How energy storage will kill fossil fuel.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Utility scale batteries have been dismissed by some as no more than a useful bolt-on to our existing electricity grids to help with a little bit of demand stabilisation here and there. But dramatic cost reductions, improved efficiencies, and a plethora of new innovations in how to store energy that can be delivered into the grid over long durations have all contributed towards a rapidly changing market that look set to revolutionise how we structure our global energy systems towards a fossil fuel-free future.
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveath...
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoff...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos?
Check out the FREE DiveDeeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.
climatechange....
Check out other UA-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown:
/ @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere:
/ @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Research Links
European Union
ec.europa.eu/i...
European Association for Storage of Energy (EASE)
ease-storage.e...
ease-storage.e...
US Legislation
www.pv-tech.or...
Baseload Power Corp.
baseloadpower.ca
SEMO (Day Ahead Markets)
lg.sem-o.com/IS...
Clean Horizon
lg.sem-o.com/IS...
Power Ledger
www.powerledge...
Energy Storage News
www.energy-sto...
www.energy-sto...
Map of Existing Energy Storage in Europe
www.google.com...
#energystorage #climatecrisis. #actnow
I don't comment nearly enough on how much I enjoy and look forward to your outstanding work. Thanks
Neither do I, but in my case I usually don’t have much to contribute. This is all new to me and I am still learning how things work. Keep up the great work.
Just go with all Nuclear. This battery idea is a non starter. You are very right about how proponents of solar and wind do not understand the battery equation.
And what do we do with the radioactive waste my good sir?
Nuclear power currently makes up around 10% of global energy use, and at current rate of consumption the world's uranium supplies are estimated to last another 200 years. Ignoring the cost, difficulty and significant nuclear security concerns of building reactors everywhere, that uranium isn't going to last long if we start using it up ten times faster.
Kent H thorium is a good candidate as the problem associated with waste and thermal runaway (meltdown) issues are mitigated. A mix of green and nuclear energy is probably the best way forward.
@@AnthonyFlack Fine by me, add a couple of decades of CO2 free power generation. I'm not against.
Simple answer. Too expensive.
Congratulations from all of us Sir for the amount of work you put on each video. You make the world a better place
What is the efficiency of ac dc intrr conversion, ehst are the losses?
It’s bound to happen...it is inevitable as it is shown to be more economic. Nice show! Thx
Nice one! If we add Norway to the north and with Switzerland in the south there could be more than enough hydro-energy storage to keep the whole thing nice and steady. Then a big chuck of solar in the very dry Spanish interior and we'll be much less dependable on Russian and Arab fossil fuel. The EU has plenty of drawbacks but things like this really show it's worth.
Thank you Sir, I am way less confused by "Energy usage" now.
I'm still confused but you have helped a lot. Ta
Great Video Dave, I particularly like the use of video diagrams to accompany your commentary. Well done and keep up the good work!
Thanks David. Much appreciated.
@@jinnantonix4570 Yes the technical aspects are covered... But the economic issues are clearly out of his spectrum, hence the strong belief that those solutions will work. Anyone doing some serious research on that topic knows that renewables are a fraud.
@@jinnantonix4570 I would like one of these money makers, show the empirical data for man made Carbon warming, as no one has yet.
@@VFatalis in what way are they a fraud? It's hot outside. I'm sat in my air conditioned room using the power I generate from the PV panels I installed a few yrs ago, which have now paid for themselves, plus getting paid for every watt I generate. If that's fraud, more please.
@@JustHaveaThink Im curious what people think about climate change in general. im not sure what the real timeline is for when things will get bad but i hear people say things like "we have ten years before its too late" or something and i think to myself "well there's 0 chance of switching to renewables in ten years so were definitely screwed." In general Im pretty optimistic about the future and the development of new technologies to help solve the problem but if the timelines really that short should we be bracing for the inevitable disaster? or, is the timeline exaggerated to motivate people to push forward and for example if we're all renewable by like 2050 things will be mostly all right. I guess what im saying is should i be extremely fearful and pessimistic or is our current trajectory one that should make us hopeful?
Think what would be possible if we keep our Nuclear Energy.
If Germany would have kept 20-40 GW of reliable energy production.
True!
Just 50 nuclear power plants could produce all of Germanys electric energy, no need for storage because the source is extremely reliable, no 100,000 wind turbines, cheapest energy of all (electricity price in France is already just half as high as in Germany and Germany is still very, very far away of its goal of 100% renewable electricity and has NO storage at all at the moment))
@@TheSpecio well Germany will defintly lower the energy prices in few years quite a lot
due to the now closing of coal and nuclear they now have to get a lot of money to build up the renewable energy also at the moment extra fees to get to a cleaner energy are in place
We are at a peak of energy cost in Germany
if we get more sutainable again prices will go way down solar energy is less the 1cent/kw wind and biomass are around 3-6 cent/kw nuclear cost more then 30 cent/kw
what we shouldn't forget there is no long term storage at the moment for the nuclear waste -> which is a major cost factor not included in the nuclear price tag
@@Leicht_Sinn You know nothing jon snow...natural gas is going no where, the only thing is going to happen is that gas is going to replace coal for a cleaner solution, or even nuclear in the case of Germany.
@@Atite_Lometen ?
Nuclear Germany ehmm wtf
Germany litterly is closing old nulcear plants over the last decades and isn't building anymore
Due to the storage problem and public opinion over nuclea power
Natural gas is another way germany will buffer deficits in the electric network
Gas plants can be turned on in minutes compared to coal plant hours/days
There is a strong green movement in germany !
@@Leicht_Sinn
Where do you get your natural gas? How do you feel about that?
Nukes hve and are pricing themselves out of the market.
I think I heard you say that electricity consumption in the US and Canada will be increasing - I thought we were all supposed to be looking for ways to REDUCE our consumption?
Transport and heating are currently often done by fossil fuels. You can repalce them with electric technology, but your electrictity usage will logically go up.
Elizabeth - America keeps growing, more homes built , which needs more food and more Goods .
this takes alot of Energy.
thankfully we will have a SUN that burns Hydrogen for the next 10,000 years or so .
even IF we build all new homes with Solar , that energy is wasted w/o home battery Storage.
Solar Roof + Battery can meet 90% of home Energy needs in an Entire Year.
Commerical + Business can save $$$$ with Tesla Energy Storage.
Total energy per person could decrease while a bigger fraction of it comes from electrical power. Heating with a "heat pump" in many places greatly reduces the energy needed. It, however, is a new electrical load on the system.
@@kensmith5694 Yes, you and MrMakabar have it right. This is why electricity use will rise. If not for replacing fossil fuels, it would actually be falling because appliances, lighting, and HVAC are all getting more efficient.
@Elizabeth Cleary Humans are confidently expected to move to Canada from other locations on Earth. There's a negligible number of Canadians emigrating to the Middle East, India, southeast Asia, China, Europe, South America & Africa. I would confidently say negligible emigration from here. Only my uncle Fred's wife Anne returned to Blighty. I can add from personal experience that a sizable portion of these arrivees will purchase a power boat and/or jet skis as soon as they've had their cottage built.
For the chronic nay sayers commenting on this video.
The world is changing without you and in spite of your white noise.
ua-cam.com/video/ESWBEQzxkPg/v-deo.html
It's nice to see the inter-connected grid gaining ground. I read about this stuff 30 years ago and finally we are beginning to implement it.
Your presentation of transforming our energy reliance is just wholesome. A big thank you for your videos. It is an additional showcase for the underlying unity of Europe. I would love to see cooperation with other channels, which need a bit more content. The more people are aware of what actually changes, the better we can prepare ourselves for the future. Whether you do or not, I will have a look at how Patreon works.
I suggest you do a segment on liquid metal batteries provided by Ambri. Inexpensive, efficient and reliable with very low degradation, they offer an exceptional solution for grids and likely for businesses and homes.
Nuclear will be the best option for reducing carbon emissions.
No, it clearly won't.
@@englishbest reasoning?
@@thewoodweldingfabricator9300 Let's wait a couple of years and get back to the question.
@@englishbest so... you don't have any idea as to why nuclear would be better or worse other than what you've seen in movies tv and politics.
@@thewoodweldingfabricator9300 You don't know anything about me.
I’m definitely studying the right thing
what are you studying
@Jaded Cynic - and that won't begin before the psychopathic buffoon in the oval office is replaced by a sane person. And for that to happen, the world needs a miracle.
Whatever yo're studying it's already too late...unless it's permaculture, in which case it's also too late
Wtf is going on here
@Dongs Oi, microgreens are cool too, same for tiered farming and hydroponics. I recommend looking into how Belgium makes its food supply.
Energy storage is important, but more IMPORTANT is GREEN ENERGY GENERATION !! And this issue can be sollved only with many Thorium Nuclear POWERPLANTS !! --- Just until brandnew FUSION POWERPLANTS appear after 20 - 30 years!!
