Love the channel !! Maybe do one on where the electricity is induced from, or at least theories on it.

Green Concrete !

Could you make a video on aparent power, reactive... that kind of stuff? I seen it explained many times but I still dont get it. I say it because your video has been super informative and easy to understand even though I already knew most of it, I didnt know all this info could be so compressed and still being easy to digest, good job

Great job! Can you explore electric vehicles becoming more common and the impact that will have on the grid?

Going into proper depth on the pro/anti nuclear arguments, and which ones have actual merit, would be good. For instance, is nuclear waste actually a problem in the near future, or is it just an academic objection that doesn't really matter?

You’re not an electrical engineer. You are a student

​@@cnoogs344 they're an electrical engineer in the making, or since his comment is a year old they may well be an electrical engineer by now

@@lewischrismichealdomonical2216 at the time he said the comment, he was not an electrical engineer, he was a student studying to become an electrical engineer. Plus after you graduate, US states still do not recognize engineer grads as professional engineers. They must first pas the FE exam, at which point they'll be called an engineer-in-training), then they must pass the PE exam, and finally after 4 years of work experience as an electrical engineer, the state will recognize you as a professional electrical engineer. So, I maintain that the OC was not an EE at the time of writing his comment and thus mischaracterized him/herself

Guys...cmon. He’s an electrical engineer. He was an electrical engineer at the time of the comment. And he may have been an electrical engineer for quite some time now. While studying to become an electrical engineer he had professors that gave convoluted lessons. This isn’t rocket science.

@@cnoogs344 LOL i'm already retired from electrical engineering... you guys crack me up. Being an EE isn't some godlike thing.

@@psiwog actually co2 is more dangerous than radioactive waste.

@@psiwog bruh we literally kill more people daily due to respiratory issues from coal burning than every nuclear failure combined. Nuclear waste is contained. We breathe the waste from coal plants daily.

You are right! But did you know that germany(top tier country when it comes to engineering) is STILL looking for the "right" way of storing the radiating rubbish savely... and by the way you have to look for it #securitythreat (for the next 1000+ Years!!!) If you take this in consideration NP is fucking expensive. For my opinion the next step is Hydrogen. Than Nuclear Fusion...

Dont forget thorium!

@@hennsbreit I thought Germany had closed all its nuclear power plants in favour of burning brown coal, after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. So the urgency for that has probably dropped a bit. Also, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it can be used as a fuel inside of cars, but we don't have abundant supplies of it sitting around the Earth, as a matter of fact, when released it simply flies off into space when released outside, like helium. Instead we produce hydrogen, either through electrolysis of water, which isn't very efficient (and the electricity often being generated by the burning of fossil fuels), or from steam methane reforming, which releases carbon dioxide. Nuclear fusion would be the holy grail of energy generation, but it's still a way off of becoming a power source (it still costs more energy to perform than it yields), let alone being cost competitive. I guess it's still 30 years away, as it has always been...

Nuclear power isn't renewable Renewable energy is theoretically infinite or resources are naturally conducting e.g ferroelectric, electrochemical, electromagnetic, photovoltaic and momentum based kinetic energy

@@haruhisuzumiya6650 yes but how is something like solar infinite when the panels need replacing after a decade?

The Olympic Dam mine (copper, gold, iron and uranium) has enough uranium to supply all the current 380 or so nuclear power stations for 400 years. Other mines and yet to be mined deposits around the world would keep nuclear power going for at least as long again. Decommissioned nuclear weapons have been used to supply fuel (until recently) under the "megatons for megawatts" USA-USSR agreement. This potential over-supply of uranium is why the price is so low at present.

I hate the term "fossil fuel" since oil does not come from fossilized anything.

@@tomr6955 Because the fuel is (for all intents and purposes) infinite. No one claimed the device itself is eternal or some perpetual motion machine - it's simply you can't run out of the fuel, whereas nuclear fuel can. That said, the main arguement against nuclear isn't fuel scarcity. The main issue is the fuel life-cycle. Managing the waste is the number one problem IMHO, a much bigger issue than nuclear safety, as it's an unavoidable issue that affects every single nuclear plant, and we have no real solution.

Right!? Modernizing our energy infrastructure is one of if not the most important priorities for the United States. We have depended upon fossil fuels for too long. Politics are to blame for the majority of our energy issues.. but that’s another story. I was also surprised to learn that the electric energy isn’t stored, like at all.

