from the heat. You would have to control the pressure with pipes and whatnot so you don't create a blowout with a natural cavity. Other than that, solid idea.
China currently drilling with ambition to go deeper. @@JarofMayonaise
@@JarofMayonaise where I live in Southampton there is a thermal power plant. Not sure what type or how it all works but old coal mines may be a possibility. Remember, pressure can also be used and a more recent development is using sand as a storage battery. What I am really trying to say is let's use that free and permanent source of energy. Iceland, Norway and Sweden are experts. They use the earth's heat for district heating systems so why are others not doing the same. Heating our properties takes up so much energy. Heat pumps may be a start but there is plenty of room for improvement. Using the heat and pressure from the earth which is a natural storage medium together with modern science could certainly be a way forward.
A heat pump from Hell to your house 😂😂😂
That's geothermal...
Wow..I'm amazed how wonderfully they investigated and set up a project. I wish I had studied engineering at university.
You didn’t mention that apart from large amounts of electricity quickly and smoothly it also has to synchronised to the grid as well. A small but very significant technical issue all generating plant need to contend with. As the number of small gravity storage systems increase thus will also make it harder for grid operators to control how and where they can be utilised. There more to just building and embedding lots if small gravity systems in our towns and cities. This video whilst good doesn’t address these issues . That why a small number if large generating plant is better.
@carlos-dt2tz
Could we hand over the synchronising to the grid to AI?
It's a fair point, but it wouldn't be outrageous at all for these machines to use power electronics to be a buffer between the actual generator they are turning and the rest of the grid. Most large windmills already employ a DFIG for the exact purpose. Rotor synchronization isn't necessary in these kinds of machines since the grid is not directly AC coupled to the generator. The generator produces AC which is converted to DC and then inverters produce grid-following AC power without the need for mechanical synchronization.
I didn't know that. The design us different from conventional and nuclear turbines which have to be synchronised to the grid. They tend to follow the grid to prevent the grid feeding back against the power stations turbo generators causing them to speed up causing automatic tripping of the plant which would take it off from supplying.
Looks very complex. Maybe building train tracks up a steep mountain would be more reliable.
Actually! Already been done with a train on a hill lol.
Lots of variations of the gravity battery.
These ones using blocks are a scam. Except the ones using already made holes or something.
A water tower would work better, and companies are doing that.
The thing is there are so many companies working on energy storage as it is the future. So many technologies vying for it, and there are many chemical or thermal batteries that work better for cheaper.
Redox for instance looks great. It has to be cheap and scalable. So a liquid chemical battery is great since making a container larger is easier than building a bigger tower.
Since a container benefits from square cubed adding one foot equals way more volume.
I'm all for renewables. Just not with this when there are better solutions. Redox tech looks great.
@@dianapennepacker6854water storage can't work in most places stop sayin things u don't know
@@grahammukuyu4660 Water storage already works, shut up. I know more than you clearly.
Way better than this scam.
And everything else I said was true. Why don't you compare other technologies. Or watch videos that break it down why this idea is hot garbage just from a physics prospective.
Sounds like a very good idea actually, why not have a gondola lift system? A platform on top of a mountain to store blocks, send blocks down to the bottom of the mountain to generate energy, send it back up to store energy. I guess is that the limitation is weight or size constraint due to it going on a very long cable.
But with energized rail tracks, the "train" itself could just be a heavy engine moving up and down based on voltage in the track.
Pumped hydro seems like a much better idea.
They have been using hydro electric batteries in the California sierras for 50 years~ I toured Wishon/Courtwright reservoir’s underground hydro power plant in the 80’s as a kid it’s worth a visit
We need more of them. Cool video of its construction - "the hidden powerplant"
Have a look at the current cost.
Anti swing and anti sway functions have been pretty standard on VFDs for 20+ years, so no sure what kind of spin Robert piconi from energy vault was on about
Homes that are self sufficient, powered by natural energy source such as wind, solar, and geothermal, independent from big energy companies. That should be the green future.
This. DECENTRALIZED grids. By big power companies don't want that.
Too expensive & resource intensive to have battery storages in every home, instead commonly own the grid instead of big energy companies. You know, communism.
Much like instead of cars, we need commonly owned free public transport. Communism is always the most efficient & natural solution.
