Do you think the CO2 battery will catch on for utility scale energy storage? Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/undecided and enter promo code UNDECIDED for 83% off and 3 extra months for free! If you liked this video, check out How Graphene Could Solve Our Concrete Problem kzfaq.info/get/bejne/icunkpWitdeZoX0.html
@MattyEngland2 жыл бұрын
Makes sense, that's more than can be said for all the global warming hysteria. Remember when Al Gore said NYC would be under water by 2012?
@CUBETechie2 жыл бұрын
I think in combination with regular thermal power stations it might be a very interesting idea you have the Carbon Capture technology added with this system and added Solar panels on the area and the good thing is if you use decommissioned powerplants blocks you have the necessary infrastructure like turbines generators and the entire power generation infrastructure
@peterjohn86252 жыл бұрын
Can you please say " Am I not Turtley enough for the Turtle Club. "
@carlmartel85102 жыл бұрын
LOL....LOL....So they charge the system with MANUFACTURED Co2....well that will fix everything !!!...(sarcasm)....why are you linking climate change with this?
@Zextranet2 жыл бұрын
Great video but put the sponsor at the end to the video wont get interrupted and I would still pay attention
@daemenoth2 жыл бұрын
I think it's extremely noteworthy that using this for grid storage opposed to batteries has the advantage of freeing up more batteries for things like vehicles.
@simongchadwick2 жыл бұрын
My future electric truck won't need batteries, as the energy will come from CO2 evaporation, with the storage bladder towed behind in a huge trailer.
@divat102 жыл бұрын
lol no
@shoyrushoyru Жыл бұрын
You can’t forget your rooftop wind turbines to charge your co2 bladder
@perandersson39772 жыл бұрын
Every type of energy storage that doesn't degrade over time is a big plus in my mind. That means that it's not a question of if the system is profitable, but when
@willvanderhorst90722 жыл бұрын
What do you mean if profitable????? If it's not no one would ever build It ffs
@Vile_Entity_35452 жыл бұрын
@@willvanderhorst9072 most young people do not have the ability to think. Some do but most do not.
@dtacto2 жыл бұрын
It's an attractive idea, but EVERYTHING degrades. The membranes, turbines, concrete, etc. in these are likely amortized over about 25 years as with similar construction. Making it last longer faces diminishing returns in the face of present value discounting and further would likely be superseded by much more efficient new technology at that time.
@LazyLifeIFreak2 жыл бұрын
@@dtacto We need solutions NOW, not in 25 years.
@stbuchok2 жыл бұрын
@@Vile_Entity_3545 Define young? I constantly hear negative things about Gen Z and young people, yet I know too many people that are 50+ years old that barely know how to Google something or how to research a topic. Why do people need to perpetuate the us vs them, the older vs the younger? I understand what the person is basically saying above, even if it wasn't written accurately. They are basically just saying that long term storage systems are easier to become profitable over short(er) term storage systems. Stop thinking you're better than someone because of your age. We all have short comings and we all have strong suites. Stop putting each other down.
@jacana252 жыл бұрын
I think the big difficulty that many people have is understanding that renewable energy does not just have a single solution. It will be a mix of generation including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal etc. It will also be a mix of storage including pumped hydro, lithium ion, flow batteries, hydrogen batteries and others. No solution is perfect for every context but together they offer a flexible way to generate and store the energy for the future.
@float322 жыл бұрын
And, lots and lots of nuclear.
@fr2ncm92 жыл бұрын
@@float32 Nuclear is the best option to get to net zero. There are many new designs out there that are far safer than traditional reactors.
@MaxxMcGeePrivate2 жыл бұрын
@@fr2ncm9 Problem with it is, that it takes a lot of time to get it up. And you need cooling, which is getting more and more an issue with rising temperatures and low level rivers. New tech is there, but until they are up and running we could invest in renewable and storage in the meantime and it would be far better.
@6Sparx92 жыл бұрын
I wonder if there could ever be a situation that too many solar panels are reflecting or absorbing sunlight to the point we damage the environments we hope to preserve through changed local weather or localized average temperatures. Desertification around solar farms? I wonder how much landmass that would require to be covered for such a thing to arise?
@KRYMauL2 жыл бұрын
@@fr2ncm9 I'm pretty sure this is going to be a big thing in the coming years.
@berrycade2 жыл бұрын
This technology seems like one of the most promising ones you have presented. Energy storage is one of the largest obstacles when adapting large scale solar and wind generation.
@6Sparx92 жыл бұрын
what do you need large scale solar and wind generation for if you can use the primary emissions from burning fossil fuels into a further energy source?
@Aro666pl2 жыл бұрын
Yea, I wonder how it compares to flywheels
@6Sparx92 жыл бұрын
because the Co2 is a gimmick in this case and its not being scrubbed from atmosphere anyway, it performs WAY worse than refrigerant does especially at higher ambient temps such as where the company proposes to build such plants. Still I get the idea, make 'batteries' that do not use Lithium ion because it totally undermines the argument of the saving the local and foreign environments and still allows the renewable dream to persist. Would like to see the efficacy of this plant.
@RjWolf30002 жыл бұрын
@@6Sparx9 It also seems like the "Stores heat to reuse on expanding the gas" is a bit of hand waving. holding high heat in a large enough container for extended periods seems like it wouldn't be easy as a square on a flow chart. and if it was that easy why not just store heat from the sun and use heat pump to intensify it and boil some water when you need it.
@Deblobinater2 жыл бұрын
@@6Sparx9 You misunderstand how it works. This energy storage doesn't need a constant supply of co2, it uses the same volume of co2 over and over again. Fossil fuel use releases way to much co2, we produce enough co2 in a day to fill up millions of these batteries which don't need to be refilled barring leaks/malfunctions Excess electricity from the grid compress the mass of co2 which is later released to produce electricity, this is repeated and the cow is never used up, if the effeciency is right this is a really good technology because all the parts are already used in industry at scale
@BOK-042 жыл бұрын
Clever setup using already standard parts, enhancing the ability to build fast. I like it and hope they are successful!!
@mobaumeister27322 жыл бұрын
They won’t, because nothing this guy reports on ever actually gets built. This channel produces more hot air than all CO2 and methane in the atmosphere combined.
@sammadison11722 жыл бұрын
Seems cool, wish he would have delved in to why C02 was chosen more.. is it really the most efficient gas possible for this application? I assume it is, but I can't help but be cynical that it may have been chosen purely as a hook for investment and brand. Is Nitrogen really worse? Why?
@7019832 жыл бұрын
@@sammadison1172 I suppose, you would need extremely high pressure to get liquid nitrogen at room temperature. Wouldn't work with this concept.
@TheLosamatic2 жыл бұрын
@@sammadison1172 you don’t make sense at all. If anything it’s an in your face deterrent to use CO2 as most people would think that’s dangerous! Do think about how available it is it’s put in the soda pop you dimwits drink all the time, used in pubs to keep keg bear fresh. Availability dude, cheap!
@BEHEMOTH202 жыл бұрын
@@sammadison1172 If I had to guess I'd say it's low toxicity and its very cheap
@yu-weiwang60022 жыл бұрын
One possible benefit of using CO2 is that it's somewhat safer than other gases. Small scale leakage would not cause significant damage. Large scale leakage might cause some suffocation risk, but no long lasting hazard once it dilutes in air.
@6Sparx92 жыл бұрын
look up what a 1000PSI exploding in a catastrophic failure of the containment medium will do.