Sounds like another middle man taking his cut in the money we pay for our bills.Another thing that bothers me the price of petrol/Diesel is 80% taxes by the time put it in our cars, so when we all have electric cars is this tax going to be Passed on?
The State of Connecticut is having the same discussion; so far the legislature is floating the idea of new taxes to capture the revenue lost to the fuel taxes. Hydrocarbon fuels or not, we'll get squeezed by the govt regardless.
Not anytime soon.
New systems and technologies have to earn their way on merit, not on feelings.
Exactly. Not tomorrow, and not the day after either.
This is amongst the best of youtube, Dave. Factual, lots of info, a great start for the viewer to acquire a basis to understand the issues you tackle and present so well.
Really. Why is there a panic on countries like Germany and Britain with the highest renewables energy installations in the world? ua-cam.com/video/SRxzhpDZcJ8/v-deo.html
N.C.B - Batteries will soon take over , all Storages - WHY ?
Why because , DIAMONDS
WHICH TAKES , MILLIONS OF YEARS TO FORM ARE NOW MADE ,
'WITH IN HOURS ' - VIA
" SKY LABS "
EVEN - OUT BEATING THE NATURAL QUALITY . *
Reff: - " NASA. "
CHEERS. *:
This is exactly right. electrical energy storage is the ONLY thing keeping renewable energy from being the dominant source of electrical power.
My idea, is similar to your idea of "behind the meter storage". Having a substantial battery at home makes the most sense right now, because the LCOE of the battery only has to compete with RETAIL rates, rather than WHOLESALE rates that it would have to compete with in front of the meter. If homes and small businesses could do a thing called "peak shaving", there would never be a need for peaker plants in times of peak demand. Peak shaving works by battery chargers set to a voltage threshold, where if the voltage from the grid sags below a certain level, the charger turns off, unloading the grid. When the voltage rises,(hopefully due to the wind turning turbines)then, the charger(s) come back on, charging the battery bank. Under high demand, your loads just run on your own battery. Once you have a DC storage system, that system can be supplied by rooftop solar, wind, micro-hydro, or any other source.(in worst cases, a backup generator) With four sources of power, you have no problem maintaining 24/7 power.(solar, your battery, the grid, or backup generator) you could even have a 5th source, if you have a wind turbine.
with grid electricity getting more expensive, and off grid solar equipment becoming less, there will be a crossing point, where you could save money putting in your own off-grid photovoltaic system with battery. In the areas where local ordinances do not allow disconnecting from the grid, the peak shaving system I described above is a good idea, besides, the grid is a good backup, in case something goes wrong.(A peak shaving system is sometimes referred to as a "grid autonomous" system) A system like that could easily be adapted to work with the Zellweger ripple system, in case the voltage rise is due to a peaker plant, and not excess power from a windy day.
Amazing time to be alive !
You have no idea.
Never gonna happen. Nice dream. Energy stored in hydrocarbons is the way to go it’s designed by nature.
Hydrocarbons are a handy, high-yield form of energy, sure.
If only they wouldnt need a multiple million-year-long production process - and have the tendency to run out. Prospection peak oil was already reached in the 2000nds, production peak might also be reached by now, or isnt far away.
And all those pesky emission problems....
I´ma invest into energy storage and laugh at you ten years hence.
Just a I invested in renewable energy production 15 years back, and now have a fine yearly income from the cheapest power per unit prices on the market.
Be well ignoring developing technologies, my friend. Maybe buy some steam engines - they have proved so reliable for a 150 years.
As control room operator at FP&L for over 20 years I have seen the effects of low frequency on the grid. What typically happens in hot weather is as frequency gets lower due to not enough generation capacity dispatch load control will start shedding load during brown outs in order to keep frequency up... If there is enough battery capacity to supply enough load during this time it can eliminate brown outs. So green energy is a good option to prevent brown outs and load shedding..
Florida (In particular Florida Power and Light) is recognized in the US electric industry as one of the most robust areas in terms of energy management and disaster recovery. Here in Arizona we have hurricanes occasionally wander through the southwest corner, which does damage you would laugh at. "Aww - did it undermine a 500KV tower? Poor babies?"
I completely agree with storage being magic for short-term stability. Here in the West we don't have enough Remedial Action Schemes, although California does pretty well. In Arizona the plan is to rely on line protection and manual switching.
@Patrick McNulty
With a conventional generator the load is coupled electromechanically to the generator. But with the electronic inverter the frequency determining oscillator is independent of the load. If the load varies the frequency stays the same, and if the frequency is generated by a crystal oscillator, the frequency can be very accurate. So the only thing that will vary is the voltage. It used to be that the frequency was critical to many devices, but nowadays most devices don't depend on it.
@@acmefixer1 Frequency is very important. If not held at 60 cycles here in the USA equipment starts overheating heating..
@@acmefixer1 So what you are describing is an inverter which is not grid connected.
For any grid connected inverter, it becomes a frequency follower, with a very small bias or "slope" toward standard. The conventional generator, as you mentioned is coupled, however it too has a "droop characteristic" which biases it toward standard (60hz in North America), which gives the grid stability.
How does shedding load cause brown-outs, surely it causes black-outs?
Let's say you have a diamond mine and you no longer have to buy them from a rich corporation. Suddenly, your neighbors get a diamond mine, too. As prices drop, the big diamond mine corp. goes out of business, but so do you. If storage creates a pathway to cheap solar/wind/whatever energy, then the energy price drops and the system you bought, convinced that it pays for itself, will no longer. Check CA in the USA. People bought solar home systems based on a subsidy from the State. Then the State cancelled the program (too many people using it) and the owners had a system based on an economic model that no longer worked. Battery storage adds an additional cost to a system that won't pay for itself already. BTW, wind power and hydrogen also only work if energy prices are high enough to pay for the cost. These rapidly growing storage markets only work because of the magic of government subsidies and can't fix something that doesn't work to begin with. Since Chernobyl, my country has built a hundred nuclear reactors that worked error free for million of man-hours. Unfortunately, these were all on warships. Nuclear works, is very low carbon during construction and can power our future.
Great video, as usual. However, we are not on the cusp of the energy storage revolution, we are already on the ramping up stage of it. Most people don't realize that with LFP batteries alone, with their low cost and abundant resources components, we are a state already where we can backup every home in every advanced, high power using countries on earth, with only large towns and cities needing to be backed up with enterprise level storage. And that's not even bringing into play other chemistries such sodium ion for stationary storage, among many others.
As far as the naysayers, you should know that as long as humans are on this planet there will always luddites. That term comes from your part of the world, doesn't it?
An excellent and well researched presentation as usual. The good news is that the market is moving more quickly than the regulators, especially in some of those "developed" countries that love to dig their coal and burn it.
I'm hoping that domestic batteries will be included in the upcoming UK efficiency grant scheme, that will be a game changer for me, allowing me to both store my own solar electricity, and buy grid electricity at lower rates during the two blocks of three hours a day that are really cheap in the UK. Leading on from this, that will bring the running costs of moving from gas central heating to air source heat pump central heating PRICE EQUIVALENT in the UK, which is where the carbon game really starts to change.
Very good video about a revolution that is undergoing without major public attention.
The trick is, to get the turbines in BEFORE the land is developed for housing. That way, the machines are in place, the developers work around them, and anyone buying the homes see that they're there, and accept it. If you try to install the turbines AFTER the homes are occupied, it might start a riot. People just don't like change. It's best to set up ahead of the population.
You call that a revolution ? I call it the ultimate joke of our dying industrial world.
@@VFatalis hmm is it true: current human population could not survive [as we do] but for the advanced industrial complex and energy from fossil fuels? what would be the limits imposed by horse and buggy technology? just think of the limits of medicine and biological/chemistry/computer sciences...my my one takes these as god given rights today? think man please!!
@@VFatalis
Do you light your house with Candles, Whale oil or kerosene?
@@davidwatson8118 You completely missed the point. Fossil fuels have no future, and renewables are in the same boat but for different reasons. We're headed for a slow agrarian life, where only those able to grow food without fertilizers and machines will survive. Buy some candles, it will be useful.
Flow batteries for grid look good
NOPE , already DEBUNKED by science.
Indeed the world's largest battery is currently being built at 800MWh in the CENTRE of Dalian city in China (pop 8 million people)
@@markplott4820 Debunked by "science"? Do tell. They haven't caught on like Li-ion, but flow batteries are real. There's nothing wrong with the science behind them.
Check out Redflow.com. Flow batteries are commercially available now. I think the DEBUNKED comment is a coal industry troll.
