Hey

🖐️

The content is really something ,i feel, is important and interesting .

Geothermal energy might also be considerable consistent. Storing that might be useful too.

What do you think of hot, liquid-metal batteries for grid storage, like Ambri? Snake oil or a real contributor to balancing a renewable grid?

No

@@randybobandy9828 Yes

Christian teenage boys are gonna have difficulty with that one.

@@michagabo8819 wut

You need a woman.

I’ve heard about liquid metal batteries, Real Engineering did a video a while back about them. Kinda bummed they didn’t make into this video, but still cool seeing all these other types of energy storage

Good data! 📝

If we are going to need huge storage mediums for electricity, we should look at the liquid metal battery. It seems to have the lowest cost of refurbishment, the recycling of the major components is probably going to be the most cost effective of any battery types i have learned about. Lithium batteries should be considered a joke to use on large scale to anyone with a 'green' mindset. They have their place where power to mass is important, but any stationary units that don't care about mass should use something more suitable than a container full of thousands of cells that must be kept cool, keeping something warm/hot is much easier.

How did Li batteries fair if considering re-using expended automotive batteries? Basically on the whole Reduce/Reuse/Recycle plan it would be better if we could take old batteries from bEV and use them in grid scale storage for another 10-20 years before we send them off to recycling (hopefully a good recycling method is achieved by then). So they may not be the best battery solution for raw production of the solution but if they are just laying around then why not?

Lithium-ion will get very cheap and reliable. There is so much investment into several li-ion chemistries that they will continue getting cheaper and better. And there isn't a shortage of lithium. The price may go up temporarily as traditional sources get stretched, but the Earth's crust has plenty of lithium. There will be many new ways of mining it, including from ground water and the ocean. Ultimately, lithium won't be the limiting factor of the success of li-ion batteries, it will be the other elements. For grid storage, the LiFePo chemistry is ideal because iron and phosphorous are plentiful, so it's a matter of manufacturing scale to make LiFePo really cheap, which is certain. It will likely go below $50/kWh by 2030. I wouldn't be surprised to see $30/kWh, which is cheap enough to combine with renewables and a cheap long-term storage like iron-air to shut down all thermal plants. If LiFePo doesn't get that cheap, there will be other li-ion chemistries, plus lithium-metal batteries, coming soon. Surely one of these batteries will get very cheap in the near- to medium-term.

A viable question is: How much CO2 does it take to build, install & maintain a windmill? And how long is the ROI? When is the break even point for both CO2 and the financial cost? Also since communist China owns the lithium mining, solar panel & windmill building markets is it really in the USA's best interest for China to own our energy market?

@@georgevue8175 US has the capability to start lithium mining, just it's not profitable to do so so it's not being done at a fast pace. it's mostly mined in dry area as that's how lithium is formed, also china don't "own" the lithium mining, that's Australia, Australia export them to china for refinery.

*Finally* someone calls out the emperor's clothes!

Yes, that made me laugh. : )

Not sure you have ever heard something funny.

@@jgv4945 not often enough buddy, but when I heard Diana say this it legitimately gave me an overdue laugh

Just like the astronomers when it comes to naming constellations

Yes and no, I think some people haven't done the math, Tony Seba and team did, jusst watch: Rethinking Energy -- 100% Solar, Wind and Batteries Is Just The Beginning

yes and no. the biggest barrier is trying to create all these green techs without causing the same pollution that is destroying the planet. Your smart phone has over 60 different metals in them, all dug up from different parts of the earth, moved to be refined, moved to be processed, then moved to be assembled and moved to be consumed. And that's just your tiny smart phone, we want to electrify everything. The largest hurdle will be to convince society we don't need as much stuff, then we simply do not have to make it and will not pollute. But goodluck doing that.

.... Or to transport it to consumers once it's stored. The current grids simply can't take the increased demand. Of course we know how to lay down more wires and there's some promising new tech there too - but either way it's a huge undertaking.

@@autohmae It depends of the amount of excess renewable capacity is reasonable? We could put up enough wind and solar to meet demand in the dead of winter and likewise improve the load sharing between providers and then use the excess in summer to make Hydrogen or sythesized fuels. This is still storage, but from another perspective, where fluctuations are covered by overcapacity and the excess is used for other things. Industry has a lot of processes that could be converted to electricity, this is about much more than just EVs. They could also be a power sink for excess renewables to make raw materials for production the rest of the year..

@@Tore_Lund I definitely agree. But the point is: in 10 years production with solar will be over 70% cheaper than it's now if the trends continue as they are.

Bureaucrats as usual.