I completely agree with one caveat. My own technology is designed to distribute, decentralise and democratise energy capture, storage management and prosumer trading, but I still want to work with a centralised grid with all it's connectivity advantages, but secure in the knowledge that my systems will ensure my home, my facilities and those of all the people we support with energy security, will be able to function sustainably for any amount of time cut off from the grid or when grid power fails. The rest of the time it's like everything else, we can make money and gain mutual benefits from social connection but can survive still and thrive somewhat if the extra social essentials are cut off. Our energy security buys us all the time we need to rejig if the social network gets interrupted and we'll need a minute to figure out the next way we socially reconnect if the system goes down and we need to make a new one. I love your idea about self secure energy. I do the same thing with food, water, heating, cooling, cooking, drying, waste and sewage circularisation, renewable fuels, ecologic air transport and regenerative resources.
Okay, but how many % of the actual homes can do this ? In apartments NO, those living in streets with the houses build next to each other, i don't think so. In third world country's, they have the not money ...
at least the homes would be worth what they are selling for today…green energized! but of course you’d have to pay a million for 200k home because of it
@33:10 The optimal form for a structure is not square, but hexagonal; optimally distribute forces 'coz is geometrically complete, covering 360º in 2D and 3D, is the only geometric form, that does such covering and would handle the 3 Cranes better, and is good that are 3 Cranes, a sub-multiple of 6; the tower should be made with a *regular truncated octahedron.* It has 6 square faces and 8 hexagonal faces, all of which are regular polygons, for durable structure or honeycomb-like 1; more complex but we have computers and CAD Software. The Compressed blocks need to be protected, or those cracks and holes will create weak points and they'll start to crack down; I think those block are not a finished product
Sorry, but this session is so puerile, I reckon it's on a par with a ten year old's social studies project.
It contains so many silly errors, particularly errors of omission, and out of date info that it's almost comical.
It's basically an ad for Switzerland.
The deprecation of battery storage is ridiculous. Electro-chemical batteries can respond in milliseconds!
silly errors .. Show your project you done with out any silly errors, did you do any first ? , Ad for Switzerland ? May be other countries does not care about anyone!
@@puvi007 i read this as you are a guitarist in dethklok
I'm totally there with you. (Electrical Engineer).
Battery's and their production are also toxic as hell, and hold SQUAT for what is needed.
Hey, I've got one. What about using our seaports, where the huge container facilities are. They are lifting and stacking and lowering heavy containers constantly.
Im sure they have regenerative tech in them already, not unlike an electric cars breaking system.
Let's talk about the giant elephant in the globe. Because of greed and corporate controll, the world builds giant power generation grids. The answer is to have a power generator in every home,factory,building. Like everyone that now has a furnace or a.c.unit.
Yep. I have those in the making. I totally agree. It makes everything and everyone more resilient. My systems are designed to democratise energy security (and all the other essential resources in different modules). I still want an organised central grid though for the mutual benefit while and at all time when the social infrastructure is working to the greater benefit of all.
The giant elephant in the room is us.
Solar panels and batteries take care of most of it.
There was a company called Hyperion that was trying to make small (phone booth sized) self limiting reactors. the use case was for power dropped in rural areas (under 20000 population or so) and you would bury them down. They were designed to automatically stop the reaction if it ever got out of control (I have no idea how this works, but to my understanding this is a very common thing in modern reactors) and just go inert, already buried and shielded.
Seemed like a great idea, not sure what they ran into or if they ever got it going.
Mechanical Batteries have existed for hundreds of years now. They’re called flywheels. 🤦♂️
We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface with the potential (pun intended) of pumped hydro. It’s one of the most undervalued approaches with virtually the greatest potential. There are so many ways to solve the “issues” with it that simply aren’t being considered, and the places it can be used are far more diverse than virtually anyone seems to realize.
Along with that, I would say something simple like CAES using old mines as pressure vessels would be able to handle short term demand much better than any of the other mechanical systems discussed here - the efficiency is reduced, but that isn’t as important for short term use. Chemical batteries can also fill that role - but they are a bad approach for primary energy storage (too expensive and too energetic/dangerous).
I would love to see the energy mass balance chart of this project.
Thanks!
This technology has been around for ages - Formula One Racing cars capture the kinetic energy generated under braking, this is known as KERS and briefly provides additional horsepower for increased speed.
did it interfere with turning?
Formula 1 cars need to capture and release that energy very quickly, they don't need to store it for a long time. That's the trade-off.
There are technologies that can capture and release energy quickly, but would lose most of that energy if you wanted to store it for a long time.