It’s not just that “They don’t”. Our current battery technology is nowhere NEAR the point where we could effectively store ANY meaningful amount of electricity. We CAN’T. Economically, logistically and responsibly. For perspective, in order to supply a city with enough power for more than a day or so, it would require batter banks consisting of highly toxic and volatile materials that would occupy a significant portion of that city. Literally, miles and miles of nothing but Tesla batteries (which are themselves nothing but 7,104 #18650 flashlight batteries in series) stacked on top of each other in order to supply the rest of the city. We just don’t know how to STORE electricity effectively at scale. Literally, our best current attempts are to put a bunch of flashlight batteries together in series. We just physically cannot do it yet, our tech isn’t advanced enough.

@@spartan7404 Well, one direction that could be expanded is lead-acid, or closed lead-acid (which was innovation from standard lead-acid type) Especially for electric cars, lead acid could be better than tesla battery by long mile ...only that you couldnt really sell recharging fee then since cars engine would need maintain electric load (just like its done with gasoline type)

hahaaha

throw it into the fire... let it go

@nlpeaden ive been shocked 3 times and always let go easly , but my last adn 4th time i simply couldnt let it go i tried as much as i could and i just couldnt but all of a suden im "free" with my fingers bleeding ':)

No, you can't. It's the conductor you're holding.

You can't let go of DC.

I went 'Why?' for a moment, and then remembered that Thermodynamics makes concessions for nobody. Not even the sun....

I never realized how little sense the word "renewable" makes until I saw this comment. I think "sustainable" makes a little more sense than "durable", but you're right: "renewable" is a silly word to use. I suppose you might be referring to the fact that it takes materials to build solar panels and wind turbines and that 100% efficient recycling is impossible, so the systems do consume resources to some degree just at a much much lower rate than fossil fuel-based power. Is that what you mean? Also, can you comment on the feasibility of using a high-voltage DC "super-grid" to address the intermittency of wind and solar power? I've heard that a European super grid could allow Europe to run completely on sustainable sources of energy because it would span something like 13 timezones. I don't know how the cost of building a "super-grid" compares to that of building energy storage facilities. How do you see our transition to sustainable energy playing out ‡? ‡ Not necessarily how it *ought to* play out. I know a lot of rational people think that we should build thousands of nuclear power plants because the technical and economical factors make sense. I'm not against nuclear, but I question how feasible it is to overcome the social/political challenges in a timely manner because nuclear is inherently scary and very hard to educate people about. People know that radiation is something that they see or perceive in any way, yet it can cause horrific diseases like cancer that kill you slowly and painfully. It's kind-of a nightmare death-stalker. It's very difficult to explain to people why they shouldn't be afraid of such a thing in their back yard. What's worse is that nuclear proponents have a history of glossing over major problems leaving the industry with a huge trust problem. You can see that playing out with the hype over Thorium. There are hundreds of videos online where people explain all the miraculous benefits of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) without ever mentioning any technical challenges (of which there are many) and sometimes out-right lying about the tech like saying that it doesn't produce nuclear waste (when in-fact it would produce far more waste than LWRs, just not as much *spent fuel waste*). When asked why LFTR has been on the drawing board for decades yet never implemented, proponents start coming up with conspiracy theories. It couldn't possibly be the extremely complex chemistry involved! It couldn't possibly be that combining the fuel with the coolant and flowing it through the entire reactor instead of keeping it in a centralized location (like LWRs) means that the entire reactor gets irradiated to the point that only robots can operate around the reactor! No. It's all a conspiracy!

And I'd make it "durable zero emissions". We should be working to eliminate CO2 emissions rather than installing wind and solar and hoping emissions will go down. Germany has been installing wind and solar, and their emissions haven't gone down. France, Sweden and Ontario installed nuclear energy and their emissions went down.

nothing is renewable. given sufficient time, eventually all energy will dissipate. (or actually maybe not and it's one of those "the closest decimal to 0" situations. idk, i'm not a professional physicist)

@@fomalhaut_the_great Energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change from one form to another.

Rohan Thatte most countries suffering from a water crisis is because of incompetence and corrupt governments not because of lack of technology. Example one South Africa.

Just follow first world countries in garbage management. Ship the garbage to countries shittier than yours.

@@UltimateAlgorithm One man's garbage is another man's treasure. ;)

@@bbaker4033 I don't think you understand what's happening in Indonesia and how it's fueling the garbage patches in the ocean.. There are three now, each about the size of Texas. Maybe larger.