@@SrikarMaddula Based on economic motives because bean counters need to know beforehand who's going to cover how much of the billions it costs, regardless of how critical it may be to get it going. Twisted financial motivations, not bureaucracy... though sometimes they join forces in effecting the opposite of forcing wasteful decisions through regardless.

Perhaps the Orkney Islands just need to fill tankers full of hydrogen or hydrogen-rich compounds for export. Maybe use the Sabatier process to fix atmospheric CO2 into methane and ship refrigerated tanks of liquid CH4 to other countries. Ultra pure methane by the tens of thousands of tons ought to have a decent market value.

@@BlahVideosBlahBlah natural gas is a cheap enough source of methane that it wouldn't be profitable to sell methane in this way, but they could probably use the extra electricity to make easy to ship energy intensive commodities like aluminum or steel.

@@BlahVideosBlahBlah From toms video they actually do produce some hydrogen with their waste energy and they are working on powering their ferries with that hydrogen. They are a small town so you can't really expect massively innovative solutions for such a unique problem.

Also, there's GOLD in that tharrr seawater. 😀

someone on Toyota's hydrogen team probably told her that and she unquestioningly accepted it. there's a reason why most youtubers don't do sponsored videos like this anymore: it's impossible to remain impartial and even with the best intentions you *will* end up misleading your viewers note: from a bit of searching, the 2080 number is an estimate for when terrestrial supply will run out. in 60 years we will surely have found new reserves, or will have improved technology to purify metals from ocean water (a technology we will need to handle pollution anyway)

This video isn't fact checked very heavily. The same is true for the others in this series. Which is a shame as I thought this channel was reliable.

I was about to come back and say some good things about this video... until I got to the proposition to turn old mines into hydrogen storage facilities. that is impossible for the same reason the original hyperloop concept was (it's very difficult to maintain a vacuum at that scale), but this time in reverse with tiny hydrogen atoms easily passing through fractures in the rock. and moments later the quiet part was said out loud: the entire goal here is to reuse as much oil and gas infrastructure as possible. it's all about saving investors, not about choosing the best technologies to fit our needs

@@SeanLinsley Well said. A lot of people are blind to that last point you've made.

The renewables grave = millions of tons of toxic solar panels & lithium batteries dumped into landfills on the poor side of town. If you want to live don't drink the water.

Greenies: but but renewables are cheaper! Reeeee! Sanity: Just to cut wind curtailment (pitching blades to produce zero power) in the UK by 50% it would require 20 GWh of energy storage. Is it disingenuous to not include the energy storage costs into the equation?

Nuclear is by far the best clean energy option, but these people wont admit it

​@@RickSanchez167 One thing that struck me was the mentioned disadvantage of the lack of growth of the technology of pumped hydro storage. Sure, it is a 100 years old technology that might be mature and there might be no surprises in the future. Does this mean it's not worth investing in it, because you can't take sizable grants for its research? Uranium-fission nuclear tech might be similar. It's an established technology, so investors can't rely/hope for the research uncovering new patents for them to exploit.

When you realize it's not really about "saving the planet", you will understand why they reject nuclear. Thorium salt nuclear would be very promising, cheap, and safe. Yet they fight tooth and nail against it. If you try to build a nuclear power plant in the USA, you just won't be able to get around the tons and tons of regulations for it and you'll go belly up before you can even finish building it.

I think the major problems regardless of how it's developed (using current tech anyway) are the nuclear waste which generated and also even the mild possibility of a Nuclear Disaster is something the general population is very afraid of.

@@SrikarMaddula we can reuse thorium via thorium salt reactors, I don't think there's an efficient way known to use the waste from thorium though

@@ElPsyKongroo Thorium reactors can only recycle 5% of the generated nuclear waste from nuclear power plants, which are old fuel rods (and which would be awesome), with an efficency of 95%. The remaining nuclear waste of 95% can't be used in a thorium reactor. So this isn't really a solution for the whole problem, only for a (tiny) fraction of it.

@@dnocturn84 oh interesting. Can you source me on that? I would love to read more on the actual percentage of waste that can be recovered