From my nomadic perspective, solar energy is a game-changer, providing reliable and cost-efficient power without the burden of electricity bills. However, applying solar and batteries to large on-grid houses seems less effective due to the issue of over-consumerism. In contrast, embracing solar energy for nomadic lifestyles promotes sustainability and independence from the grid. While I support the idea of combining solar panels and storage batteries, it may be more prudent to reduce overall energy consumption and reassess our dependence on large-scale housing to realize a more eco-conscious future.
Agree there’s room for improvement in efficiency. But unfortunately every large-scale power generation method has environmental impacts, the problems definitely aren’t exclusive to fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
Solar panels in landfills leach harmful chemicals into the environment-cadmium is a known issue, though other toxins may also be involved.
Wind turbines are arguably worse. Their massive fibreglass blades are piling up in landfills because recycling them is highly inefficient. The manufacturing and disposal processes also release significant harmful chemicals, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated during production and transport.
While California was going through a massive heat wave and rolling blackouts, the government buildings still had AC on full blast. A friend of mine worked for the state department in Sacramento. There were people inside with sweaters and winter clothes while most of the public struggled outside.
Great stuff, please shoot more we need part 2 to see sand battery, rock batteries and molten salt as a battery of course and more.
why cant they use elevators in high rise buildings to generate power on the way down?
they do
Because of counterbalance.
If you generate power as the elevator falls you would need to use more power to get the thing up there in the first place. These systems use counterweights to reduce the power required to raise the lifts. On the way down they have to bring those counterweights back to the top.
Generally speaking most large industrial VFDs or servo drives will feed power back into the grid when decelerating the load. Otherwise it will need to heat something up somewhere else.....
For instance, Fanuc robots do this always...
Great video. The only thing I would add is the perspectives such as for the dam it was mentioned how many homes it can supply w power. For the other 2 numbers were not mentioned
Windmills and acres of solar panels have their own environmental impact. Fusion power is a way off yet but in the meantime, developing safe nuclear reactors is the way to go.
My understanding is that we have to mine in order to make the rods used. The radioactive material has to be refined to a level. All done from fossil fuels
@@loulelea even if true, the final product is a nuclear reactor which is wildly more efficient than any of these. Worth it by any analysis that doesn't bake in the dream of people just 'consuming less'.
@@loulelea Where do you think the materials for solar panels come from?
@@TheTerryscotttayloryou are a few years out of date. Every carpark could have a solar canopy that would cover most of our energy needs cheaper than nuclear, combined with Tesla Megapacks 😊
The blocks on the tower should have been interlocking. Just a simple key and groove that as it's stacked. It locks in. Then you've got one homogeneous unit that still has some movement.
A water pump sends water to an elevated tank. In reverse the water falls back down, and the pump is an electric generator. Simple, scalable, affordable, and integrated into an existing drinking water system. Many towns in the US already have water towers in place. It's like that in many parts of the world as well.
If you live in a ten meter tall house, you can throw one ton of weight, or a cubic meter of water, off your roof, and that will keep your laptop running for 20 minutes. If you want to make some tea instead, you'll need to do that three times in quick succession.
In other words, the amount of energy one can store with your idea is negligible.
@@Alexander_Kale, fair point, so we already pump the water up to fill large water tanks. Almost all of the energy of the water returning to ground level is wasted currently. The system to generate electricity is already built. Adding impellers to turn the cranks on the electric pumps already in place would be collecting the energy that's in the flow of water we already have. These water towers are extremely common in America (I don't know where you're from. You may already know that.) Also, the concept of storing energy with mechanical batteries is not as much about efficiency, but more about having an overabundance of extra energy, and still having energy on demand when the wind isn't blowing your windmills, and clouds are blocking your photo-electric cells.
@@quellenathanar The water towers you are talking about store water. They are not meant to store energy. And what i just told you is that you cannot use them for energy storage, becuase the amount of energy they can store is very, very, very, very tiny. 1 cubic meter for twenty minutes laptop time. Now measure one of those towers for volume and divide by that number....
You would need a water storage tank the size of a house on top of the actual house if you wanted to make so much as a dent. And THEN you would have to build a cistern below the house to store that water while discharging your gravity battery, otherwise all the water given off by both your house and all the other houses would flood your street and overwhelm your sewage system. Not to mention you need it again when you want to recharge...
If you want to build a gravity battery, think Hoover dam, not rooftop tank.
Congratulations on the engineering and application of innovation for a cleaner future!
Ima bit over “innovation”. None of these things are new. They were just dreamed not efficient, very complex, costly, often resource intensive, requires lot of maintenance and lacks a good business model.