@@michaelnewman6936 Yeah, Texas is a bit of a garbage patch, isn't it?

Yep. Grid operators love them. The only thing better is battery storage, which probably wasn't a thing when that discussion took place.

The worst for adjusting grid following is windmills

Sorry I think I crossed grid following for load following

@@elischultes6587 can you provide a reference for that because that's exactly opposite to what network operators tell me.

@@gasdive Wind turbines' output depends on the cube of wind speed, so the fluctuations can be very high, causing many problems for operators. Type 3 and 4 wind turbines (99 % of the turbines that are installed lately) are connected to the grid via a power converter, meaning they don't provide inertia. In Ireland, they are limiting wind turbines' instantaneous penetration because of stability issues.

This is the only channel that I am fine with watching the ads.

Definitely an easy transition with the personal touch of him doing his own ad. 👍

He is effort!

@@davham27 Whet about jay foreman

And today's ad was super wholesome lol

Carlos - there are basically two factors here. The first is that it sometimes takes time to restore the source of energy. If the interruption has lasted long enough that power plants have had to shut down, it can take hours to days to get them back on line. For example, before you can restart a boiler, you must first 'purge the boiler' to make sure that there are no residual combustible gasses left inside - otherwise, attempting to restart the boiler could lead to an explosion. This can take hours. Or, there is the fact that the steam that passes through turbines is at very high temperatures, so if the turbine is allowed to slow down to standstill, the hot turbine can actually sag between the bearings that support the ends of the shaft, and restarting it requires a lengthy process of raising the temperature while very slowing accelerating the speed such that any residual sag doesn't become dangerous deflection as the rotor starts to spin. The other half of the problem is restoring the connections within the grid. If the outage resulted from some kind of failure, the damaged components must be located and either repaired or bypassed. The obvious worst case might be a hurricane or ice storm that produces widespread damage, and power can't be restored until that damage has been addressed. Because the work involved is done on a circuit by circuit basis, some consumers will see service restored very quickly - potentially within seconds to minutes, while others can take a very long time, depending on how much physical damage must be repaired. In cities like New York, the grid often is designed around something called a 'network' - a network design produces extremely high reliability, but the process of restoring service after a network outage is very tedious and requires careful coordination of multiple operators spread across a wide area. So for example, consumers in New York have the highest reliability of any electrical consumers, but when service is restored, it tends to be restored to all consumers at the same time. But the process of restoring a network is tricky, it can take hours.

The real answer to this is complicated and lengthy, but Louie's answer is a good Cliff Notes version.

@@TomwithaDream Wowza. The explanation was good, but I definitely considered it complicated and lengthy. I'll leave the more in depth explanation alone.

Most generators need grid power to start. Those magnets in the generator are electro magnets. Black starts are rare. Could go into that.

Louie Powell l

If you “understood” what’s three-phase electricity in 10 seconds, you clearly didn’t even investigate what it was.

Mechanical engineer here too. Its much easier to grasp the concepts if you equate electricity with hydraulics where current is fluid flow, voltage is pressure and resistance is bends in a pipe.

wtf have you just startet studing? this video isnt even covering the basics. All these so to speak "educational videos" are nothing more than entertainment it feels

Electric fields do not travel inside a powerline. Nor do they travel on the surface of a conduit/powerline. The greatest field theorist that ever lived, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, clearly stated in his books that electric fields do not exist inside nor on the surface of a powerline. They in fact travel outside the powerline in concentric coaxial paths of dielectricity and magnetism. An electric field doesn't exist inside a capacitor but exists outside the area surrounding the capacitor. This is what makes electric grids and electric gadgets so vulnerable and exposed to shorting out from other surrounding fields, like an electric storm. Particle physicists claim electrons are bumping each other down a powerline to create electric flow. This is false and patently absurd. JJ Thompson who discovered the electron clearly stated it was a "field", and NOT a particle. If electrons were bumping each other down a powerline to conduct electric flow then how do you explain how your wireless cell phones work? Bumping electrons through the air, LOL!!??? As far as an AC generator is concerned, it's creating more energy than it's being given. So where does the extra energy come from? Counter-space, aka the Ether. Why would you need a generator to accumulate electric energy from a source when all you'd need is a step up/down transformer to do that with? So why were AC generators created? To draw in the energy coming from counter-space. All generators have a stator which passes by two internal magnets. Magnets are also anchored into counter-space, aka the Ether. The stator passing the internal magnets of an AC generator can draw out the added energy from those magnets in which it's output becomes greater than it's input. James Clerk Maxwell said, "If you don't understand counter-space, then you cannot understand this universe". Can you imagine Nicola Tesla's mind doing contortions when he invented the AC generator? He obviously understood counter-space, aka the Ether, because he couldn't have invented the AC generator if he didn't. The five greatest minds, Oliver Heaviside, James Clerk Maxwell, Nicola Tesla, Faraday, and Charles Proteus Steinmetz gave us our entire electric grid and by extension from their work, all electronics as well. We owe them everything we have today. No particle physicist or theoretical mathematician could ever boast such a claim.