@maniagokm31862 жыл бұрын
@@6Sparx9 Uh...maybe youre unfamiliar with scuba, but we carry 3000+psi tanks on our backs. All the time. To depths, not just on the surface. Besides, theyre compressing it into liquid. It doesnt require much pressure to keep it in liquid form. Tanker trucks carry liquid gas all the time on the same road you use.
@custos32492 жыл бұрын
@@maniagokm3186 In all fairness, he's not entirely talking out his ass. Those tanks become missiles when ruptured, and people have been killed by simple 100-150lbs compressor tanks rupturing. Even some vehicle tires can be deadly when punctured. And you just know some jackass in the States will end up shooting one of these things.
@polishfuze19342 жыл бұрын
@@maniagokm3186 CO2 Does indeed need really high pressure to be kept as a liquid at room temperature (~50 times the atmospheric pressure). Tanker trucks do indeed transport liquid gas but gas as in gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas, not CO2. At the same time I agree that while storing such high pressures might seem difficult, with proper safety precautions it won't cause many problems
@jeffreywj77732 жыл бұрын
This was going to be my question. In the event of a dome rupture or some catastrophe failure of the pressure containers, what would the CO2 do. If it goes straight up in the atmosphere, then probably no big deal. But if it spreads out along ground level, there could be a significant risk of it pushing away breathable air for some distance around the facility. Not poo-pooing this technology, just want to be certain of any risks involved.
@michaelmcchesney66452 жыл бұрын
The only real downside as I see it is the amount of land the CO2 bladder takes up. While that isn't all that much of a downside, I imagine that solar panels could be placed on the top and/or sides of the bladder. Alternatively, they could dig a huge hole, put the bladder in the hole, cover it up and then install the solar energy or wind farm on top. Basically that would allow nearly all the land available for the installation to be used to generate power. I suppose the only problem with building it like that is it would be harder to perform maintenance on the bladder but I don't know how much maintenance would be required.
@aone90502 жыл бұрын
there is quite a lot of unused space in any wind farm for instance, and with how unreliable they are, you could use the extra capacity lmao.
@magnumopus16282 жыл бұрын
I had the same thoughts, especially regarding maintenance, but they could simply build an arc structure on top of the "dome" leaving enough space between the solar panel structure and the dome itself. P.S. Ironically enough, here in Italy it might actually be more difficult to use this in large scale because we don't have that much uninhabited flat-surface spaces, but there are places both in Europe (Germany, France and Poland or any other European country other than Italy and Switzerland) and outside europe, especially in Asia, in the Middle East and North&South America where space isn't really that much of a problem if the intention is to use them in large scale.
@maniagokm31862 жыл бұрын
@@magnumopus1628 The thing is, this looks like it could be scaled down to household size and be just as useful. Multiply that by each house hold that has a "balloon battery" and link them to the grid and you've got lots of capacity....one house at a time.
@barracuda8612 жыл бұрын
@@maniagokm3186 good idea
@theBabyDead2 жыл бұрын
@@maniagokm3186 that'd require too much maintenance. Probably better to put a central 'battery' on every block or so.
@annegajerski-cauley76242 жыл бұрын
First of all, congratulations to my Italian cousins for being first off the block with a significant product of this type! It is sure to find a significantly big niche for any energy storage cycle that follows the day-night latency. I would caution, in connection with Sion's observation below, that this sort of practical thermodynamic cycle only works well (i.e., near its peak efficiency) near some such cycle time, as it depends critically on the use of a so-called heat regenerator to recover the energy used in the compression phase. Not an insignificant part of the energy stored is locked up in the regenerators, and any attempt to rush or prolong the storage time means going off-cycle to accomodate, or loss of that heat, respectively. Anyway, any good tech has its optimum operational constraints. Nice report Matt...thank you. Domenico Barillari
@alw65892 жыл бұрын
What would be the best use case for this technology? Does it just need a window daily to recharge?
@johndoh51822 жыл бұрын
There's another company, ESS in the US that developed the iron redux flow battery. Either is effective, I don't know which would be cheaper or take up more space, and neither uses elements that are under high demand for other use cases, other than iron, but that's the most common element so no big deal. Actually after watching the process and efficiency the ESS system is more effective and I'm sure it takes up less space.
@Blox1172 жыл бұрын
its a lie, everything on this channel is bs
@DavidHalko2 жыл бұрын
@@alw6589 - “best use case” If it were me, I would use all renewable to compress CO2, send extra renewable to the grid, and increase CO2 power generation when renewable drops. Imagine it as a big capacitor used on a pulsed DC power supply, which fills in the gaps, but on a massive scale.
@BrettCooper47022 жыл бұрын
This system would work well with geothermal generation as it's 24/7. The off peak power could be stored and geothermal plants have a lot of waste heat that could be used in the liquid to gas phase.
@Seraphus872 жыл бұрын
Regarding the space requirement of the storage bladder, yes, that uses up quite a bit of surface area as shown here, but that doesn't have to be a problem. See this is a just pilot plant. Once the maximum extent of inflation of the dome is established, one could simply design a solid structure to be built around the dome, which can then be fitted with photovoltaic panels, thereby "reclaiming" some of the surface area for energy production on top of energy storage.
@kedrednael2 жыл бұрын
Though the structure is round so that's quite akward to place solar panels on I imagine.
@Seraphus872 жыл бұрын
@@kedrednael How so?
@kedrednael2 жыл бұрын
@@Seraphus87 Just practically speaking it seems hard to me, to place solar panels on a large round structure. You'd need to use a crane or something? Or build a permanent stairs and walkway specifically for the panels? Regular solar power facilities are easy to build: just place panels on the ground, all in the same way. Or on roofs, where there is room to walk on too. Even then, the work of placing the panels is like 15% of the cost according to google.
@Seraphus872 жыл бұрын
@@kedrednael It seems I misunderstood part of the video, the bladder is already inside a solid shell, probably for protection. Simply adding a framework on the outside of the shell, including walkways and hardpoints for mounting the panels, would work. Yes it would cost more than leaving the solid shell as shown here, but if space is an issue, this would provide more utility per square meter of the ground the bladder is built on.
@302big52 жыл бұрын
@@kedrednael not really there are curved panels and panels that can be put on a sheet blanket like material. So there are implications to reclaim some energy of that space.
@twerkingfish40292 жыл бұрын
I really hope that this, or something like this works. A stable source of energy is the backbone of a modern economy, and there won’t be much support for renewables unless they can be made actually reliable with storage.
@aone90502 жыл бұрын
yet even this, for a semi reliable surplus of energy, would be 150$/MW/h due to you needing 3x the storage of actual average capacity so you can deal with slumps and sudden surges in demand. and even then, that just removes a majority of the issue, you would still need instantaneous energy generation, probably in the form of gas, for eternity, unless you remove the stigma of blackouts and energy rationing from a society...
@danielvilliers6122 жыл бұрын
@@aone9050 This would work with a battery solution to ease those surges. Do you think firering those peaker plants take seconds.
@John...44...2 жыл бұрын
Whether renewable have support they are charging ahead anyway... renewable and carbon neutral energy sources make up good chucks of the western grid
@southcoastinventors65832 жыл бұрын
@@danielvilliers612 Lithium batteries are to dirty and loose efficiency over time. You need a cheaper battery that easier to produce.
@twerkingfish40292 жыл бұрын
@@aone9050 “remove the stigma” like you’d ever get people on board with energy rationing.