Totally agree that nothing here is new. Belgium has had one of these artificial lakes as energy storage in the 70s. The only thing that is new is the circumstances. Reduced availability may change their business model to feasible as the price of fossil fuels goes up.
Everything is a remix... that doesn't make it a bad idea
I’m very impressed in the quality of your program, definitely subscribing. Some of these ideas on storing power are probably a huge waste of time, money and space and the only way they exist is subsidizing the idea by the government..
Gravity storage with blocks is idiotic. Cost of the blocks, maintenance willbe far too high for the energy stored.
This is incredible.
I did understand the mode of operation of the Energy Vault's solution. But not being able to fully understand how the last part works which is the storage of air in tanks
None of these can come close to the simplicity, reliability, efficiency, safety, sustainability and cost of thorium and molten salt.
We've heard about thorium being "better" in every way for quite some decades. However, one would expect that by now someone should have built at least one thorium reactor that proved commercial viability. This has not happened, though both the Chinese and the Russians poured billions of dollars into experimental thorium plants that turned out to be a bitter disappointment. If you had an example of a working model that succeeded we would be a lot more positive about thorium. Molten salt, though, is proving very much viable in other applications: solar collectors (mirrors) beaming to central point to build heat and then store it in molten salt. Morocco has a very successful project producing power for the whole country now.
@@ianritchie2102 Alvin Weinberg did... over 50 years ago.
@@toddmarshall7573 If you can cite a reference for this, it would be helpful. Because so far the only thorium projects I've read about ended up in proving it was not viable, after wasting a billion dollars each try.
@@ianritchie2102 You're forgetting politics. Uranium was implemented first to obtain plutonium from breeder reactors. Then laws were passed to strictly control fissile material and it's secondary waste materials, because they could be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Hence, Thorium is now perpetually locked up in bureaucracy alongside other fissile materials.
Cost for storage (depending on the type) should be included in the cost of electricity from wind and solar. You could easily make a distinction between the three types of storage: stabilising the grid, daily fluctuations and seasonal fluctuations. At the other end of the spectrum, cost for the negative impact on climate and environment must be included into the price of fossil energy. Then, an equal playing field is established.
At the present time, why should it when the grid can actually take it all except in special circumstances and just replaces conventional power. Around half of power generated is base power, the other is variable and diurnal.
This is not being reported in a manner that's meant for people to analyze it easily. That's because the push for solar and wind is a political initiative. It's not about efficiency. Modern Nuclear is so much better than any of this that you would have a hard time graphing them all together and even seeing these other options.
Best power generation:
1) nuclear by a large margin
2)burning coal/gas
3)WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY less efficient options
If you care about the environment, and you're realistic enough to handle that most are not passionate enough to never use more than one sheet of toilet paper per bathroom trip (or any other use reductions measures that reduce their comfort) then you should be 100% behind increasing use of nuclear. Period.
@@TheTerryscotttaylor - Oh please, the ONLY aspect of power generation that is not being reported is storage costs. Levelized costs of power COVER most aspects of generation. Infrastructure, capital and interest on capital are included, amortized over the lifespan and capacity factor of the generation.
The best levelized cost of production is green power. NOT NUCLEAR.
Excellent documentary. Thank you. Optimistic big thinkers. Engineers make the impossible happen.
Please learn you physics. Potential energy E[J] = Height[m] * 9.82 m/s2 *mass[kg] . so 1000kg 1000 meters up = 9.82 MJ. If we let the crane dump it back to 0m altitude in 1 hour we will in theory produce 9.82MJ/3600s = 2,727 kWh . And we have not yet subtracted for friction etc. 1000m/1h = 28 cm/sec in velocity - not so much Should be possible with 2727W/746 = 3,7 hp motor.
I am still surprised no big company has done "gravity power plants"... there are lots of great ideas not explored and are shown on RUclips, unless if I am clueless on the company doing so at the moment.
Gravity power plants already exist and have for nearly 100 years. Rain, lake, dynamos and we don't have to lift the rain an inch.
@@paulvarn4712 I am talking about ideas that are different from old ones, there are some great ones that would make serious money but not affecting the environment. Hydro power depends on the rain and we’ve seen a lot of them running dry, so now I’m talking about the ones where nothing but gravity will solve the actual problems and gravity requires nothing from Mother Nature except gravity itself.