Energy storage can not control the frequency or phase of grid but can control the voltage supplied to the grid. Also energy storage introduces larger in efficiencies into the grid which will require more generating capacity for the overall grid. Energy storage will allow for cleaner renewables to account for a larger percentage of the generating capacity of the grid and will eliminate the even more inefficient and a major polluter of the fossile fueled peaking stations within the the grid. As of such they probably won't replace conventional power stations but will reduce the amount of conventional stations and above all the very wasteful & major polluters of conventional power stations on the grid. Once someone comes up with a way to maintain a reliable grid phase then a 100% renewable grid will be feasible. Either way the main need in the grid is power storage. We should be perusing power storage more than renewables. You can't put the cart ahead of the horse.
Many white paper bla bla with wishfull thinking but without facing the question with what technology we store an with what technology we produce our increasing energy needs for lighting till running industry production!
We’re always just on the brink. We just need one more decade of subsidies....
Reminds you of those high pressure adds for useless household products, doesn't it?
@@markanthony3275 Or those robots that would be just like humans.
Can we start couple of wars for solar and wind? That would do it. Or is that only appropriate for other types of energy.
@@Apjooz No...people only fight for something they know will work.
*@Apjooz* we already did:
mobile.twitter.com/historyofarmani/status/1286868022528008197
"all participating participants" - Because those non-participating participants are so pesky to pin down.
Looks like 'oor oil' is in the deep doo doos.
...and almost as hard as finding a comment that has been proofread and edited.
When the cost of grid storage falls below the cost of fossil fuels, it is all over for carbon. From Don Sadoway MIT/Ambri
At least for any stationary purpose, it is true. Aircraft may be a harder problem.
I'm sure that it's necessary to add in the amortized Capital Cost of generating electricity from sunshine, plus the extra wiring. Those will not be insignificant. 80,000 kms of coastline with 10MW wind turbines at 500-metre spacing in ranks of 55 wind turbines per column stretching out 27 km into the ocean all over Earth so's ships will travel between parallel columns of 55 wind turbines each column to reach the shore anywhere on Earth is not a trivial-cost project.
It demands unclear , as to now storage creates more co2 , coal the biggest generator of electricity. China coal plants coming 6 years , most aggressive ever. Germany used more coal leaving nuclear , plan is replacing coal with natural gas .Storage is going to increase co2 emissions , leaving that out sounds better for the average man, €€€$$ is the goal.
Really? Wait when the weather and climate becomes more like the Arctic and Antarctica, then you will really regret saying your words!
@@creator7583 You need to edit just a little more, re: unclear/nuclear, plus a couple of other things. Battery storage is a one time emitter per item - during production. It will massively decrease CO2 emissions eventually. Fossil fuel emits all the time. Nuclear emits massively during construction. Did you not think of that?
Just a question: can energy storage solutions provide all the polymers we need to build everything we have ? Like can they energy storage revolution produce plastics with magic?
Hahaha , that’s a great question ,
The replacement plastic product is in the development stage , (not invented yet).
Anyone who can keep me interested and learning this topic for 15 minutes is, well brilliant! 👍🏻😁
Yeah "learning" lol.. just make sure you learn from somebody that knows what they are talking about
@@MrDmadness I hope you aren't suggesting that Dave doesn't know what he's talking about. That is certainly not the case.
@@incognitotorpedo42 well, he does not accurately describe energy storage, or fossil fuel use, so there's that
My contribution on this planet won't be to this subject so anything I am learning here is something more towards a general awareness of this topic and not a critic in the slightest. Although I do appreciate the passionate opinions here. Thank you. Do great things and be well.
@@MrDmadness Care to provide an example or two of things Dave gets wrong?
Awesome. Let's build our renewably powered global economy all together as fast as possible!
Lets slow down just a bit to make it a really good one. we don't want it to crash and burn in 10 years.
Pie in the sky, it's totally unfeasible. I have commented on some aspects of this piece before.
The reason these various companies and consultancies get into this is simply trading, traders make money most of the time and always at the expense of the consumer.
The grid will not get cheaper, more reliable or better for the consumer.
You will obviously disagree but time will show that fossil fuel generation will still be the backbone of the grid. Batteries will never, except in the very unlikely event of a monumental breakthrough, ever be capable of storing enough to cover the intermittency of renewables. Battery to grid is an extremely inefficient way to supply grid power (It is actually a misnomer as it is electrically impossible for home batteries to feed the grid. All they can do is feed neighbours due to the very simple fact that electrical power can only flow one way in a cable, with an efficiency of about 50%, i.e. the power to charge a battery can only return half of that due to various losses.
It's time to call a halt on all this wasteful use of resources in making wind, solar and batteries all with very short lives, in generation time scale. The very obvious way to decarbonise some of the grid is to use existing nuclear technology to give stable, synchronous power with significant inertia and prop up short circuit levels to the grid.
It cannot do it all as nuclear needs to run at full output, we still need fossil fuel generation to provide dispatchable power.
Contrary to your statement in the piece, they are not slow to follow demand and do so automatically. Significant peaks are dealt with quite easily with current pumped hydro capacity.
From the terms you use I guess that a lot of your information comes from American sources?
I gived you a thumbuppy then removed it when I got to "the very simple fact that electrical power can only flow one way in a cable". That's a massively-ignorant comment. A person such as yourself who has zero knowledge of that topic should avoid typing drivel like that because it simply informs everybody that you're a babbling idiot, just when your other objections were looking sensible enough.
Baker,
Power flow can only travel one way in an electric cable, it sounds counterintuative, given that current flow is bi directional in an A.C.circuit but the power flows either from a supply such as a generator or to a load such as a motor.
There are devices called reverse power relays to sense which direction the power (not current) is flowing and are fitted to all alternators in a grid system so as to disconnect the generator in the situation where the motive power is lost.
I'm afraid it is you who make yourself to appear a babbling idiot. I suggest you do some real reasearch into electrical power flow.
Best way to decarbonise is nuclear.
It works it has been working for 40 years.
But keep hoping and dreaming that someday, there will be that be battery or pile of blocks that can store 50 gwh.
Chernobyl, three mile island, windscale, Fukushima, and lots more less prominent accidents.
@George Mann www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll just for starters read this and are they still testing welsh lamb to see if its safe for human consumption ,the fallout is so widespread and invisible. Nuclear is never safe, and decommissioning costs are are another big problem, but we can leave the next generations to sort that out cant we , just like climate change,
Currently the UK's biggest rechargeable battery can store 9.1 gwh - Dinorwig hydro Power Station
@David Lockett Renewables are insanely expensive when you try to eliminate their variability.
@@JohnSmith-sz4gv Chernobyl never could have happened outside of the Soviet Union, the reactor was an inherently dangerous design and it had no containment structure. Using the Chernobyl disaster to argue against nuclear energy is nothing but a red herring.
-
Nuclear is the safest form of energy that humans make use of on a large scale, PERIOD.
My view at the moment is - if you have solar panels get a decent sized battery or 2 added to the system. That needs to be government policy the world over. It will help enormously and a bonus is that your solar will continue to work when there is a power outage, during the sunlight hours of course. You get your own power station. Great video. Greetings from Australia.
In other words you want someone else to pay for you novelty?
Really impressing your film. The illustration of it let me think, that there is a big lobby behind your channel. Love your British accent.
Me as a German (please forgive me my English!) am sceptical against so called renewable energy. Because we already pay for it very high. We have the highest energy prices in Europe, probably in the world. We live constantly close to a blackout. If we have had no neighbours with coal or nuclear plants, our system would crash very often. 2018 we have had two critical moments in our grid. In your film you are showing a beautiful landscape at the beach "decorated" with many windmills. This was a symbolic picture: human greediness and ideology destroying nature! My point is not: I am against electrical storage. No! Not at all! This is even the crucial problem of renewables. I am for obligatory solar panels on flat roofs in industrial areas. But I am against Solar Parks on fertile soil or in woods, against cornfields for our electrical comfort. Simply because of the efficiency of renewables, the so called EROI (Energy Return on Investment), which is too low. For that reason they need a big area to compensate. Photovoltaic has an EROI of 1.6, Biomass 3.5, Wind 3.9, Gas 28, Coal 30, Water 35. In comparison to it the old veteran of Pressurized Water Reactor has an EROI of 75! Which is not too bad.
The windmills are meanwhile as high as the television tower in Stuttgart. The concrete weights 7000 Tonnes. The socle of 3500 Tonnes is left for ever in the soil. The wings are impossible to recycle - they still look for an solution for this problem. And many birds and insects are victim of this sort of environmental protection.