@kylecramer84892 жыл бұрын
It's a clever way to think about long term energy storage. Helping monetize CO2 capture is a nice bonus. Also congrats on hitting 1 mil, Matt!
@southcoastinventors65832 жыл бұрын
This doesn't do that in the least the CO2 storage even when fully built out is nothing compared to what we put up in the air. This is just a battery although it looks like a much cheaper one for grid storage which is good.
@miroconzelmann50272 жыл бұрын
i thought that too and it would be really intersesting to plug in the numbers and see how it would play out. Like How much CO2 is Stored in One Cycle/Storage Plant and how much is that compared to global CO2 Output. It wont be much, but i'd be interested in the numbers
@josieriley93342 жыл бұрын
@@miroconzelmann5027 ….he said “ 100 to 200 tons “ at the beginning of the video. Burning one gallon of gasoline, makes 20 pounds of CO2 (climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html) ……. so 20,000 gallons of gas to make 200 tons CO2…… sadly, in 2021, the USA burnt 369 million gallons per day…….still good technology though!
@miroconzelmann50272 жыл бұрын
@@josieriley9334 ok so thats less than nothing 😅.... aaanyway
@RossReedstrom2 жыл бұрын
I'm wondering how far you can scale down: this will never be a household storage option, but it strikes me that a lot of farmers might find it intriguing: the parts are all standard, so there's no magic single source dependency. Wonder if you could retrofit a silo with a bladder.
@injunsun2 жыл бұрын
You've hit on something others have missed. These things don't have to all be above ground and made in this shape. Theres no reason they couldn't be made as tall as skyscrapers, with a tiny footprint, perhaps even topped with wind turbines, with solar panels all up their sides.
@mpoisot2 жыл бұрын
I think turbines, heat exchangers, heat storage, and lots of precision balanced moving parts don't scale super small easily. I think traditional batteries will be a better fit for small outfits like homes and farms. Of course a farmer could opt to plop a grid scale dome or two on his land, but then we're not really talking about scaling it down.
@NotOneToFly2 жыл бұрын
@@mpoisot You're neglecting the bottleneck in raw lithium production. If ranchers (who are already leasing their land for wind production) are going to get in on energy storage, the demand for batteries will become prohibitive. The battery industry is already in a lithium crunch; making storage with off the shelf components where the only specialty piece you'll need is the custom bladder to fit your old silo is a massive, massive win when we need rapid adoption of storage to halt climate change. Bear in mind, these silos might be smaller than the demonstration dome, but not by an order of magnitude. Maybe 1/2 or 1/3 the size. You only need a few of them and a rancher whose land has desertified and you have a plant almost ready to go. Brilliant idea Ross Reedstrom!
@janami-dharmam2 жыл бұрын
@@mpoisot This is not heat storage; this is energy stored as PV (pressure-volume) which can be theoretically converted into electricity with 100% efficiency.
@mpoisot2 жыл бұрын
@@NotOneToFly It's true there are lithium supply crunches today, but if we just go off the price per MWH quoted in the video then it assumes batteries as a family won't always be in a dire supply crunch. Otherwise we should revise the price per MWH of batteries to be much higher and essentially rule them out of the toolbox of storage options. Going back to the original comment, I can't imagine this stuff scaling down super small. Think of the careful maintenance that happens at power plants and refineries. Those turbines are incredibly expensive and any rotational imbalance or other mechanical issues can mean huge expenses, down time, and expert help needed to bring things back online. I think there's a reason we don't all have micro turbine co-generation units at home supplying both electrical and heat energy to businesses and residences. Those complicated machines and heat driven processes doesn't scale small efficiently. On that topic, I think the heat exchange and heat storage component of pressurized gas storage needs a minimum size to be cost effective. If that processes isn't done right it takes a big dent out of the round trip efficiency and probably limits the power output (the max speed you can convert stored gas into electricity). The bigger the heat system gets, the more efficient it can be, especially for longer term storage like days instead of hours. Matt kind of glossed over how the heat storage works in this system, and I bet that's because they're still actively figuring out how to improve that system and whatever they come up with will be their "secret sauce".
@leonidasbotta63492 жыл бұрын
HVAC tech here, I’ve seen a few CO2 systems and this idea looks really promising, a leak would suck though.
@lylenighswonger35112 жыл бұрын
Actually a leak would really blow !
@Scoots19942 жыл бұрын
I've been talking about energy storage as the killer technology we need since the 80s. If (and it's a big if) they can get half of what they say then this really could be the killer technology we've needed. I still think we should be building dozens of modern nuclear plants to get us the energy needed now to get us clean water and get us to a time when solar/wind can fill the CO2 batteries.
@drachenfels67822 жыл бұрын
Nuclear energy has one killer feature not a lot of people mention, 1% of Uranium is useful for energy production, 99% needs to be dumped somewhere and there is not a single (yet) landfill we can store some dangerous stuff for 10k years (or more). It would be a good transition technology 50 years ago but is not a good one today. cost of dealing with the mess of spent fuel or indeed 99% of uranium ore that cannot be used is just too expensive. (Thorium, slow wave reactors and etc probably would make sense 30 years ago with solid founding, but not today with no founding and being 20 years away).
@Scoots19942 жыл бұрын
@@drachenfels6782 modern reactors are far more efficient and nuclear waste is tens of thousands of times less volume than coal power. We should have been building more for 50 years we'd be in much better shape
@beyondfossil2 жыл бұрын
@@Scoots1994 I agree *if* we were building that many nuclear power plants we'd be in a different world. But nuclear has been a disappointment for growth. The first production-ready nuclear power plant was started in 1951 but yet, 72 years later, nuclear only provides 10% of the world's power. Nuclear power was like the promising college grad with all the honors, degrees, extra-curriculars, and praise from all his professors. But, ultimately, he never left his parent's basement nor had a real job and is well past middle age. There's a lot of reasons why this is the way it is.
@amitgupta251219932 жыл бұрын
@@beyondfossil nuclear growth stalled because of Chernobyl disaster.
@beyondfossil2 жыл бұрын
@@amitgupta25121993 Sure, the Chernobyl was a huge disaster. We also have more recent major incidents like Fukushima Dai-ichi, Japan (2011) which costed between $1.2B to $2.1B. Then before Chernobyl was Three Mile Island, USA (1979) which costed $2.4B to clean up. But consider every other year, there are minor incidents at nuclear power plants all over the world. Some leaked radioactive material into the local waterways too. They resulted in millions of dollar spent for repairs and clean up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country Another factor is the nuclear is an expensive form of energy. Lazard lists the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of nuclear between $131 to $205 per MWh. Similar LCEO for solar farms is between $30 to $41 per MWh and wind farm is $26 to $50 per MWh. Nuclear construction also has a consistently bad track record of being billions over-budget and years over-schedule. Its laughably bad and has become an inside joke in the energy industry.
@Music53622 жыл бұрын
This is probably one of the best electricity storage solutions I've seen so far, which seems to actually work, rather than 'it might work' in the future. However, Thorcon nuclear is promising to generate electricity cheaper than this can store electricity. Nuscale says it will be starting to generate at about 7c kWh, getting down to about 5 c kWh over time which is the same cost as this solution only stores power. I believe the 'silver bullet' you mentioned, is actually 4th gen nuclear.
@jamesashurst2 жыл бұрын
Talk is good but where are the reactors. We need solutions now, not promises that seem to perpetually fade into the future.