@@paulvarn4712 @ I am talking about ideas that are different from old ones, there are some great ones that would make serious money but not affecting the environment. Hydro power depends on the rain and we’ve seen a lot of them running dry, so now I’m talking about the ones where nothing but gravity will solve the actual problems and gravity requires nothing from Mother Nature except gravity itself.
@26:57 talking absolute BS
But he looks wise. Internet renewables just might be my thing.
You got that far?
The solar panels create an insane amount of heat that no one talks about it adding more fuel to the fire instead of solving the issue.
@@edygranados9431 solar panels do not create heat. They get hot from being in sunlight, but they don't "make" heat.
Is it possible to use the heat to further the creation of electricity
One thing with the crane battery is that it, would only work halfway down.. Or 60% of the hight. Cus what juse is it to have it a few meter above grund? Why not have a copperpipe with a big iron cylinder. With Air pocket. So u lift it with water, pump it out get where u get some of energy back, then the ironcylinder will drop in the pipe, where u get a lots of more energy. There is a few more things u can do with it.. Well good work do. How do u get the foundings for sumeting like this?
And why not just do a konstruction around the tower so it cant fall? And why not do half a meter of poles like lego on them? And why not.. And the last with licuid Air, what if gets a spark ujuj. And why not aa to mutch info xF
45:18 it looks like a giant pause button😂
hm....looks like 2 giant dildo Sir
Bruh 😂
How much energy could I store for my home if I were willing to dig a 10 meter hole under the house, and raise/lower a weight of 100 tonne? E = F.s = m.g.h = 10^5 * 10 * 10 (rounding g off to 10). This is 10 MJ of energy, enough to power a 2400 W heater for just a few hours if the conversions are 100% efficient in both directions. (Actually its quite a bit worse than that because I have not accounted for the volume taken up by the mass of eg rock).
after long research people have come to realise that the new and old ones' are all the same different side effect on nature and humans. it's all about marketing
An interesting point. I don't have any expertise on AI but a lot of RUclips channels appear to use AI to generate the voice overs from text and get punctuation and grammar wrong. I know there are issues with bias in facial recognition systems. There are systems that do seem to work well. Guess it comes down to the quality of the software and how long it needs to learn an optimal solution. National Grid would have be respond quickly to any unusual responses from AI.
I'm deeply skeptical of the solutions in this video to scale.
Wind/solar have multiple flaws, but the lack of dependability is the biggest. I think people don't grasp the sheer scale of energy storage we're going to need if W/S are really going to be the backbone of our energy future. Bill Gates gave an example at a TED Talk about 15 years ago where he said that if you took every single battery humanity has ever constructed, imagined it had the full 100% capacity it had when it was brand new, and dedicated it to backing up the world's energy grid based on current (15 years ago) consumption, you'd get 10 minutes of energy backup. And we need storage for not just overnight, but weeks, and potentially MONTHS because even if W/S is producing SOME energy, it's likely producing LESS than it's ideal, and can underproduce for months of overcast winters, or lower wind trends. It isn't just compensating for when it's producing ZERO power.
It's why Gates was/is skeptical of W/S, and I am too. We're going to need a wonder-of-the-world caliber energy storage solution next to EVERY population center in the world. Probably MULTIPLES. It's why we really need to stop acting like W/S are going to be the backbone of our energy future. They're more likely to end up as supplementary sources. Leaving storage and transmission and grid enhancement costs out of the LCOE metric distorts economic policy planning in favor W/S. But these are NOT separate problems. These are inherent costs OF W/S. Other energy solutions don't have these problems.
I think enhanced geothermal and fission ought to be higher on our list. Geothermal is a great way to take advantage of the drilling expertise currently developed by fracking companies. Fission is mainly expensive because of the political/legal environment that has been crushing it with extra costs. These produce steady base-load power. These should be the backbone of a low-carbon energy mix until we arrive at commercially viable fusion (likely after I'm dead). The entire US pacific coast is a treasure trove of geothermal potential. Instead of dumping all their money into unreliable W/S, they should be drilling geothermal wells.
At 43:40 mins he demonstrates by how much the volume or air in the lab would refrigerate down to a liquid - down to the size of the fridge (700 times less volume). I was quite surprised at how much liquid there would be, or how much mass air has! I think this is a good demonstration of how much air weighs, and why moving through air causes so much drag.
When James May took the Veyron up to 270 mph he said at that speed the effect of drag is like driving through a fruit cake. Which is also another good analogy.
The success of the green energy revolution depends on how much funding they can extract from investors for their own pockets for projects that mean nothing.