But if you compare the renewables with the new concepts of nuclear power plants of fourth generation, you will understand, that the increasing demand of energy needs a new investment of nuclear plants of the fourth generation: MSR, LFTR or DFR: They have an EROI starting from 1000 up to 2000, some people of the DFR-Team claim even an EROI of 4000! They are safe ("Walk away Security"), they are modular, fit into a container and the best of all: they burn up the nuclear waste of our good old Pressurized Water Nuclear Plants. Ah, I forgot: they produce energy very very cheap. Ah, one point more: because they run with Thorium, they could produce for the next 1000 years, without leaving behind tonnes of garbage with a long decay as the old nuclear plants. Because of the high process heat from 1000 Grade Celsius, you could add to such a plant innovative techniques like: PowerToGas with Hydrogen Production, Synthetic Fuel, LOHC, NanoFlowcell, Seawater Desalination, Long-Distance Heating. These added spin-offs could solve many problems around the globe. And the power plants themselves could help, to give back nature to nature, because these plants don't need space. Specially in Germany the Green politics have destroyed big terrains of woods with the windmills, fertile land with solar panels. And they call this environmental protection, and declare it as nature protection, which is not the same! But we do not need this sort of environmental protection. We need a new wilderness for biodiversity. In Europe there are no virgin forests anymore (ok, in Poland, the Białowieża National Parc).
Just have a think!
Absolutely agree. You mentioned thorium which remind me Rubbia ,italian like I am but with Nobel prize. In Italy we are masochist and prefer to kick all the brains out in change of some desperates from Africa . It happened with Enrico Fermi too, who built atomic bomb for Usa instead of us . We would have won the ww2 with that and probably nuclear power would have been more important then oil now .
The researchers have experimented with agrivoltaics, where the solar panels are located in farms. The plants grow bigger leaves to compensate for the shade. There are no conflicts with putting wind turbines among the fields of farms. I have nothing against nuclear power, but it's very unfair for anyone to say that renewables are harming the Earth! That's what this German is saying. The harm is being caused by a fossil-fueled world and it's absolutely necessary to get rid of all CO2 causing sources.
One point people fail to talk about is that thermal power plants -- nuclear too -- require a huge amount of water to keep the plant cool. This is a major problem for locating these plants, so they are located close to water. The German complained about wind turbines; there are more huge high voltage towers with thermal power plants.
Wake up world! Thorium or any nuclear material is not renewable. The problems in Germany are not problems for all other countries.
@star cruiser
You don't know what you are talking about.
You are nothing but a fool.
Marek Stepanek - That is a fine exposition, my friend, of the benefits of nuclear power, especially in densely-populated Europe.
“Desperation is the Mother of Re-invention” should be Germany’s motto if it ever wakes up to its energy mistake, after Fukushima, in closing its nuclear power plants that still have years left of CO2-free power production: If they’re not restarted, the CO2 produced in their construction added to the climate crisis for no benefit. Even worse, the country burns brown coal to replace the lost power. How the greens can be happy with this, much the same as they do here in the US, says a lot about their unreasoning fear of nuclear power.
The coal, oil & gas interests spent large sums to deny the climate crisis & postpone action to address it for decades. Natural gas was once suggested as “the bridge fuel” to a green economy, but the delays have made that impossible if we’re to avoid the worst consequences of global heating.
The bridge fuel now is nuclear, at least until we’ve reached the point of negative growth in CO2 concentrations. If the greens had been able to stop the fossil fuel industry from spreading their climate denial propaganda, they could have bought the time needed to avoid temporary resort to nuclear. For understandable reasons, they failed. Now it’s time to face reality: For the next 50 years or so, we either use nuclear or sustain dramatic reductions in living standards in order to avoid industrial collapse and eventual extinction.
A little more perspective to close - Back in the ‘70s & ‘80s, at least until climate scientist James Hansen testified to the US Congress in 1988 of the seriousness of humanity’s situation, the term “Global Warming” might have been good for giving us a gentle wake-up call about the developing science. But now we need words that accurately describe our terrestrial reality -
“The Climate Crisis, Ocean
Acidification and Global Heating”
(Ocean Acidification comes first, because few people even know it’s happening, never mind that it’s caused by fossil fuel pollution.)
@acme fixer - The greens around the world have spread unreasoning fear of nuclear power for decades while tens of millions suffered unhealthy lives & premature deaths from fossil fuel pollution, esp. from coal-caused CO2 & SO2 pollution, fine coal particulates, coal dust & mercury pollution.
As for Germany, as was explained, it shares its problems with the rest of densely-populated Europe, w/ its interconnected electricity grid. Assume the rest of Europe had followed Germany after Fukushima in shutting down nuclear in favor of burning stuff like brown coal (while at the same time allowing the expansion of diesel vehicles as they did): Europe would have experienced depression-like conditions & a health crisis like China’s. Their gov’ts, industry & homeowners would not have the funds to expand wind & solar. The Euro-zone would now resemble something more like Central & Eastern Europe around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union.
Would the EU have survived; how would terrorism have played out in the new slums of Europe; how much more aggressively would the Russians have behaved; how much more would reactionary conservatism have grown beyond say, Hungary & Turkey (you can start with France...); what would have happened to the Syrian refugees, most blocked from entering Europe; and how would that weakened EU/NATO, with a stronger Russia, have played out in Trump’s America?
Now go up one level higher: Many Muslims in MENA, from Morocco to Iran, have respected Europe’s social democratic traditions of medical care and other social & educational services for all that have prevented the levels of poverty found in the US & elsewhere: how might their changed attitudes have affected things today?)
Thank you for your informative videos 👍😎
Watching Dave is like watching a highly focused and bang up to date Tomorrows World, most enjoyable.
Why does team renewable hate team nuclear so much? Shouldn't these two be working together to decrease the time in which we generate all power from carbon free sources? Am I missing something?
Ricky Worthey because nuclear still creates nuclear long term waste (like 100,000 years long term) and a lot more research needs to done on it. The only problem with renewables is a logistics issue.
@@jamesag4135 I understand that but logistics aren't the only problem. Even though costs have come down, they're still expensive. Im in the camp that we need to stop generating Co2 as quickly as we can and nuclear with a combination of renewables is the quickest most affordable way to get there. Im just trying to figure out why every clean energy video I watch on UA-cam treats nuclear like the unwanted step child while the technology has been proven effective and safe when done correctly for decades.
@@ricky613 When a solar panel or a wind turbine are damaged, it's no big deal but...
energy storage is a make-believe wish to the energy problem.
This is a complex subject, well researched as ever and put into context. Recently retired, my last job was in the IoT space and Smart Grids were an application I studied. Storage changes everything and with batteries getting cheaper the opportunities for balancing the demand/supply equation and providing frequency response services to accommodate more renewables are increasing. The challenge is one of management which needs a lot of real-time data collection. Blockchain looks to be the best solution using connectivity technologies such as cellular, LPWA and MESH networks. We come from a world of a few power sources and many power loads, the new world is where millions of loads are also sources, e.g. electric vehicle batteries supporting V2G on the low voltage part of the grid. This is a potential nightmare from a management perspective but again IoT technology should be up to it. As we used to say, giga bytes are just as important as giga watts.
yes but remember electric vehicles though providing a large load could also be a huge source and once the system has adapted to the demand of electric vehicles they could be a huge source to help balance demand like electric hot water tank remote utility controls have been. In other words shut the charge off to the vehicles and maybe even draw from their batteries down to a particular capacity.
@@teekay1785 Yep, that’s about it. Just remember that every time power goes back and forth there’s a transaction to be done which is why I repeat, the Mega bytes are as important as the Mega Watts.
How about doing a video on how the batteries are produced, you know right down to the child slave labor dying for the materials. Bet you won't
Maybe you should watch his other videos before making a comment.
@shane: Lithium is a finite resource. If you try to produce a lot of large lithium batteries you will encounter a diseconomy of scale ie the lithium price will rise sharply.
@@johngeier8692
So what?
Oil is a finite resource, lithium can be recycled and no it doesn't require child labour.
Next you will be telling me that coal mining requires child labour.
The importance of the FERC Order 841 being upheld cannot be overstated. I work for a DNSP/TNSP and invariably it is the legislation that we operate under that is what is holding innovation back and not the technology availability or the commercial interest in using it! Good stuff Dave.
A 10 GWh lithium-ion battery energy storage system would occupy the same volume as the Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt, and would meet the electrical demand of Great Britain for about 20 minutes.
Let's start making those hard policy decisons; refit houses with showers, panel rooves instead of tiles, remove chimneys and install reverse cycle heats pumps, dog flaps like cat flaps, or better dispense with "pets", trim weeds rather than mow lawn, grass eating pets, microwave replace cooker etc twenty minutes from 10Gig is outrageous !
The Highest poverty rates tend to be green States. States who only had one source of resources tend to be more poor due to going Green. I don't know anything else that can beat Nuclear Energy is cheaper. The only ones profiting are the big dogs making less fortunate people pay more for less Energy. Plus if we have all our eggs in one basket and it fails then everything falls apart.
15 Billion trees are cut down each year world wide we used to have 6 trillion trees now we only 3 trillion trees. With out Trees our Air would be nasty and muggy.