@@joerenaud8292 thanks for your time writing... this is the reason why I comb to countless comments... to find treasure like yours.

@Benjamin Urbina treasure? It’s fool’s gold at best.

mitchell182 Do you guys make some scrumpets too?

this is so British

get th'kettle on then . . . 1 lump or 2 . . .

Hydroelectric dams are _perfect_ for power spokes like that: they don't need to boil water, or start up a glorified jet turboshaft engine; just open a gate, and let the water fall into the blades.

I heard that in the pre-streaming world the power companies used "number of people currently watching t.v" as a way to estimate how much power they need.

How so? Seriously asking btw.

@@claqyagami6914 inductance wants the current to keep flowing and to do so it creates arcs on opening contacts... AC goes through zero which helps to break the arc, with DC it just keeps burning with the heat of a thousand suns :D

@@claqyagami6914 Whenever current flows and you open a switch, an electric arc is created. As long as the voltage is big enough and current is flowing, the arc won't go away. AC has changing voltage, i.e. from -170V to +170V. This means that there is also 0V somewhere in between. If there is no Voltage no current flowing any arc is going to stop. Therefore AC has the advantage of self extinguishing arcs. With DC any arc won't stop itself, unless you have special switches to basically extinguish the arc.

@@thrownchance Let me add that voltage and current do not have to be zero at the same time. In fact, they usually are not. And for switching, it's the current passing through zero that matters, not the voltage.

@@thrownchance so unless the gap is long enough to isolate the conductors of the breaker through air resistance, you'd have to physically inject an electric isolator between them to break the electric arc or have some kind of varistor on either side of the breaker to strangle the flow first?

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." All Generators are merely transformers and nothing more. You still have not "figured out how electricity is made for ages"..

@@seanregehr4921 well... I guess I meant to say I didn't know how exactly power got converted into electricity for a number of years until this sorta cleared it up for me sorry for the confusion friend

Ha

I know two headed cow

they separate it from the chocolate milk, dont be a fool

😂😂😂 😂😂😂 😂😂😂 ahmm...but sadly, in some cases, true.

*vague*

Because power diminishes while it's resistance reduces the power Another thing that can crash the mains is a alternating oscillation

No, it's not like that. The voltage angle is synchronized too so the active power flow after the connection is zero (neglecting losses). It's the voltage angle difference that determines the active power flow in AC power systems. When it's synchronized you can increase mechanical input to get an active power output from the generator.

@Ed Harms Thank you for sharing, I stand corrected.

@@frollard Where did you hear that some power plants have massive resistive dump-loads? I don't doubt that it could well be possible.

​@@gregorymalchuk272 Rather unrelated but many elevators use resistive banks to sop up the energy when the elevator is decelerating or overhauling (generating electricity in its motor instead of consuming it). For some extra cost a "regenerative drive" will feed that power to the building/grid. Elevator would over-speed if it couldn't dump its generated electricity, shut down, entrapment, not good.

@ frollard, you are completely incorrect!!!! There is ZERO resistive load required at a power plant to go on line. You bring the generator up to 3600rpm(for a 2 pole generator), make sure your sync scope confirms 60hz synchronization and close the breaker... easy peasy. Additionally on a bulk electric grid, resistive load in general is light load. The heavy load on a grid is inductive load, which is why bulk electric system power plants can vary reactive power ( MVAR's). the bigger the generator the more leading and lagging MVAR capacity.

Would the extra 2 seconds and possible one mid roll ad really bother you that much? I'd prefer him to actually make it over 10 minutes, and throw a mid roll ad in there. Watching one extra ad is totally worth the quality content he provides for free.

You know I have an Adblocker. I just hate It when people stretch out their videos without adding any real content . (In this case It wouldnt be a problem anyway) Thats why I really appreciate it. It shows he isnt greedy.