Pump storage gravity batteries are not built for power generation, but are used to utilise excess power during low demand periods to boost high demand periods. They don't generate any new power.
1 brick of uranium stores energy waaay better
These constructs look absolutely alien! Fantastique! ‘.... sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.’
Lol. Energy vault seems to be souch a scam... Although I like the usage of holes to lift it more easily, not the edges as previously shown in their marketing.
It’s amazing that elevators all around the world have a counter weight on them to reduce the load up and down saving energy. There is also CO2 batteries that can start and be on line in under a second using multiple small turbines that spin up quickly. They have them in Italy recovering the CO2 and then re compressing when energy is available, can be scaled to run a city for 8 hours
Thunderf00t says that's a scam.
He also thinks that the earth is round.
he thinks men landed on the moon
@@brookerobertson2951 moron
@@brookerobertson2951 are you gonna tell me next that germs are real?
@@mike_w-tw6jd and global warming?
In california the geysers geothermal plant could be expanded to many other areas, its worked for decades.
PV panels produce less in high heat, solar thermal produces more in high heat, consider
restoring the 350 mega watt mojave SEGS system that ran for decades that was dismantled.
The only PRACTICAL way out is building new fail-safe nuclear plants. China is now running a Thorium plant that they got from us in the late 50's to early '60's. Thorium reactors are immune from power loss, like what happened at Fukushima. They also require no operators to shut themselves down in the case of overheating. Gravity shuts them down, and gravity is always there.
The place that was pumping water up to a lake, then using its reverse flow for power, took 10 YEARS to build. If we put that time into many nuclear plants that require no mining to power them, there would be no need for these energy storage units. Not that I'm against them. We have huge stores of radioactive "waste" that can run the new plants, already pre-mined. I emphasize no mining, because it produces huge amounts of CO2. Also, we are taking old nuke warheads from our own stock, as well as buying THOUSANDS of Russian warheads,(This is already been happening, we have purchased 26,000 from the commies already) all which is ready for minimum processing before use. As compared to mining, for starting up MANY plants. I just can't believe Nuke power is not even being considered, when it is safer than solar when you factor in the mining for elements that are required to make solar possible. As well as the very carcinogenic chemicals needed to process solar panels. This gets way too complicated to explain quickly here, but the simple way out of our energy problems, as well as the safest, is nuclear. Has been for several decades. With no Fukoshima's or Chernobyl's. So why haven't we been building more NEW safe Nuke plants already? Fear by the uninformed American people. Oh yes, and mostly.... GREEDY OIL COMPANY'S !!!
Could you quote your source for this? I had read that both China and Russia had each built thorium reactors decades ago, but they were both very expensive boondoggles that didn't work. They gave up. But if you could quote from a more recent source, and a reliable one, then I might have to rethink it.
@@ianritchie2102 It was too long ago to quote the source, however I would disagree that China's use of Thorium was anything even CLOSE to a boondoggle. It was more of a dongboogle. It was a success, and now China is going full scale on a Thorium Reactor! As far as Russia goes, their economy has been in the crapper for so long, even before their boondoggle in Ukraine. Now their economy is totaled.
Plus, I would not trust them to build a reactor of any type that I would trust. Despite Chernobyl, I would expect them to cut every corner, safety related or not. They are too tapped out to be in the business of being in the business of building ANY safe reactor!
33:10 as kinetic energy depends on MASS it makes sense in production, after tests are completed, instead of concrete (which typical density is 2.5g/cm3) use relatively cheap Lead (11.34 g/cm3)
This is insane. We have the technology to produce clean energy, let’s put it to further use. All these battery farms, solar farms, windmills, these take up a land, so why not have a system for each individual residence, put it in our hands to monitor our own power consumption and we will learn how to stop wasting electricity.
Like Tesla home batteries .
@@Gordonz1 and the solar panels to keep it.
And then people explode because they don't have a college degree and then years of on-the-job training not to hurt themselves.
Like, I get what you're saying, independence is the better idea, but unless you're going to package and install systems for individual homes _and_ stand by its safety...
A complete system to run it all and then some.
@@ClockworkGearhead that’s exactly it. Put that money and construction companies to work installing complete ready to go systems on every residential home, farm, you name it.
This was great! thanks for the documentary.
In that last liquid air plant, though, I have to admit that the physics teacher in me cringed when they talked about capturing and storing the "cold" when they really just mean low-temperature substances. :)
infomercial not a documentary
The supercooled air seems like the least feasible because you have a lot of energy and dependency on a supply of some material or method that is going to super cool the air without that, you're screwed.