@Jetfast6192 жыл бұрын
They were talking about thorium reactors at my university 10 years ago and there still aren't viable solutions
@wadebrewer72122 жыл бұрын
A marriage between the two technologies. Storage can prevent the requirement for over building a reactor to support the peak demand. If the reactor is stable at over production of say 10% for 70% of its production time and only falls short for 30%....the energy could be stored for later use and supplement times of peak demand. Think of it like peak shaving your home with the use of solar amd batteries, but on a much larger scale. We do the same thing with air compressors in manufacturing. Don't install a giant electric gobling air compressor for leak loads on the system. Install two smaller units, the second unit will supplement the system for peak demand but when you are steady state...you have a much smaller, more efficient unit running.
@paul1979uk20002 жыл бұрын
@@jamesashurst I have to agree, we need solutions now or just around the corner and not promises of what might work in a decade or two. Many companies talk a good deal but it takes forever for them to deliver and in a lot of cases, they don't deliver. It's why the tech that interest me the most is near future tech over the next 5 years and not the promise of tech over decades.
@SeeNickView2 жыл бұрын
What's the timeline for building such a plant? What's that timeline if you include all of the funding, bureaucratic red tape, public awareness campaigns to turnover opinions on nuclear, and sheer construction lead times? Solar, wind, and storage are ready to go NOW. Although, I do have to give it to nuclear that the supply chains and waste streams are more defined for that tech compared to solar, wind, and storage. Those issues will burden the renewables sector in the next decade, if they haven't already. I don't think Thorium is that silver bullet you're looking for, but I definitely think nuclear is part of the silver buckshot of sustainability. All depends on how fast we can get stuff out so that we can transition from fossils to renewables
@tuxuhds69552 жыл бұрын
Output should be called Bagawatts. Nice cover!
@SaveMoneySavethePlanet2 жыл бұрын
I definitely think Physical Batteries like this will be revolutionary for our future. It’ll be interesting to see which one eventually wins out. In the meantime though, I’m all for embracing the intermittency of renewables along with a solid backbone of nuclear and geothermal energy. That’s plenty of clean energy for our very immediate goals so no reason not to build them like crazy!
@UndecidedMF2 жыл бұрын
I agree. We have the knowledge and technology already available to hit our immediate goals. We just have to do it.
@keatoncampbell8202 жыл бұрын
@@UndecidedMF nuclear is the main solution to greenhouse neutral on-demand power that provides the grid stability solution that renewables' intermittency requires... The main issue in my mind is stigma around nuclear power and it's safety. People know a whole lot more about nuclear disasters than nuclear power, and it informs public discourse in an unfortunately negative way :(
@Triforian2 жыл бұрын
I would challenge that this "solid backbone" is necessary. Renewables rather need flexibility. Nuclear is especially bad in this regard, as it's a hassle to power down. Geothermal is just not viable in many places. In an environmentally friendly way at least, not causing earthquakes or similar problems. Smart grid and sustainable storage should be the main focus right now, not building new nuclear or risky geothermal projects.
@3ducs2 жыл бұрын
@@Triforian Just build nuclear power plants and run them consistently, not intermittently. People are afraid of nuclear in the same way they are afraid if snakes and spiders, irrationally.
@SaveMoneySavethePlanet2 жыл бұрын
@@Triforian You may be overestimating the amount that I mean when I say “backbone”. I’m still editing the video where I fully describe this, but the high level is this: I’m looking for about 10-15% nuclear energy and 2-5% geothermal energy globally. We really don’t need that much in order to keep critical systems running and those seem to be the numbers that experts have coalesced around.
@IronmanV52 жыл бұрын
Tesla switched over to LFP batteries for their Megapacks which use neither nickel nor cobalt. Also, IIRC LAES stores the liquified air at 15 Bar(218 psi) at room temperature.
@SparkyGaming2122 жыл бұрын
You could also put solar panels on the dome itself to get the most energy out of the space used.
@Charles-tq9tc2 жыл бұрын
I love how this system uses the same principles than cryo storage, but side stepping most of the hurdles but choosing the right fluids.
@StefanvanderFange2 жыл бұрын
It's look more like a standard air-sourced-heat-pump. Compressor, vaporizer. You can get those too with CO2 as the 'coldgas', these days.
@badrinair2 жыл бұрын
hopefully this catches on . seems good and it is simple in design. if the CO2 they required could be captured on site then it is even better.
@magnion35352 жыл бұрын
With the size the system takes it sounds like it would be a good fit for places like the United States that have a lot of land that they could use to store these batteries.
@TheAnnoyingBoss Жыл бұрын
We're going to run out of room for people to be able to do cool things if we build things too big bro.
@EddieGonzalez2 жыл бұрын
I really want to see a micro version of this for home / small business use. This looks like a simple enough system that hyper-local energy storage could be more viable that the PowerWall solution.
@reservdel2 жыл бұрын
My thought exactly, erect one of those old water towers that farms have, get some used pressurized canisters to contain it while liquid, and if everything else is commercially available we have a off grid dream possible. Feels like a totally viable battery storage for anyone that might be a bit handy.
@jackmccarthy40472 жыл бұрын
My guess is it's too big (as in takes up too much land) for small scale
@brsaweda2 жыл бұрын
There will be no micro version. Storing CO2 in liquid and gas form, storing heat, generating power - all of these work *much* better at larger scale.
@EddieGonzalez2 жыл бұрын
If it scales linearly, then eyeballing the bladder, the needed space is ~7cubic feet per kilowatt. If an average house is using 10Kw/day then you need around 70 cuft, or a 5'x5'x5' block of space. Double or triple that footprint for the other component and you have a small out-building less that the size of a guest house. Thats very doable in a lot of locations.
@theBabyDead2 жыл бұрын
@@EddieGonzalez you still need the pump to generate 70 bars of pressure and the power to do so, etc. Doing this at small scale would bring that entire system out of balance. You'd need the same power for a lot less storage. It won't get small until the pumps and everything get efficient enough to be smaller. But even then, big-scale will yield way more. As I've commented on the other 4930 comments saying this; It'd definitely be better to do this for an entire block or neighbourhood instead of per household.
@matthewmcree19922 жыл бұрын
If this energy storage solution is actually able to manage a LCOS of $50/MWh, we may have just found the quick and cheap route to solving the problems of intermittency (although nuclear power must be a part of the energy grid for now, unless the situation dramatically changes in the next 50 years and we succeed at making nuclear fusion power into a cost-effective and viable energy solution, thus launching humanity into its next stage of evolution as a species). This technology definitely appears HIGHLY promising. I'm cheering on its success fully and completely.
@Dudleymiddleton2 жыл бұрын
This Energydome is a brilliant idea, it works in a similar way to the old gasometer tanks that rise and fall in a frame - instead a huge "bladder". Thank you, Matt, for another great video.
@jedibusiness7892 жыл бұрын
Take away co2 from the plants….the horror.
@williamt47492 жыл бұрын
I think the biggest problem with this idea will be safety. It is good news that most renewables are best placed in areas that have low population density. But an accidental release of an industrial quantity of liquid CO2 would result in a ground-level CO2 cloud that would suffocate any animal unfortunate enough to be caught in it. As long as that risk is fully mitigated this seems like a good use of CO2. Goodness knows we have enough of the stuff!
@graham10342 жыл бұрын
Would be interesting to hear what passive safety features they have in place to deal with catastrophic leaks. Any compressed gas stored at an industrial scale always makes me think about the Bhopal disaster back in the '80s. CO2 isn't THAT dangerous, but a sufficiently large quantity could be a risk. Perhaps having it far enough away from populated areas would be enough mitigation (other than for on-site workers). It would warm up and dissipate into the air fairly quickly.