So we basically have 200 Years to 300 Years Worth of Trees. Even if we went green, There is Nations burning coal like no tomorrow and cutting Trees down at a higher rate then ever before. Our Species wipe out is also way to high to Maintain a good Ego system. Long as Greed comes first we're all doomed even if the greed is going to be so called go Green ect...
Well done Dave, we're doing a community solar farm here in Ireland. I would also like to see governments encouraging community grid infrastructure as well as community energy storage, this would accelerate and extend rollout renewables within communities, it would also allow communities to benefit from revenues earned through the three components of renewable energy 👍👍
Hope the Communities are
Filled with , Blood Related - JOINT FAMILIES OF MORALS = COMMON SENSE AS TO : - LIKE OTHERS AS THYSELF IN
THOUGHTS , WORDS AND
ACTIONS - WITH MATURITY AND ' SPAN OF CONTROL.
EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE IF YOU KNOW MORAL GOVERNANCE AND
MORAL SCIENCE.
CHEERS. *
Decentralized energy storage is where this is headed for a lot of good reasons. First and arguably most importantly, as it becomes more widespread it will make economic sense due to increased engineering expertise and the cost savings that come with mass production of the components needed. Secondly, storing energy closer to where it's being used reduces transmission losses during peak usage times, when they are most detrimental. And beyond the stabilizing effects on the electrical grid mentioned in this video, it will go a long way towards making renewables feasible for providing the bulk of our energy.
I say a (partial) solution are big mechanical batteries and gravi-tricity (lasting long enough). We make hell out of nature generating electricity, so we can't trasure the value of it handling the current as a business, also because we do not know what an electron is made of.
Blockchain itself will still be a too hungry thing ("mis-trusting" people, that don't try to learn about electric current), i can't think of blockchain having gotten less complicated
Run your house with solar power and you will need lead batteries worth about 200,000 Euros to provide sufficient energy storage to become independent from the grid for up to 2 weeks (Times without sufficient usable sunshine can last much longer!). These batteries have a lifespan of 10 years after which you need a new set. And lead batteries are and will be by far the cheapest batteries of all.
@@TheSpecio Who was taking about fully autonomous electrical supply from solar?
See it as a contest between the economies of scale and economies of mass production. Before 2000, economies of scale justified huge power stations. Now the advantage of bigness isn't so clear. But the arguments are confused by government meddling, cross-subsidies, etc.
@@siggyincr7447
I am!
Because if you are not fully autonomous you expect that others (Your neighbors!) are going to pay for your dream. You are 'saving' by buying less electric power from the grid. But you expect that the grid will be kept so strong and efficient that it can provide you any moment with as much power as you want, which ist, of course, very expensive for the power company. That's why the company has to charge your neighbors more. Such behavior is parasitic.
GREAT VID. Carbon is on the way out. Here's to a better tomorrow!!!
@Stimpy&Ren not to mention, most inefficient (prevalent turbine design, limiting output of nearby turbines, capacity factor 5%-50%, need to be backed up by LNG), environmentally damaging (noise, vibration, rodent-paradise due to bird-free zone, difficult or impossible to dispose), least predictable.
It better be coming back because I want my graphene and carbon nanotube goodies.
Don't be fooled. Creating all this will require an enormous amount of carbon output not to mention the carbon created during the maintenance of such a system. Renewable does NOT mean elimination of carbon.
Just between two carbon life forms, we're not going away from carbon.
Dream on, not going to happen anytime soon.
How energy storage will kill energy storage...
Not even sure this can be economically competitive. even less sure it can be sustainable (smart grid will require 3 times the copper for the grid)
Finally electricity storage isn efficient enough to "kill" fossils. Just try making a long trip by car or plane with electricity... or try making a truck run on electricity...
That's why whe need non fatal electricity prouction means, aka : hydrostored plants, nuclear plants, biomass plants. All intermittent sources are just a pain : they consume more concrete and steel/kwh, produce less electricity, and are fatals, producing whenever they want, meaning you have to spend a lot of money an ressources to make it even.
A nice dream, but a failure if you want to ressources efficient and clean.
many (most?) grid power lines use aluminum not copper
Wouldn't it help to spread grids east to west to extend solar "day length"
Transfer isn't so cheap. Long high voltage power lines are NIMBY and protested even by so called Greens. Quite soon one runs out of countries to interconnect because of political reasons or reaching an ocean. Setting this aside? Yes cool, should be pushed further, but actually would be quite tedious job.
For homes in Germany, they now encourage that.
It increases payback time but attenuates production.
Since investors want fast payback, that's currently not happening. But tracking systems are also being used by some arrays that get the best of both, so long as maintenance is minimal. Many different systems claiming to be the best. Some use electronics, others are mechanical.
The simpler, the better.
@bk_16 When we're going in to such details - even with winter you at least get evening peak demand at least slightly spread out, assuming your "cable" ;) starts in Portugal and ends in Finland.
what if we had one giant global grid? using underwater power cables of millions of volts to connect the continents? this way we can run everything on solar
The UK's 2gw connector to France was built for that reason , to use the hour time difference to smooth the peak demand.
It staggers me that so many people don't appreciate the difference between 'storage' and 'creation'. Batteries don't MAKE energy.
Right? And they also forget that without that HORRIBLE petrol you couldn't make the fiber glass or resin for their wind turbines or the silica for the solar panels or the refined lithium for their batteries or the concrete for the hydro dams or the steel for the generators.
@@Unmannedair But the difference is that the fossil fuels used to make these products is not combusted, therefore not producing carbon during the process. More so, the initial use of those fossils offsets the need to continuously burn fossils for energy throughout the lifetime of the project...resulting in approx 1% of the amount of fossils used. Surely you understand that.
@tzar 1917 I find it peculiar that you didn't have anything at all to say. Surely you know if you tried to actually say something you would sound pure idiot.
@tzar 1917 Thanks for resorting to name calling instead of making an intelligent reply...because, in doing so, you confirmed what we already knew about you.
@@samt.863 But the world needs more Carbon Dioxide it is the main building block of all life on this planet. More is better👍😎
This channel is superb content. Great topics, keep em coming.
It's wonderful for those techno yuppies who believe that renewables will save their future... Ain't happening
Energy storage is great.. But let's talk about the important subject..... Energy creation. Do you want to cut down all the trees, to make space for solar panels? Yes, they tried to do that in Germany already. Are we going to re-dam the rivers?
How are we going to make all this electrical energy we need???
landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
To provide the entire world's energy needs with only solar panels (if you were to attempt to solve our energy problems with only solar panels) would require an area around the size of Spain, not the whole Earth. Many of these panels could be installed in the desert, or on the roofs of buildings.
Either way it pales in comparison to the amount of trees we have cut down to make space for growing hamburgers.
Wow mate what a ray of happiness and hope you are😊 it’s beautiful to know that We can sort our planet out , one day I mite be able to afford to subscribe, I do subscribe to Robert Murray smiths channel whom is passionate about re renewable energies, I expect you know of his brilliant work and teaching , wow again and thank you ..
"it’s beautiful to know that We can sort our planet out"
we are probably to late for not seeing big effects
No question, solar w/ batt. storage will be the way we receive all of our power in the coming decades.
No it won't! The sums simply do not add up!
Don't forget wind in the mix and the new application of liquid-air cryobatteries.
@@totherarf Yep, it will. Look at any new capacity energy chart and it'll be obvious that solar, wind and hydro, with battery back-up, will be our only sources of power in the next: 30-50 years. Fossil fuels are rapidly depleting, anyone in the fossil fuels industry knows this which is why they're planning ahead with renewables. I work in the energy industry, I know.
@@rtfazeberdee3519 Yes, definitely wind and hydro as well as solar. I've developed wind farms over the past 13 years, have lived with a small wind turbine in my backyard that powers my house and EV, along with solar, and know the wind industry well but looking at the numbers, the solar industry, with battery back-up, will dominate and overtake all other energy production sources as it's getting so cheap that they can now produce energy at: $0.01/kWh, with solar. All this with virtually no maintenance or additional costs. I'm sure there will be several different technologies in batteries, which is great. The more, the better.
@@MrArtist7777 What about the massive usage of fresh water for cleaning solar panels on the level needed to power an entire country of 300 million people? Isn't fresh water also becoming an endangered resource in many of the places in the US sunny enough for solar panels to be worth it?
“Use blockchain to track energy production ...”. The cost of per unit energy will be times more.
Sure ?
Oh yes, multiples, more.
Generate Hydrogen gas with the extra power and store the gas. H2 has the largest "Delta H", thus perfect storge mechanism!
Unfortunately, the conversion efficiency for H2 compared to Li-Ion battery storage and many other currently interesting forms of energy storage is not that great. The current conversion efficiencies are 65-70% for electricity to H2 and 50-60% for H2 to electricity. Charging and discharging Li-Ion for ordinary batteries are both in the 90% range. You lose more than half of your energy from the get go if you use H2.