Nuclear has always been the solution but politics always slows down innovation.
How quickly can nuclear be deployed?
radioactive waste storage for thousands of years, no thanks
Nuclear expensive, solar cheap
@@yellowstoic7678 nuclear waste is problem for thousands years
Democrats slow down innovation because they are against nuclear. Trump and Republicans LOVE nuclear energy because it's the ultimate solution to our energy qualms. We ain't afraid. Democrats, socialists and communists want to hold us back
24:10 one way to avoid some part of start stop fluctuations could be using of chain instead of steel cable
Far to many moving parts =. Very poor long term reliability. Sand batteries make more since. Lol
Would it not be possible/feasible to use flywheels as a sort of "bridge" energy storage? I know it can't store energy long term nearly as efficiently, but it provides a sort of energy inertia that can bridge between main generators going down and slower storage kicking in. No?
Bio gas generators 4 Cooking gas from a farm and Urban System, Make our waste Useful ❤ 1 trillion strong Humanities Tree will be 1 day lets spread hope instead of Greed and Envy.
Wonderful video!
Percentage of efficiency was addressed in the last method, I was curious about the other methods too. Of course using surplus energy to generate this energy is a consideration.
Also cost wise, which is easiest to build in terms of return on investment.
Nuclear power is still the cleanest and safest form of energy production.
The state-of-the-art modern fission reactors are so compact that factories can have on on-site.
So, how long can the weight drop one go for? Seems to me that if it's a minute, then just install one in the design of any of the slow to react ones. Say it's 30 seconds, install two. Even 6 of them dropping in sequence would give the dam enough time to spin up. Also, that one (and the dams) seem least prone to mechanical failure.
This documentary is pure hype. Most engineers who work in the renewables industry know that hydrogen and ammonia are the sanest ways to store excess renewable energy.
Hydrogen has many flaws, it is at best 25-30% efficient in a Power to power configuration. H2 is very low density energy (in volume), to contain big amounts of it requires a lot of space, expensive tanks that limit the loss due to it's small size and a lot of energy. Even worse, current tecnologies are way too expensive because of the use Platinum or rare earths catalists, which also require a lot of mining.
اعتقد ان خزن الطاقة بالهواء المضغوط هو اكثر موثوقية وابسط في الأنشاء واكثر عقلانية وهو افضل بطارية ميكانيكية تم تجربتها واثبات فعاليتها
You are right about compressed air, but it`s a tough sell for a huge power grid, of course it is much smarter than raising weights with the excess power, less moving parts, less stuff to break down.The problem is the scale. It would be the most proper mechanical battery for a small community with a large solar array.I wonder if combined with the added pressure of being in deep water could bump up the air pressure as a multiplier.
@@tedzehnder961 أنا اقوم بأبحاث في الجامعة التي اعمل فيها عن طريقة جديدة اكثر بساطة لخزن الهواء المضغوط وطريقة رائعة لتشغيل تورباين يعمل بالهواء المضغوط ... النتائج ممتازة جدا وقد وصلت لكفاءة تشغيل وانتاج طاقة كهربائية تقارب ال ٨٥% ناهيك عن الهدوء التام اثناء التشغيل والموثوقية العالية للنظام ككل ... المشكلة الوحيدة التي تواجهني هي عندما اضع تصميم لمحطة كبيرة اجد ان الموضوع يصبح غير عقلاني ولايمكن بناء محطة قدرتها تتجاوز خمسة ميغا وات
"These power outages are surprising given California's investment in green energies" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Exactly....if only everyone converted to Electric vehicles their problems would be solved. 🤡
Wow it seems like I watched a video a few months ago about how crazy this storage idea was. The room for error, the cost to build, the wear over time and so on.
Wouldnt using a pump to move water be more efficient. Wether in a tower or a whole reservoir.
More Nuclear Plants! Thank you 🙏
How much energy will it take to just implement any of these solutions? In the long term including maintenance is there a net carbon decrease?
I have a solar powered calculator. that's offsets my carbon footprint. Now I can bun my trash and not feel guilty.
LMFAO 🤣
kinda funny how the greens can build so much green energy with fossil fuel and big mining operations . keep up the good work
That block moving battery has been debunked. It ain't gonna work.
neden beton yerine içi su dolu tanklar kullanmıyorsunuz? Deprem olsa bile hiç bir sıkıntı olmaz. Doldurması daha kolay olur?