@ilenastarbreeze49782 жыл бұрын
Genuine question but would putting walls up around the tank storage force the co2 up and away from people? Or maybe enclosing it in a larger box that isnt air tight but slows the expansion of the co2 so less is released into the area at once? Yes anyone in there wouls be dead but it might stop a ton of people dieing
@7019832 жыл бұрын
@@graham1034 CO2-detectors, an alarm system and respiratory masks with a small air tank (for several minutes of breathing) would reduce the risk for on-site-workers almost completely.
@apostolakisl2 жыл бұрын
There is another plus for batteries not mentioned and that is speed. In microseconds, batteries can change their output/input to stabilize the grid. I also question the 75-80% efficiency, but if true, that is pretty good. Not sure why they chose CO2 over other gasses that compress into liquids at reasonable pressure/temps. This thing is sort of a backward air conditioner and as such, you could use any number of refrigerants used in the hvac industry. Perhaps CO2 is just a good choice based on price.
@varno2 жыл бұрын
Co2 is unique with its point being so easily accessible, also liquid is accessible at room temperature. Other gasses that behave like this like methane have far worse compression ratios and global warming potentials.
@apostolakisl2 жыл бұрын
@@varno Not really unique at all. Look at a list of all the hvac refrigerants that exist All of these compounds were specifically designed to have their gas/liquid transitions happen at reasonable pressures/temperatures and to do so with substantial heats of condensation/evaporation. My guess is that they use CO2 because it is cheap.
@luipaardprint2 жыл бұрын
And also its a great marketing ploy to say you store co2.
@varno2 жыл бұрын
@@apostolakisl there is actually a big move to use co2 as a refrigerant, as almost all other refrigerants have massive global warming potential. Further other refrigerants tend to be very expensive comparatively, which is a big negative for a storage system.
@lylenighswonger35112 жыл бұрын
And safety, abundance, availability, ease of use.
@kstricl2 жыл бұрын
The land use issue could possibly be solved by using smaller dome groups that are hidden under the solar cells themselves. This would also have the advantage of you being able to do maintenance on the dome assemblies without taking the entire system down, simply by using isolation valves. Manufacturing and deployment times may also be quicker as you would have smaller structures to build.
@SeeNickView2 жыл бұрын
Now this is an intriguing idea. Reminds me of how Dave with Just Have a Think on YT just this year did a video on distributed underwater hydrostorage bladders encased in concrete spheres that operate on the pressure differentials presented at the seafloor. With these membrane bladders for CO2 storage, you could raise the solar panels in the air like 2-4 meters or so and scatter the bladders sparsely to allow working clearance for maintenance and inspection. The only problem here is that these bladders might impede any convection cooling that might be gained from raising the panels, and so the entire solar fleet may run at a lower efficiency as a result. To an environmentalist, reduced efficiency but with greater storage capacity via distributed domes still sounds like a good deal. The problem arises when you consider economists and investors that want to see their ideal rates of return. There's different patterns you could do with this idea, though. You could stagger rows of bladders / solar arrays so that there would be corridors underneath the panels for improved convection cooling. PV plants could reconfigure like this, as well as CSP plants that use parabolic troughs and are already spaced out (although the spaces are there to allow for maintenance and removal of dust/sand that build up on the trough, but I digress). You'd have to calculate what the space savings for distributing the bladders + all of the additional piping, cabling, and equipment needed to operate the bladders (and the inherent losses therein) compared to lumping it all together. I have an idea the calc would have to depend on how much surface area is available, and that distributing the bladders may work better for larger and larger utility-scale farms. Awesome idea though!
@COREDYNAMICSLTDA Жыл бұрын
More expensive tho
@boredgrass Жыл бұрын
I consider myself pretty good informed about what is happening in science and equipped with a good general knowledge about science. But your videos leave me standing open-mouthed time and again! Keep up the excellent work! 💐
@mby_dk2 жыл бұрын
I sure like the fact that no exotic materials are required, meaning that this solution seems to be future proof. At least for quite a while. The production of battery electrode minerals are not exactly environmentally friendly, as I understand it.
@luipaardprint2 жыл бұрын
They need less exotic materials though, not none. They still use electric engines and certain alloys in their system.
@derrekvanee45672 жыл бұрын
I'd just like to know, have any projects you've discussed over the years actudlly went to market? And met claims? Or need their aims? No pun intended that's your job Matt.
@dalsenov Жыл бұрын
It is so funny! I've searched a way to store liquefied CO2, produced during winter, for a later time in order to sell it to the beverage industry and bumped into an energy storage solution that seems the best. No wonder it has the best roundtrip efficiency. Good video, Matt! Keep on the good work!
@honestbusiness13712 жыл бұрын
CO2 as a liquid is used in refrigeration systems. Seems to be an additional food industry opportunity here.
@abdelboussaid89782 жыл бұрын
Thanks Matt. The italian Job!. Efficeint and looks simple! One of the culprits that delayed setting wind and solar power was the main critique of land use and the 'change of scenery'. Nobody is nowadys talking about it anymore. Here in Morocco, most of the renewable energy units are set up in remote areas. In short this looks good. I have a question the cost estimate what does it include ? Would it chnage for bigger units?
@edeaglehouse2221 Жыл бұрын
Here in the US, people are still fighting the land uses that renewables would take. :-(
@user-jg6bd7se8u2 жыл бұрын
The dome could have solar panels and/or wind turbines mounted to a structure built over it. That would minimize the land footprint. I love the idea of ambient pressure storage, not having to compress the gas will save energy. Vertical integration with the panels would mitigate that huge real estate cost. I can't imagine space for these type structures - water storage ponds, solar panels, co2 domes - doesn't become an issue. Another awesome video! Another great idea! Thanks for sharing!
@lastflightofosiris2 жыл бұрын
This is and you are one of the very few people/channels who understands energy as a whole and don't pump up the hype with flashy words. Thanks you for the channel and amazing videos.
@MrSparkle404 Жыл бұрын
I think it is more his team that understands energy. That or they know how to read and repeat a press release.
@VictorGallagherCarvings2 жыл бұрын
With all the various bulk energy storage technologies coming out these days, it will be interesting to see which ones end up winning in the market place. Overall complexity, total cost of ownership, best use and permitting issues are all factors.
@Trikkitt Жыл бұрын
Yes. I suspect it'll be driven in part by geography. Solutions that are more space efficient favouring countries with greater land costs.
@mkucstars12 жыл бұрын
Matt, I've watched a number of your videos and just want to say THANK YOU. Always interesting, concise and understandable. You have quite a grasp on how to share information. Your passion for new tech and answers to major problems in our society is enlightening. Major respect for you, and again, thanks for all you do.
@MaxxMcGeePrivate2 жыл бұрын
We need this now! Especially in countries with a lot of wind, sun and space it can't be that hard. But I'm sure it won't happen that fast as we actually need it.
@beamztrustcic89632 жыл бұрын
One problem in the way of longer term storage is the financial model. If the price of energy varies according to supply and demand throughout the day, a short term storage results in several buy/sell transactions per day. If your cost per MWh is similar but you provide long term storage, you might get one transaction per week or month even, giving a far lower return. We need long term storage for energy security, so we have to find a way to provide a return for the security the service provides, not just the transaction. Of course as more storage solutions and flexible usage schemes, international grids and diversity of sustainable generation schemes come on-line the daily fluctuation in value will decrease. Schemes to guarantee returns for energy security, are being applied to the nuclear industry, but need to be extended to long term storage. It is similar to buying insurance.