It's only when you want to store the energy for a very long time (years or longer), in a small container or may want to transport it over long distances (between continents and thus preventing significant transportation loss through HV lines) that H2 may make sense. The small container size may have been an advantage for vehicles a couple of decades ago when Li-Ion batteries weren't yet as well developed as they are now... but with the current progress and the next stage of EV car (>500 mile range and cheap compact cars) on the horizon, I don't think H2 makes sense anymore.
I was gonna make fun of your statement (especially about the leaking storage mechanism, which is the second worse thing about H2 as fuel - the first being its tendencies to explode violently)
but started searching and there is a significant progress - Toyota's hydrogen-powered electric cars are here and EU already has 111 working H2 gas stations (..of that, 0 in place where i live and closest only 150km away).
H2 fuel has also some advantages over batteries - to me, the biggest one is the filling up of the fuel takes few seconds, where batteries still take few hours.
@@nescius2 I am a mechanical engineer with tooo many years of design experience. I know what I am talking about better than the other 99% of the earths population.
This is a Joke! Energy storage is costing 10X the energy produced in monetary resource production and recycling expenses etc. You produce a nuclear plant for billions or a windmill solar whatnot plantation now you have to tenfold the expenditure in every beforehand mentioned respects for storage . Dream on!
How much does nuclear power cost if you include all the decommissioning costs? The nuclear industry never talks about decommissioning but that is by far the biggest cost in the entire life cycle.
Where did you get your "ten fold" estimate. It seems to me that wind and solar are the lower cost way to go if you do honest accounting.
In time all this peripheral equipment will need maintenance and updating and will be susceptible to hacking. This won't be cheap so it will be passed on to the helpless consumer. The short life span of solar and wind equipment will require more fossil energy to replace than actually burning the fossil fuels for generating electricity. Making steel, concrete, mining rare earth metals and refining for renewable energy creates more C02 than just using boilers and steam to power a much simpler and flexible grid. Also not to mention the vast area of the Earth is consumed to erect wind and solar as well as mined landscapes for rare metals required for magnets and batteries. The proliferation of windmill will mean the death of most large birds and bats with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of discarded being buried out of site and out of mind. If all the money spent on this insane so called clean energy was spent on technology to scrub the fossil fuel energy plant's exhaust, output of C02 would be a none issue. With nuclear as a base load energy provider and fossil fuel clean stacks for load flexibility it would eliminate all the renewable energy nonsense.
What do you think oil & Gas production is made of: a $50 billion Oil/Gas production and all the processing/transporting infrastructure takes many years to build, requires millions of tons of toxic resources to construct and hundreds of millions of gallons of oil, has to be maintained and has life span of around 20-30 years before being scrapped and replaced. Plus Oil & Gas is going to run out in the not too distant future and we have to developer oil and gas complete replacement long before they run out, because as you say we currently need oil and gas to build everything.
And a few thousand birds are killed by wind power compared with 400 million birds and animals killed every day by transport + millions die every day from oil spills & pollution
As for nuclear: do you think nuclear power stations are free and built out of wood and last forever! Nuclear is the dearest way to generate power, Plus nobody has yet worked out what to do with the millions of tons of radiation waste that needs safely storing for 50 thousand years or more. That's a great legacy for our ancestors!
Something has to be done to improve and clean up the worlds power generation ASAP, and renewable's combined with power storage are starting to look a very feasible cost effective option or maybe should consider moving back 10,000 years and living in a cave.
The rate of collapse of fossil fuel energy will be startling. Well done, thanks for posting.
funny thing about peak oil -- it keeps on repeating -- time and time again; of course it is limited -- we just have little idea yet on 'how limited' -- is it an emergency or crisis?
Johnny
It doesn’t matter anymore, because batteries have gotten cheaper than fossil fuels, so economics will take over. Non-subsidized solar plus batteries are cheaper than any fossil fuel power plant. No one is going to build another coal-fired power plant - they are too expensive to operate. Even natural gas power plants are iffy. So today, with the cost of batteries still declining, economics favor solar/battery technologies, so that’s what is getting built. And as batteries continue to decline in price, the economics for solar/battery plants will only get better. The game-changer, as he said, is the declining cost and superior performance of battery storage.
@@bulletbob batteries are made using fossil fuels they're insanely bad for the environment. Use solar during the day and fossil fuels at night until we develop large scale safe nuclear infrastructure.
@@bulletbob time will surely tell -- it will take many gas fired power plants to produce sufficient battery capacity to overcome demand and limitations of wind and sun -- how much time is highly questionable with the volatility of government social order around the world -- currently there is no free lunch so many think there is with wind and solar, but dreams are wonderful -- all the very best
awesomedavid2012
Be wary of propaganda that promotes the status quo. “Batteries are terrible for the environment” is just propaganda. Decentralized power generation is good for everyone, except bad for executive bonuses, so propaganda is generated to preserve their bonuses. Battery manufacturing continues to get better, and it’s already net positive for the environment. Nothing is static. It’s not hard to see the winning path for batteries, as this video showed. Battery storage is better than any power plant because you can store power for use later, instead having to ramp up power generation as needed, which is crazy expensive. Nuclear will never happen, that technology has been dead for decades. It’s just not gonna happen. We already have a huge fusion reactor in the sky, so let’s tap into that Usonian simple, safe solar panels - just like everything else on earth already does. Be wary of propaganda that promotes the static quo.
Seasonal storage is a huge obstacle to renewable (electric) systems. A home in Canada's far north can require stored energy for 4 or 5 months a year and given the very high demand during the winter, would require approximately $4 million in Tesla Powerwalls to assure safe levels of heating.
However, geothermal storage of low grade (heat) energy offers storage at under 1% of the cost of electrical energy storage. See "The Renewable Energy Transition, Realities for Canada and the World" for the concept and some hard numbers and examples.
Electricity is a high grade energy but we have to also learn to use low grade energy (heat) if we are going to make renewables work.
Investing in better insulation is usually cheaper than investing in alternative power sources.
Reducing winter loss and need for Summer AC is more important than supply as reduction hits carbon footprint for less money in a short space of time with lower skill installation.
This also makes seasonal changes more manageable.
It's a good thing then that the high north are so sparsely populated. Nunavut has a total population of roughly 40,000, a vast region with a population of a small town.
@@CarFreeSegnitz Absolutely. The populate the "empty" north is a developers fantasy that would be an environmental disaster. The Inuit population over about 1.4 million sq km pre-European contact was around 2000. The increase in population is mainly due to cheap fossil fuels which have built in storage.
And you may have an opportunity to develop long term salt cavern hydrogen storage up there in Canada too I think?
@@JustHaveaThink I haven't followed salt cavern hydrogen storage - it must have a very low profile here. We do have salt caverns but they are in the south of the country - where we still will need large seasonal storage - but I doubt there are any salt caverns in the far north. I am generally negative on hydrogen as it is so lossey. However, one big advantage is it's high recyclability as the tanks are stainless steel. Unlike electrical batteries which would be much more difficult to recycle.
For a great example of geothermal heat storage see the development of ~60 homes in Okotoks, Alberta called Drake Landing. Great stats over several years of real world usage. They are registering a COP of up to 30:1. Spectacular!
The best customer of a mega-pack would be the energy producer themselves. You could run your plant at near peak 24/7 and meet a high demand peak with ease. Power companies would clean up with this investment.
I don't think so. Regional power generators are on their way out as customers themselves can generate and store more than enough of their needs, and sell the excess to the power companies. Eventually, centralized generators will give way to the millions of roof-top generators which will fee the grid evenly and uninterrupted. In fact, the electrical grid itself will also eventually cease to exist unless your neighborhood opts for an energy co-op.
Juan Asenjo It depends, some energy sources can be scaled, such as PV solar. But some energy sources need scale to be efficient, I would expect a mix of regional and local generation would be needed.
exactly Edmund, they can design their plant to run at max all the time, and allow storage to absorb the brief demand peaks. just like how a water tower trickles full and releases it all in a few hours in the evening. on-site storage is becoming a big thing on renewable developments, but every generator could gain by it. especially nuclear, which likes to run at max (although modern designs can throttle down to 25% - a battery would still allow much more warning and a slower ramp time when they need to turn up to 50 or 100%, and also make it simpler to run them slower in the summer than the winter)
@@juanasenjo8515 I assume you live in sunny California or something - a lot of the world isn't blessed with the combination of more solar when they need more output - most places its the other way around.
There will be a need for fossil fuels for transportation for many years to come. Electricity generation may move away from fossil fuels, the transportation will not for many years. How are you going to power a large cargo ship from Europe to the United States on stored power? You would have to sacrifice a lot of cargo space for storage.
You're pointing out one of the major issues of renewables: they produce electricity and nothing else... So transportation will always require batteries. Batteries are heavy, expensive and generate a lot of pollution.