@@kaulquapil6280 There are some ad blockers where you can filter out KZfaq channels that you actually don't mind supporting. This solution is probably best for both parties. (For example the original AdBlock)

@@kaulquapil6280 No, he's Grady.

I'm just over here enjoying youtube red.

Probably a bit too specific for this channel.

In germany capacitive compensation for inductive loads is done at the customers site. From small capacitors to compensate for a vac motor to huge capacitor banks with active control to get the delta phi in heavy industry down again. To my knowledge, suppliers do very little in regards of compensation, because it is extremely difficult for them to do. The latest point at which you can act is the secondy side of the transormer the customer is connected to. In heavy industry that usually IS the client's site.

I wish somebody could explain it in plain English, I work in a power station and I still don’t fully understand the principle of reactive power.

@@DasIllu Not quite, you CAN correct the power factor further from an industrial customer and after a transformer, but it is not as effective. After all, the reason why you correct the power factor is to reduce the ohmic losses in the transmission line. If you correct it further away from the load, you still get extra losses up to that point. Also, it´s not enough to just switch in capacitors or inductors. Especially these days, 3rd harmonic currents caused by switching power supplies (without APFC) require a "Zigzag Transformer" to be corrected.

@@AE92World Reactive power is simply energy that is stored in some part of the AC cycle and then discharges back into the grid later in the AC cycle. Capacitors charge when the voltage is increasing and discharge when the voltage is dropping. At the peaks of the sine wave, it´s fully charged, so no more current flows into them. (as opposed to any resistive load which draws the maximum current at the peak of the sine wave) Inductors work in the same but opposite way. (In the power grid nothing prevents power from flowing from your home into the grid.) Hope this helps.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no

That's basically what happened in California. Now wonder electricity costs are through the roof.

The wall socket power is fed by solar panels and free magnetic energy the base load power is coal fired

this is literally what enviromentalists and greens think. Electricity comes from the wall, water comes from the faucet, and money comes from banks, so we don't need disgusting power plants or water pumps!

@@MrTeddy12397 it's not that we dont need them, we definitely need them right now. It's that we should be working harder to find cleaner replacements for them so that we dont need as many of them I the future. The people I hate the most when it comes to topics like this are the ones that think it's impossible to harm the environment and that fossil fuels are infinite. In another comment section there was a person trying to argue that fossil fuels are not made of decayed pre-existing life forms and dont take millions of years to form but are actually continuously made inside the earth and therefore an infinite renewable resource that doesnt pollute the environment.

Dont spoil communist magic

Uh oh where did my hands go

huh i just noticed that now, thought it was just a young man

I believe that is what he meant to say.

It's probably to expensive to do in a building. Remember, electricity is cheap. Pump storage is very common in mountainous areas, because you don't need to build the building.

This is an approximation to give you an estimate to how infeasible it is to do this. If you lift 50 tonnes of water 10 metres you have approximately stored 1kWh of energy assuming 100% efficiency. Given a typical skyrise power use (only the scale of hundreds of kWs) you'd need to lift hundreds of thousands of tonnes of water on top of 100m skyrise. More than the mass of the building itself

@@Oliver-ho4jz thanks for the numbers. To be clear, I wasn’t picturing a building being able to produce a large percentage of its own demands. I meant for the idea to be a supplemental sort of thing. I do understand though that water itself is heavy as hell (1 m³ ≈ 1000 kg) so storing a bunch of it 100 meters off the ground is no joke. In some locations I imagine it would even be an earthquake hazard.

You could theoretically use a gas as your fluid. Although i think it needs higher temperatures to be efficient. There's an idea to use a combined cycle high temperature nuclear reactor (HTGR;MSR or FBR) that operates with a Brayton gas cycle and then has a steam generator feeding a normal Rankine cycle steam turbine.

That is called conformation bias. I think ?. Look it up.

I'm thinking I still don't quite know how it works. It seems to be a fairly involved process.

It's actually quite simple in concept if you have a working understanding of high school level electrical physics. Grady does his research and clearly puts a lot of work into making accurate and easy to understand content.

Eric Christian, yup it’s very simple if you already understand it. 😁😁😁

What gets me is that by initial training 30+ years ago, I was an electro-mechanical engineer for 10 years before moving into IT. Come on Grady: do a vid on Uninterruptible Power Supplies! These things (UPS's) really do work,

Your username is making me do a big think.