@nerdexproject2 жыл бұрын
It's an insanely clever system! Thanks for sharing and I hope this company goes FAR with this!!
@Cooper12 жыл бұрын
I love all the options presented on this channel. The future looks bright thanks to technology innovators & risk takers despite the claims of science deniers and those who want to return us to technology of the 1950's.
@Kevin_Street2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the new video! This sounds like a pretty neat idea for grid-scale electrical storage. It has some nice advantages: it's made from already existing technologies, and they store the CO2 at ambient pressure and temperature. The less you have to fight nature, the cheaper and easier the technology becomes. Also there's that 30 year lifetime. But considering how it's made from easily replaceable parts, you could probably keep the battery going for longer than 30 years.
@mullergyula41742 жыл бұрын
Love the simplicity of this storage method.
@Erik_Swiger2 жыл бұрын
So, if CO2 and its phase-change can yield this kind of performance, it would be interesting to see how ammonia, or maybe even a fluorocarbon, would do.
@tjmzm11542 жыл бұрын
Ammonia would facilitate much longer storage period. Weeks and months not just a day or two. To me, that type of solution would truly make wind/solar viable
@jacobdeslattes35192 жыл бұрын
Removing the fluorocarbons would be even better than co2 at reducing greenhouse gasses. They are responsible for like x4-x6 the amount of warming than co2, at just a fraction of the volume.
@davestagner2 жыл бұрын
I was thinking about ammonia, too. It’s a common refrigerant, so there is a lot of industrial-scale equipment for exactly this purpose already. It may not have the buzzword compliance of CO2, and be more of a problem in case of a leak or accident, but it may be more thermally efficient. I’m sure someone else is working on exactly that, though… this really does seem like an obvious approach.
@yolo_burrito2 жыл бұрын
The problem with anhydrous ammonia is material interactions. It degrades many alloys. CO2 is relatively inert and cheap. HFC are designed for very low pressure phase change for refrigeration. In this case the pressurization is what you want to run turbines.
@yolo_burrito2 жыл бұрын
@@davestagner you’re not looking for refrigeration in this case. You’re looking for pressure differential of phase change to drive turbines.
@pstubeing2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if this technology could be used small scale? Even at the homeowner level?
@UndecidedMF2 жыл бұрын
It wouldn't be viable for home use.
@stephenstoufer39482 жыл бұрын
I drove a hazmat tanker for 2 decades carrying liquid Co2 I learned quite a bit about it . This is a genius idea I think it could turn things around and we can finally shut down the coal plants .
@Jokerkles2 жыл бұрын
I recall that the city of Toronto was going to be experimenting with compressed air bladders anchored to the floor of Lake Ontario to use static water pressure to help increase the storage pressure of the bladders while maintaining a reasonably cool temp. The reasoning was that this way they could pump up the bladders during times of low public consumption (i.e. at night), and then use the stored compressed air to run compressors (and the electric motors that power them) in reverse, essentially turning them into a motor powering a generator. I haven't heard anything more of the plan, with the last I've heard of it being at least a year ago, maybe more at this point.
@Infrared732 жыл бұрын
I have to say that I really enjoy your channel and content. It's nice to see positive presentation of the various options that are being presented. I wonder how well this might scale down? How much space would it consume to store power for a single household? The attic in my house is a large open void. Putting in bladders that could inflate to fill that space would be a great potential solution to localized storage. Powerwalls are interesting, but it's still a lot of metal with all of the negatives associated with it. I also wonder if this technology could help improve grid stability? I live in Ontario and honestly the most expensive part of my hydro bill has become the delivery charge, which is to cover the cost of the grid in Ontario. As capacity increases, the size and capacity of all of the redundant systems goes up as well. Could this be used at grid scale to help reduce demand on the grid in the event of an outage.
@Thebreakdownshow12 жыл бұрын
You know what would be even better energy produced using CO2 from the atmosphere? That would be some next-level concept.
@madat58432 жыл бұрын
That's true it will make it a carbon cycle that would sustain itself. Almost like how Hydrogen is a good idea because of its abundance.
@afullerhokie2 жыл бұрын
@@madat5843 you've essentially hit the problem on the head. Anything self sustained means perpetual motion. Violates laws of thermodynamics
@ricardomarcelino83882 жыл бұрын
That wouldn't sort anything, since the CO2 inside the bladder is basically the same for 30 years... So it wouldn't even pinch the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
@Vile_Entity_35452 жыл бұрын
@@ricardomarcelino8388 somebody with a brain 👍
@michaelmcnally97372 жыл бұрын
That subtle 24 reference was topnotch
@nawarelsabaa2 жыл бұрын
This is very promising, if only due to the already streamlined supply chain. Using this as a future middle step between Carbon Capture Systems and CO2 Storage Systems could also be interesting: capturing CO2 from the air or exhausts, and sending it rather than CO2 stored in "The Dome" directly to the compressor, and when It gets used to produce energy, it can be sent to the long-term CO2 storage solution rather than returning it to "The Dome". Maybe even tewak the system to have CO2 leave the motor in a more favorable condition for long-term storage?
@jopo79962 жыл бұрын
A little late. I developed this gas storage system over 20 years ago after a Taco Bell run.
@UndecidedMF2 жыл бұрын
😂
@sebbes3332 жыл бұрын
Additionally, they can harvest BOTH Heat & Cold from the system (not at the same time). When the CO2 compresses, heat can be harvested, when un-compressing then cooling can be harvested.
@Let_the_nonsense_blaze.2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if this aspect was already calculated into energy storage efficiency or not? If not then this system combined with heating and cooling plants can reach even higher efficiency levels.
@whirled_peas2 жыл бұрын
The sun's heat would in theory increase the pressure too right?
@KimTiger7772 жыл бұрын
A Sterling generator would be ideal.
@johncochran84972 жыл бұрын
NOPE NOPE NOPE! You seem to have ignored a major part of the system. When they compress the CO2, it gets hot, so they store that heat in a local Thermal Energy Storage System. They do not provide that heat for other system. They store it for their own future use. When energy is needed, they use that stored heat in order to convert the liquid CO2 into a gas that they can extract energy from. If they were harvesting heat and cooling, they would lose the energy they're storing.
@arthurmarsch62112 жыл бұрын
Sounds good! Probably the best long term storage solution I’ve heard about!
@rubenflex22 жыл бұрын
The company I work for has been supplying evaporators, condensers and compressors on co2 for the supermarket cooling for over 10 years here in the Netherlands.
@P8qzxnxfP85xZ2H3wDRV2 жыл бұрын
I know what would make a good battery. Using CO2 to create gasoline. I think that would store a lot of energy for a very long time and be pretty easy to handle and transport.
@janjager29062 жыл бұрын
I think there are several problems you have to take in consideration: 1 - A very inefficient process. 2 - If you burn fuel you produce NOx (Catalytic converters only converts NO to NO2). 3 - Produce of ultra fine particles. It is just soot, even if it is invisible to the naked eye. And no, there is no safe limit. The only pro, unregarded the source, is ease of use.
@P8qzxnxfP85xZ2H3wDRV2 жыл бұрын
@@janjager2906 There are more pros. Existing infrastructure, highest energy density after hydrogen. And the ease of use advantage is a pretty big pro, because ease of storage and transportation also has an environmental impact.
@lylenighswonger35112 жыл бұрын
Gasoline does not store very well for long periods. A year maybe without stabilizers. The co2 gets re-released when used.