Suyun özgül ağırlığı 1ton/m3 , Toprak ve taş türevlerinin ise 2-2.7 arası. Eğer su kullanırsan hem sistem 2 ila 3 kat daha büyük olmak zorunda hem de suyu bünyesinde barındıracak korozyona dirençli (muhtemelen paslanmaz çelik) kaplar üretmelisin ki bunların da maliyeti oldukça yüksek olur. 25 yıl dayanmaları da çok zor.
@@incalify zaman ayırıp açıklama yazdığınız için teşekkür ederim.
Let's build nuclear or thermonuclear reactors and produce energy when needed - no large storage required. Gravity store is economic with water but not with concrete blocks. I recommend thunderf00t video debunking this idea.
Your nice British-accented narrator states that Energy Vault will generate energy at 6.5 cents per megawatt-hour (at time stamp 41:00). Considering that I am paying over 20 cents per kilowatt-hour (retail), is it possible that you have slipped about 3 orders of magnitude in this estimate? Also, since Energy Vault is just an energy storage technology, is the estimate intended to be the final cost of the electrical energy (including initial generation, storage, and re-conversion to electrical energy) or is it for the incremental cost of storage and re-conversion, which would be added to the initial generating cost?
Have they ever done the math lol?
Shut up nerd, I got a crane!
for the lego energy battery, what would the block's dimesions be, cos at full capacity the block at the bottom of the pile is holding the weight of all the blocks above it, i didnt see them reenforce their soil mix
Another dumb green idea but apparently building nuclear takes too much resources. This doesn't I guess and the maintenance costs I'm sure will be so cheap...
They keep telling us nuclear would take too long to build. They've said it for so long we could have already built several generations of nuclear power plants in that time.
@@Knowbody42 What slows down nuclear is the legal system.
I remember drawing up a similar design about 10 years ago though mine had a large capacitor load bank for momentary load shedding in power transfer lag.
I think hydrogen fuel cells are superior. They can be scaled from a home sized power generator, to a bus, to a cargo ship. There is an endless supply of hydrogen in the universe. The big problem with H is storage. I think we can figure this out in the next 25-50 years and hydrogen fuel cells will be powering many homes and buildings
Hydrogen has it's uses but it's not like long term storage is all we need, but when it comes to short term storage... lihium and sodium batteries are already there, prices are falling. Sure we need all technologies we can get, but in general we do have lithium iron phosphate and sodium batteries that just can be improved upon
Hydrogen leaks.
H2 has low efficiency and high cost
@@mike_w-tw6jd yes it does now, which is why I give it 25-50 years to make the advancements required to make it economically feasible.
I don't understand there have been lake to lake batteries for many decades. Visited a 600MW in the 90s
Thanks For This Great Scientific Report
If only they continued with gas and coal power plants. All this energy storage would not be required.
The concrete block idea: Lower blocks won't store much energy. The blocks in the full scale structure look suspiciously like regular concrete.
Are elevators in buildings ever used to generate electricity or serve as ballasts for parallel elevators? Since they are so plentiful in urban areas, it seems like they might be retrofitted (or contructed in new builds) to serve as something of an energy vault by hauling fluids and tanks to be released or carried back down at peak hours. Not as innovative as some of these ideas, but if we can add solar panels to a building in addition to creating solar farms, why not he same for batteries?
Why convicts in prisons can't generate free electricity?
Why?
You are asking me?
1) you're talking about a low level form of torture, 2) the cost of feeding them is far higher than the power you get out. Despite your desire to punish them more than they already are, humans are a horrifically inefficient power generation machine.
2) they are fed anyway & they are burning calories in the gym anyway - so they could generate electricity - doesn't matter how much they'll generate - better some than nothing.
25:34 Why don't they just reduce the speed while it's dropping with a gear box? Raise it at one speed then shift it to another gear that lowers the weight slower but spins the generator just as fast? This would increase how long they would get power and slow down the weight to reduce occultations
Scientists told me 35 years ago that my ocean front home would be underwater by 2010. They said the science was settled, they were positive sea levels would rise by over a meter. Melting glacier and arctic ice was being carefully measured and there was no arguing with the data. Smallish problem with their models. When I walk out my front door, the high and low tide mark hasn't moved at all in 50 years. Obviously my lying eyes are wrong and we'll all be dead because Eric wouldn't stop driving his V8 go-cart through packs of penguins.
Just use an accumulator for lowering the weight smoothly. It's what a wheel loader tractor uses to stabilize the load in the bucket. Works great.