Also, fossil fuels are used to produce the materials (and power the industrial systems) that create these renewable and storage systems. Gonna need oil...lots of oil... for some time yet (Check out Alex Epstein's videos for more detail).
Fewer years than you think. Batteries continue to get cheaper and more energy dense. In any case, the low hanging fruit, cars and trucks,, will be first to be replaced by EVs.
@@michelangelobuonarroti916 EVs actually contribute to the problem - requiring more power generation. It will be interesting to see if battery storage *does* get cheap. That would be great, otherwise the current trend of energy getting more expensive - driven by increasing renewables - will continue (compare Germany and France's energy cost /kWh), and contribute to broadening 'energy privilege'.
Check out hashgraph it is better than block chain
This sounds much like Tesla Autobidder, already in use in some groundbreaking markets.
The Tesla system is just pure evil, people buy a power wall and Tesla make money from it without their consent, it is for the owners impossible to do anything about it without disconnecting the power wall from the grid (basically crippling the capabilities)
@@buddy1155 could you please provide your source for above mentioned comment?
@@sudeeptaghosh What comment?
that they are evil... (my personal assessment).
That they are making money off it? (that is common knowledge, well the first poster knew about this.).
That you do not give consent. (that is one of those nasty things to proof things people do not do, just you proof to me that they do ask consent).
That you can't do anything about it ( I seen a review ... might be able to find it, thing is really a blackbox there is ZERO control over it)
Or that the power wall will be crippled (that I can explain, and was in that review as well)
@@buddy1155 what a horseshit...
Thanks again for all your work. I really learn a lot from you.
Plant more trees.
Or burn down less, like in Brazil.
lol but then its more foresst to rake lol
@@coryryder9070 Lol yes! You gotta rake the forest! Or use a vacuum cleaner! 😂
Yes, plant more trees and transform the energy grid. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. We can do both, right? It seems silly to make the grid sustainable only to have planted no trees, or vice versa. Trees won't solve the energy problem, and energy does not (directly) equate to biodiversity in robust ecosystems.
@Rebecca Conn Heey Rebecca, that's really cool. I believe in decentralization for domestic use as well, I am not too worried for terrorism over here, but individual or even national energy security is a good thing. Fossil materials should be construction materials, not fuel. Carbon products such as oil will always be in demand (we really have to prevent plastic from making it out to sea though).
I have only a small city garden, so I can plant maybe 1 tree. If you can sell excess energy then solar panels are always a sound investment in the city. I do plan on getting solar panels with integrated solar heaters (PVT panels - I am short on roof space), a shower wastewater heat-exchange, a couple of house batteries, floor heating and a good HVAC system to integrate it all. That should get me a lot closer to being self-sufficient energy-wise. At least I can drop the natural gas boiler and stove and most of the energy bill.
Save the environment, make my house safer, and save myself a ton of money (after 7-ish years)- awesome.
Reliable Storage is the key to many other optional power sources. Wind is not proving so viable . Maintenance Cost are simply too high. Just about all major wind projects have been shelved here in the USA. As soon as the Subsidies dry up they're shut down.
You know what is really good energy storage? Hydrocarbons. Also known as gasoline. It's the future!
Technically gasoline is a hydrocarbon and not a carbohydrate. There are no oxygens in most of what makes up gasoline.
Problem is, we don't really have any viable, "clean" batteries as of yet. Tesla is not clean. Nor is any other available battery right now. And using anything else but clean batteries will just shift the problem to another - usually less fortunate - continent.
Look for cryobattery and salt water battery
Vermont has a program to subsidize the cost of home batteries that top off at night and then power the home during peak energy demand during the day to reduce the need for peaker plant operation. Sounds like a great start.
Vermont homes still need Autobidder to buy/sell electricity and PRINT money for the homeowner.
Sounds like a good plan!
Vermont are also on the path to building a liquid-air cryo-battery. Once there are millions of EVs that plug in at home, they will become a microgrid and perform the same service during peak hours
@@rtfazeberdee3519 well I know Tesla for one has abandoned the idea grid feed from car.
@@williamgoode9114 You know this for a fact? As of July 2020? They are set to announce a "million mile" battery, so I don't think they'll be worried about stressing that kind of cell with a little V2G. Grid service is far easier on batteries than EV use.
Tesla's new energy app will allow individual users of Tesla products like the powerwall to sell their energy back. I would guess the third generation powerwall will be announced on battery yesterday and will allow a V2G connection to a Tesla car so that your car can be used on the energy trader app. I'm sure they'll restrict the amount you can use your battery in your Tesla car to probably less than 10% but that's still a lot when you have a hundred kilowatt-hour pack
Missing, watch on utube, Solarized walk assist device - Winnipeg to Vancouver 1,through 12 (especially 9)
Also, Elon Musk's Tesla vs the "Solarized It "
"Solarized It ", showing different uses
Solarized walk assist device - morning coffee
A few short videos about a solarized machine that can save $ to help afford more solar (stationary),you can use it to supply home power, transportation, emergency, array with other solarized machines.
Hope it happens soon. Don't know why the World in not looking at Thorium energy. The World has enough Thorium to power the World for thousands of years.
This is why. See: thebulletin.org/2019/12/fact-check-five-claims-about-thorium-made-by-andrew-yang/
Oil is not going anywhere for a while because there are over three thousand items that are made off fossil fuels that can't be replaced right now including lubricant, plastics, rubber clothing etc. Its an awesome chemical and the worst thing we do is burn it.
I smear it around my ring hole to cut down the times per year it needs a reshim.
I hope they apply energy storage to oil production too. Currently whenever I fly over North Dakota at night I see them flaring millions of tons of natural gas.
At least they're burning the methane. Here in So California the gas company had a huge leak in the underground storage for months and had to evacuate areas. I wonder how much greenhouse gas equivalent that released? The gas company got in trouble for that disaster.
@justhaveathink
Have u heard of Ecosia? Maybe you'd like to make a video about them. : )
Came across your channel last week and I’m loving the content!! It’s really refreshing and motivating to hear of different technology and ideas around renewables, after being stuck in the sphere where only problems, not solutions, were discussed.
There all at it.... Discussing the problems But No Real Solutions, just Blah Blah Blah
E.T. have 100 year batteries ask them.
Sure use battery 🔋 i will send you mine .
There is a certain danger in saying "once we have storage solved, then we can go alternative", much like saying we need to get to zero, it presents an impossible goal so that the status quo can continue floundering along. Spinning up and down can be accomplished with natural gas to yield big co2 reduction while still taking big steps in the right direction.
Also, please no block chain, its a gimmick, there is already such a thing as accounting, we don't need an inefficient form of it where everytime a transaction is made, we need to process every transaction it has ever been in all over again, huge waste of power.
The narrative in your comment's is indeed noted. Blockchain is a gimmick? Natural gas? co2 reduction? Inefficient cryptographic formula. Without co2 this construct would die. Natural gas is a joke.This realm is reverse technology we already had free energy but free does not pay. The gas turbine engine like on the jets buses trains Formula one cars and motoGP uses no fuel, also know as free energy. Of course many factory's use this technology. Compressed air. The electric universe we live on uses skyscrapers also known as power stations to gather aether to power city's. It's all here for us by the creator but again free does not pay.
You don't have to validate a blockchain by going back to the beginning - of course you could do that - but it's not necessary for most user applications.
I just made a video today on this exact outcome, we have a massive grid scale regional and schools program being rolled out here in Western Australia, so exciting!
Excellent reportage and explanation as I've come to expect from this top youtube channel. It's a go-to for anyone interested in the key energy issues of today, from retirees to politicians, to teachers, the science community and high school students upwards. Many thanks
Batteries need to get cheaper by at least an order of magnitude before grid scale storage is possible. The dilute nature of solar energy means that huge areas would be needed. This would threaten agricultural and wilderness areas. The only long term solution is nuclear power.
The Price Paid For Electricity Supplied To Your Place Of Use Will Get Dearer , More Costly .
When It Becomes Easier , Cheaper For You To Generate , Capture From Solar Power Verses " Cost Of Delivery " Then Changes Will Occur .
( " Stand Under The Transmission Lines And Capture The EMF From Lines By Induction " )
Maybe with battery stoage you could use smaller plants to produce power or upgrade an existing plant?
Yes you could use smaller plants to produce power or upgrade an existing plant, or just keep existing plant, or make it bigger. The options are exciting & endless.
Norway where I live have allways had storage and cost of electrical power lower then generated from carbon based sources. That have not eliminated the use of carbon based fuel and will not do so anytime soon. We have the highest prosentage of electric cars, but we still have large areas where that is not really an option. Most homes and commerce has electricety as the main power source inluded heating.