@Rick-57282 жыл бұрын
The dome takes up a lot of space, but is there any reason they couldn't cover it in solar panels? And I wonder if this is something that could be scaled down to be useful in smaller industrial installations, or even in the home as an alternative to Powerwalls.
@iamericlentz2 жыл бұрын
Exactly my idea! Why not?
@TheLosamatic2 жыл бұрын
Leave it to the ancestors of Davinci to do it with off the shelf tech. Was back in the early 80’s when a friends US Navy ship snaps a main drive shaft in two. Told me they were all stoked for three to five weeks of liberty when the Italians in Napoli said they could fix it, the Americans did not believe it was possible but saw no harm in letting them try. Imagine how huge that drive shaft was. They welded it back together but who knows how they got it to be balanced? Friend said the moral on the boat was dead 5 days latter when they were all recalled and back out 6 or 7 days after being towed into port!
@hasanhas00n12 жыл бұрын
Carbon capture, storage and batteries has been proven to be non cost efficient and thermodynamically non viable. I’m surprised how these investors can’t find a science consultant before burning their money away. 🥴
@rookandpawn2 жыл бұрын
batteries are awful. Phase change storage is the most green and perpetual form of storage without degredation. Energy Dome is amazingly legit. Supply chain, common products, traditional heat pump / refrigeration design. No degredation. If i was an investor id be in this.
@ignaszemleckas50282 жыл бұрын
That's interesting! Do you have any sources I could look this up please?
@UndecidedMF2 жыл бұрын
Do you have sources for that? I'd like to check them out.
@belladonnaRoot2 жыл бұрын
I gotta say, this is quite an attractive cycle from a mechanical perspective. It's a relatively benign process; not too corrosive, not toxic, not terribly hot or cold, readily available. I think they're vastly overestimating how easy it is to keep a large gaseous system closed over time, and the implication that they're not using customized components is unrealistic. Additionally, environmental planning will be tricky as they'll need to plan for what happens in the event that the whole system pumps liquid CO2 to atmosphere. (They'll likely need to avoid being up-wind and uphill of any inhabited area.) But those are all solvable problems that are much easier to solve than the problems inherent to other energy storage.
@docwatson11342 жыл бұрын
I like this system, its simple, and in future installations possibly half the dome could be covered with flexible solar panels, as the flexible panel technology improves and becomes cheaper
@Pipedog422 жыл бұрын
Modification of the storage building, covering it with a solar collector medium, and paying attention to it's solar alignment when building, could minimize the negativity of its space requirements. I think.
@maxmustsleep2 жыл бұрын
i think anything that removes the need for batteries is a massive improvement. Lithium is pretty resource intensive to get and the prices are rising with the demand for EVs and consumer electronic devices. If there's one thing we have it's a lot of empty space across large parts of earth. If we have a good grid of short term (for day to day variations) and long term storage (generated in summer -> used for heating in winter) that would be a massive benefit.
@danielvilliers6122 жыл бұрын
Yes and no, you have sodium ion batteries coming online. They have non of the disadvantages stated in the video and only have lower power desity, which is not important for static storage.
@final_catalyst2 жыл бұрын
Yes AC and refrigerator are closed loops, but still has leaks and can break down. It seems for "cost cutting" they would generate new co2 rather then extracting it.
@jabuki22 жыл бұрын
Closed loop phase change energy storage seems like the ideal solution to storing excess energy. The fact that this solution uses established and available technology is a huge advantage. Space isn't a big concern in the US and high energy density storage is best reserved for uses that need it like transportation. I hope they ramp up smoothly and are able to deploy all around the world quickly.
@aaronkoch32732 жыл бұрын
It's exciting that so many ideas are getting tried. It's far more likely to find a few that work well with many options to pick from, and even the ones that don't work teach us lessons.
@ole-martinbroz85902 жыл бұрын
apart from space usage, I don't see many other issues from my few sniff tests on it.
@christofferhjorth22432 жыл бұрын
asuming the stated stats are at least close to factual, i can only see this as being a great way to store power. i think often people get a bit too hung up on effeciency, and while that is important, there are other important factors. the only thing i don't understand, is if space is a problem, why not dig the dome down? yes it will make the construction cost higher, but i doubt it will so much, that the space saved will be less valuable. another thing i think is great, is that the dome can be buildt as big as needed, meaning for big scale applications, this could be one of, if not the greatest alternative power storage solution, you have covered so far, IMO.
@dertythegrower2 жыл бұрын
Pretty clever, hope there is a proven future update. Thank you Matt
@LeonardoBatini Жыл бұрын
Very proud to be italian in this precise moment
@7019832 жыл бұрын
I miss a point, which might be helpful for understanding: When the compressor sucks the CO2 out of the bladder (electricity consumption), air flows into the dome to replace the volume of CO2. When the bladder gets filled (electricity production), air flows out of the dome. And you could have adressed the risks of a sudden massive release of CO2 by accident.
@DataSmithy2 жыл бұрын
This CO2 storage technology is ticking all the right boxes for me: off the shelf components, ambient air temperatures (no cryogenics), simple energy transitions (compression and evaporation), low cost/low impact storage medium (CO2), long life span with no degredation in storage capacity over time, acceptable round trip efficiency, no energy loss during storage, low supply chain risk. I was already intrigued by compressed air and liquified air storage, and this just kicked it up a notch for me. Thank you, Matt!
@mth469 Жыл бұрын
They should ditch the solar farm and use energy from the grid at night when nobody else is using it.
@DataSmithy Жыл бұрын
@@mth469 Energy storage can be used in lots of ways, including storing excess, or possibly cheaper power, overnight, and then selling it back to the grid when it's more expensive, or most needed because other power sources have failed. It's just a question of who owns the cheap electricity, and how you, as the owner of the energy storage unit, want to make your money. If you own your own solar panels, then the cheapest power will be at noon. Similarly, if you own a wind farm then the cheapest power will probably be overnight. Otherwise you need to buy the electricity from someone else and you can't control the price as much.
@alantupper41062 жыл бұрын
I'm a fan of these kinds of solutions. On the issue of storage space, I wonder if solutions like this could be adapted as offshore systems. It would also be interesting to see if the dome structure is strong enough to host lightweight renewables of its own. That could potentially provide some excess generation that makes up for the efficiency loss, which I'm assuming is in the form of fugitive heat in the thermal store.
@irrichman Жыл бұрын
I would put this on shore probably, but the windmills offshore. Salt water is bad enough as it is.
@webchimp2 жыл бұрын
8:20 it will also need a lot of rubber for the big bladder, or whatever they use.
@sjwbond22 жыл бұрын
Its not only the LCOS that matters, Batteries can provide system stability services that these type of storages will struggle to.
@rustygear4472 жыл бұрын
This is the first time I think one of these new energy storage innovations would work. Why? Because it's simple. This design should be very cheap to make and maintain, and quite efficient.
@MegaPainLove2 жыл бұрын
I’d like to see how day-to-day maintenance compares to other systems. And I’d like to see how the efficiency stacks up against gravity batteries. I prefer this over most other grid level battery systems. The system could last indefinitely with only minor replacements needed to sustain its continual use. That is a big advantage over the cost of recycling lithium ion batteries. I’m excited to see how the test plant performs.
@Bmeri32 жыл бұрын
As stated, there is no one single solution for all needs, but this like a great one to add to the mix.