I really wish that renewable energy was the answer, but as long as so many will not include nuclear, the low energy density in solar and wind takes a lot more resource to develop then vi have available.
All the development in solar and wind the last 20 years has so fare only covered as small part of the increase in electrical power and still it has put a strain on the availability of many raw materials. Just to replace what we use to day more then 20 times more has to be built and that do not include storage and transmission.
Not so sure. I have put enough solar on my roof to have enough for 9months of the year (including the car in regular dutch row housing at 52 north). If I would by new ones today I could get 30% less panels for the same output. And that is after 4 years.
Plenty dense if you ask me.
bknesheim, I recommend you do some research into today's renewables. You seem to be talking about the world of 10 years ago. Things are changing rapidly.
@@christianvanderstap6257 At 59 north that would not do so well. Data from an installation that give 40kW/hours on a sunny day in the sommer. Only give1-2 on a sunny day in december.The cost to cover the last 3 months can easely be 3-4 times what you payed for 9 months.
Anyway the problem is large scale utilities. The amount of material that goes into a singel 6MW windmill is stagering and since you in the best cases only get about efficensy off 35% at the very best, you need 3x to produce a 6MW/year of power. You also need tons and tons of wire to connect the windmills to the grid.
Solar need less resources but they are a lot more nasty to produce and very limited in use for many areas.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I have done the math based on the best we can do in theory. If we in the next 20 years shall install 20x more then we did the last 20 years. The number of new mines needed is several times what we have to day for importen metal like iron, copper and aluminium. Up to 50-60x for special metal like the ones used in storng magnets.
@@bknesheim Your math might be right but the assumptions it's based on are wrong. The prices of renewables and storage are plummeting, and we are not going to run out of materials to make them. www.energy-storage.news/news/bloombergnef-lcoe-of-battery-storage-has-fallen-faster-than-solar-or-wind-i
Notice that the speaker never discusses costs. This is the hallmark of green vs. carbon energy debates since the costs of most of the ambitious green proposals makes their implementation economically absurd. Take for instance, the recent customer power outage in California. This was due directly to the decommissioning recently of peaker gas power plants that served 6 million customers. When A/C demand during the heat wave became too great a power draw for the grid there were no batteries or neighboring states with power to spare and 300,000 customers had to be blacked out for an hour.
The estimated cost to buy the 12 Gwatts of batteries to remedy this problem is $91 billion for four hours of back-up. Then, to keep the batteries charged another 12 Gwatts of supplementary solar and wind will have to be built to be sure the batteries are charged and ready when the main solar and wind portfolios are too busy to charge, at a cost of another $20 billion.
So essentially you need twice as much solar and wind in California to keep and maintain a battery backup of four hours standby. $91 + $20 billion = $111 billion which amortized over a payback period of 10 years is $100/10 = $10 billion per year which must be added to the $41.6 billion that Californians already pay for electricity per year.
This mind you is only for four hours backup. Eight hours or 24 hours or God forbid a whole week makes it all infeasible.
You are making ridiculous assumptions to "prove" your point. Nobody is going to have a bunch of equipment like that sitting around to use it once per year. Your whole perspective is wrong. We had a problem so it's impossible. Nonsense. As the percentage of renewables increases, of course we have to adjust. You should look at his video on liquid air batteries. Sounds like a great solution for a one off situation. I think the most efficient way to do it is to expose everyone to the actual real time price of electricity(time of use pricing), using meters that can measure not only how much you use, but when. One obvious thing, is not charge EVs during those peak hours, but do charge them when electricity is plentiful. Google Ice Bear. It is an air conditioner that stores cold, in the form of ice. I have 2 Carrier 42 SEER mini splits. My whole house AC is 13 SEER. The minute you give people a financial reason to help with these peak hours, they will. Sure there may be a coule of bumps in the road, just like there were with fossil fuels. We'll figure it out.
THANK YOU FOR THIS CHANNEL! IT CLLEARLY EXPLAINS HOW THE TRANSITION TO A FOSSIL FUEL FREE POWERED SOCIETY
WILL TAKE PLACE....FRANK MOELLER
Never happen. Waste of time.
I'm an early adopter having Solar panels, Tesla Powerwall 2 and BEV. The only tie I've used the grid to charge the car since March is when Octopus Energy were paying me to use electricity. Renewables & storage are the way forward. Especially when we get V2G for BEVs.
Here is my idea for a battery which takes advantage of the current, toppling financial markets:
The GOLD Weight Motor/Generator!
Buy a huge piece of gold. As big as you can afford. Or bigger. Borrow as much money as you can, at 0%.
Ask everyone you know where you can buy lead (Pb). Never mention the world gold. Actually, buy some lead.
Melt the lead and cover the gold with it, Then, tie it to a rope and a motor-generator, run it over a huge mast.
Buy a solar panel and attach it to your home, use it to run the motor which slowly lifts up the gold.
When it rains or at night, lower the gold and drive the generator. Sell the electricity. Make some cash to get by. Watch others work while you relax. Enjoy thinking about your future.
And then, some not so distant day, when the s#%& really hits the fan, sell the gold with a huge profit. Pay back your depths - which has deflated to almost nothing by now - and live happily ever after!
Ok, the sad part will be, by that time all your money won't buy you anything worth wanting anymore, as the world will be on fire.
---
Alright then, forget it! Just a thought ;-)
My lead brick just hit Bob next door on the head. I gave him your name. Expect a letter.
@@grindupBaker just tell him to scratch the brick and inhale
Amazing presentation that managed to skip Norway, pumped hydro and natural gas balancing out renewables.
Now there is a split in the ranks of the eco-Nazis...they no longer approve of Hydro electric projects because of the massive disruption of "habitat"...meanwhile they approve of off shore wind turbines which have been found to emit frequencies of sound that greatly disrupts marine mammals that use sonar...a.k.a. whales. So I guess it's now become "Kill the whales...save the planet ".
That's true! Pumped hyrdo - it's the original grid-scale storage solution, and surprisingly efficient! Not suitable in many places, though -- you need quite a large reservoir and a fairly substantial elevation difference. I'm not sure if we've had a video covering all of the alternatives yet; would be pretty interesting for everyone. I definitely agree that even non-renewable sources like gas plants have a role to play.
@@mike-barber - Gas plants are our dirty little secret, they are way in the lead for backing up wind. It would be great to see storage displace gas someday but does any country have a plan to do that in the next 20 years?
@@dougmc666 true! Gas seems like a good backup for renewables in the interim - provided overall emissions are lower. I suspect they will be because you can deploy more if you have a good backup. In the long term, I'm guessing smarter grids, better connectivity across diverse geographies, and more economical storage will just make gas less attractive to run.
@@dougmc666 Hell yes they do, and it isn't going to take 20 years: www.energy-storage.news/news/bloombergnef-lcoe-of-battery-storage-has-fallen-faster-than-solar-or-wind-i
I notice small nuances (hard to name them as they are more related to body language) which make your representation even better. Good job and great video! 😊
I Think I noticed hair growing on Mister Think's pate. I hope this isn't the start of lycothranpy., You never know with all this Covid-19.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
Old mindsets in the power industry are in for a world of hurt. This will probably be a disaster for most grid operators.
grid operators are OUT of a job, thanks to Tesla Autobidder.
@@markplott4820 Sorry to burst your bubble but as exiting as Tesla's Auto bidder system is (and it is very exiting) it will only ever be part of the solution. The Grid Operators are like the Railway Track, the electricity providers are like the Trains... the Grid is going nowhere.
@George Mann Cool conspiracy theory. It doesn't change the economics of storage. www.energy-storage.news/news/bloombergnef-lcoe-of-battery-storage-has-fallen-faster-than-solar-or-wind-i
Grid operators, not so much. operators of fossil fueled power plants better figure out a "plan B". The grid operators merely transfer power from the sources to the loads. the sources will be different, the loads won't change at all. The power purchase agreements go to the generators that can offer power at the lowest cost. LET THE CONTEST BEGIN!! (Just let free enterprise run her course) I do believe, however, the grid operators should invest in electrical energy storage as part of their own infrastructure. That way, they can accept the cheap renewable power anytime it's available, and sell it, whenever there is a demand. They're the ones, who could profit most from large scale electrical energy storage.
@George Mann Well, I would just as soon not fund the other side of the war. National security depends on energy self sufficiency. Wind and solar are good starts, what we need now to complete the triangle, is efficient, cost effective electrical energy storage.
Love most of the material, and interconnect is going to be the next great puzzle to solve. But blockchain for microtransactions? That's a solution is search of a problem.
I'd argue that the use of blockchain is applying a technolgy outside of it's original intended scope. So a solution being used to solve a different problem. Perhaps the lateral thinking required with our current challenges.
I would agree though that the ledger that blockchain allows for seems extreme for this use case. However, there might be complexities not described in this video that blockchain's other qualities might help with though...for example it's decentralised structure.