@CosmicGorilla2 жыл бұрын
If land for the co2 storage is an issue, put the storage tanks underground or the generating equipment above the tank.
@silversonic1 Жыл бұрын
Any time you can turn a waste product into a resource, you have my interest. The process is simple and seems fairly scalable. If they can figure out ways to improve their utilization of the land they're using and keep things maintained well to prevent leaks, they'll be a very good solution. The downside is what happens in the event of a total storage failure. The CO² could suffocate everyone in a certain area if it was attacked. That's the biggest concern I have, honestly.
@Tinman973012 жыл бұрын
I really like that they are not trying to change the world with fringe tech. Seems like they are just trying to do something in a different way. Even just one small step forward is better than no step at all.
@nagasako72 жыл бұрын
Of all storage batteries this channel has shown.... This one is surprisingly good and I wonder why this hasn't happened before.
@roadboat92162 жыл бұрын
I think that a factor that you didn’t plug in enough (you did mention it), is the environmental impact of mining lithium. And where lithium is better used for cars and smaller devices. CO2 is almost totally environmentally friendly in this case. And is better for longer periods. This I think completely offsets the cost and space difference between the two.
@foremanhaste5464 Жыл бұрын
Say that this setup only achieves a 60-75% efficiency, it can do it just about anywhere in the world. That is a mighty powerful benchmark by itself that where most of the tech for energy storage has hard conditionals on where it can be used safely or on what it can be used for. This might not have the best Megawatt per footprint but that can be exchanged for cost by building the storage vertically or underground. For many places the physical footprint is the least important factor. Take Australia, the heat and dust of the outback, where power storage will likely go, would be horrible for most of storage options but should work just fine for this.
@kistuszek2 жыл бұрын
I think the interesting comparison for size is with pumped hidro. Everyone would build hidro, if they had the conditions. This does not need the water or the elevation change.
@AnimilesYT2 жыл бұрын
I hope this takes off. It sounds very safe since it isn't flammable, doesn't reach high temperatures, and even if the bubble bursts there is pretty much no harm done. Its efficiency is great and it also looks fairly easy to maintain and deploy all around the world. Maybe the dome could be build on top of a building that contains all of the other parts of the system. That could maybe reduce its footprint a bit. I am curious how the dome holds out in heavy weather. How well can it handle hurricane winds and potentially flying debris? Other than that it looks like a golden ticket
@EtheomaАй бұрын
You say it's long term energy storage, but it's not really, because you need to store the heat released when compressing the gas which means it's relies on a thermal battery to run at high efficiencies so really you can only store the heat for about 48 hours unless you use a phase change material I suppose, but then you would need a LOT of that phase change material, something that changes phase as 25C or so, well insulate it and you could store the majority of the thermal energy maybe for months depending on the ambient temperature , and with some evacuated solar thermal tubes you could recharge the thermal battery as fast as it could deplete. in the summer you wouldn't even have to worry about it depleting because on average the temp would be 25C in most places people live most of the summer, again the size of the thermal battery would be a problem though because the heat capacity of all the tunable phase change materials I have seen are worse than ice in the amount of energy they store release or store by changing phase, it's not like 1/2 or anything that bad. Although if you just berried the thermal battery 2 or so feet underground you could probably get 25C temps all year round, especially if you tuned the material to start phase changing at 17C, really it would depend on the climate where you are installing it.
@extraincomesuz2 жыл бұрын
I think they should cover the dome with perovskite film to capture more energy. This is a great system!
@katalytically2 жыл бұрын
Promising but massive in scale and it's uncertain how well it will work. So far we have the concept and it looks like they're building a prototype. That's helpful because one of the things that need to be determined is are the failure points. Based on the illustrations it looks like the storage is the size of several large warehouses, but inside that dome it looks like they plan to use some type of impermeable flexible membrane, basically a big balloon which will have to be assembled from a number of smaller sheets and bonded to each other to form the CO2 "bag". So what happens when the bag springs a leak? How easy will it be to locate the leak and repair it? Like I said, promising and I will be interested in seeing how it develops.
@punditgi2 жыл бұрын
So, what's a "gallon"? And is that US or Imperial? Safer to stick with "litres". Also, "bar" is obsolete. Suggest using "pascals" instead. Aside from that, I am fully decided that this is a great channel. Many thanks for these awesome videos! 😃
@2MeterLP2 жыл бұрын
THe fact that this uses no complex proprietary technology or rare elements makes it the most convincing energy storage solution Ive seen so far. Just common, off the shelf parts and well researched processes.
@nilesbutler86382 жыл бұрын
Even expanding the grid-scale energy storage only a liitle bit helps make renewables more viable. I recently read denmark - who have a lot of wind turbines and export a lit into the well-networked european neighbour nations, have to turn down or stop about 20% of their yearly yield due to situational overproduction. That potential electricity is simply lost right now, even if they could sell it only a day later at profit. Every single mw stored at competitive prices during that time would enhance their profitability. Great concept! Please do a revisit once their first commercial project is up and running.
@mckidney12 жыл бұрын
I see the biggest problem the p[promised scalability. Since the entire system is based on pressure the losses will increase with capacity and building more will increase cost. Great video.
@leonnelen151 Жыл бұрын
You could perhaps make a combination with the HBr flow battery (2HBr + e Br2 + H2) off Elestor and Vopak . Both the energy dome and the HBr flow battery require gas storage in the form of a dome. It is interesting that the energy dome needs the atmospheric gas storage during discharge and the HBr flow battery during charging. Now both processes will most likely not work with a mixture of H2 and CO2 in the same gas storage. But maybe that will work with a separate dome apartment in the dome?
@13minutestomidnight2 жыл бұрын
This is a very promising energy storage solution, and with its simplicity and utility of design it looks like there will be few technical obstacles to getting it up and running. After compressed air and liquid air took off, I did wonder if other gases would be utilised in a similar way, and CO2 is a very effective choice. Without the extra energy cost and technical issues that occur with super-cooling, it could be very effective and scalable. Really the only issue - as was mentioned - is the land space taken up to store the CO2 at low-pressure. The best option would be to stick the bladder it in any underground holes that are available - which is also storage reservoirs that can be used for compressed air or pumped hydro - but the CO2 bladder doesn't have any specific location requirements, so really you could stick it anywhere you had space. For solar plants that are located out in deserted rural locations, this isn't a big issue, but for energy storage in urbanised locations, the company might have to come up with some new designs for their bladder. Another modification for gas-based energy solutions that might become popular in the future is to bind the gas to another molecule, causing it to precipitate, (or binding the gas to a solid/liquid that takes it out of solution), so it can either be stored in a compact form or the chemical equilibrium can be used to do work (e.g. powering a turbine down an energy differential). An example of this that Matt mentioned in another episode is a system that binds the gas to rocks, and heating and cooling the rocks allows for transfer of energy.
@BenzinioB Жыл бұрын
That looks interesting and promising. The air-compressed systems were my favourites so far, as they are based on long lasting simple mechanic - this CO2 solution is simply step above! Well done Italians!
@scifithoughts3611 Жыл бұрын
I think you should “fix” some of the variables. If we want to store energy to use through the night, hen you need to capture the energy for about 13 hours. With that in mind, then work out the RTE. I suspect the LIon batteries RTE will go down further to maybe 85%. The RTE with energy dome is already good enough so that it’s clearly going to be a lower cost solution for storage than LIon. So AFiCT, you’ve settled the debate: power dome is the way to go.
@kaf2303 Жыл бұрын
Nice another use for c02 , it is also a much better refrigerant than most