I'm a big nuclear proponent, but it actually has the opposite problem of renewables - it's very slow to ramp up and down. The radionuclides generated from fission continue to decay and generate heat long after you've stopped fissioning uranium. As a result, nuclear is best used if you run the plants at 100% capacity all the time (well, slight downtime for maintenance). You still need some sort of energy storage tech to help shape the power generation curve to match the consumption curve. Currently on our grid, the power sources used for this are hydro (it ramps up and down very quickly, although the amount it can generate in a year is fixed based on rainfall), and gas. Coal to a lesser extent (coal plants take on the order of hours to heat up/cool down boilers, so they run during the day when demand is highest, are turned off at night when demand drops). It's also worth pointing out that from an efficiency standpoint, it's not worth storing power until nuclear or renewable energy exceed 100% of consumption. If you're still burning fossil fuels but you use (say) batteries to store solar power, you're actually increasing the amount of fossil fuels burned. By using the solar power to charge your batteries instead of sending that power to the grid, you're causing more fossil fuels to be burned during the day. At night less fossil fuels are burned because you can use your battery. But the efficiency loss of charging/discharging the battery means that the battery gives you less power than the solar that was used to charge it. So the increase in fossil fuel usage during the day is greater than the decrease at night, thanks to your battery. This loss is acceptable if your use the power from the batteries for off-grid applications (an EV, phone, or laptop). But it's needless if your use is to power something that's already connected to the grid (e.g. your house).

So you mean burning wood.

@@kjamesjr no. the fire was the charging system to put heat into the rocks.

@@peterdobos1606 But the solar energy was already in the wood.

@@kjamesjr oh geez. My comment was about energy storage. Which is what the video is all about. Obviously almost all energy on Erth comes from the Sun.

Ecology issue are so important and action right now so little that this is great that she talk about it.

Energy is physics

As a recently-graduated electrical engineer, I am not complaining. :)

@@MrLuc420 Yesssss, 100%!

E = MC^2 E is for energy :)

China often makes big offers to foreign firms so they can steal intellectual property. They are huge scammers. Wildly dishonest people.

We designed and tested molten salt nuclear reactors in the 1960s and they are now being built in China & India. They are immensly safer as the reactors thermal transfer fluid never boils VS water expanding its volume 1600 times into steam.

Could have been done 50 years ago

we really don't have an energy problem, other than the one that politicians create for us. Just get a nuclear power plant, problem solved. Then we have to deal with the storage of the nuclear waste of course. And that bugs me. Reliability is more important than finding 'net-zero', which in my opion does not exist. There is only a transition of energy forms from one form to another.

The video was very wishy-washy about emerging storage solutions. Terms like "round trip efficiency" paint a very rosy picture, but on practice they lose 90%+ of energy (at least in hydrogen and "thermo-photovoltaic" batteries), before even capturing it and the real efficiency of these batteries are single percentage points, if that, compared to the energy that was put in. On the other hand oil, gas, coal, etc. are tens of times more efficient on practice, unsurprisingly that's why they are so popular.

@@ahblooloo8639 hi troll.

@@hitreset0291 He is but he is true for some points. For me the fusion source of energy seems to be the most efficient but that is not tangible right now…Don’t worry coal/petrol is soon going to be phased out at least by 2070 or maximum 2080

@@beactivebehappy9894 fusion is a fools errand, if you are hoping for it to be ready soon enough to help against climate change. At the moment, fusion experiments don't even break even, which means they consume more power than they generate, and that's even before you even consider converting that energy into electricity and the losses that entails. Then there's the expense. Nuclear fission power station projects struggle to get off the ground due to the huge up front costs, but the economics of nuclear fusion is even worse. Advanced fission on the other hand, like molten salt reactors, based on the 1960s ideas proven by molten salt reactor experiment (MSRE), could come to market in time, especially if governments focused on them. They would also be massively safer and have far lower consequences in the event of an accident than traditional fission reactors.

If you are in college, may I suggest reading "Sustainable energy without the hot air" by Professor David JC MacKay, the late Chief scientific advisor to the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change.

It's imprecise to say that "lithium batteries can catch fire". (Only some lithium chemistries do)

@@guringai And lithium batteries do not use lithium chemistries?

@@GabrieleNunnari not all lithium batteries use the same chemistry, hence the important "only some" part.

Yeah, it's good that this is a series that can really cover everything that's important.

This video is missing a piece on how most hydrogen is currently produced, from methane.

This is called a Lifecyle Analysis and it’s important to factor this into the whole consideration. When we do this things like nuclear energy begin to look pretty good.

@@RobbWolfVideos Yes. I wished more folks would investigate the full lifecycle.

please bear in mind that these videos are seriously biased towards hydrogen bases systems wich are made by toyota. these videos do not reprisent a fair and balanced comment about the actual problems in these areas. these are paid advertisements by toyota trying to make hydrogen happen despite it consuming 5x more energy to produce and consume then straight batteries or even hydro storage. something either casulally ignored or glossed over in these advertisements. its looks pretty bad that you need 5x or more the energy production to make hydrogen happen then just straight up battery storage.

@@SupremeRuleroftheWorld the sponsorship by Toyota is very transparent, fwiw

@@tmrogers87 the brand is fairly obvious and i am not talking about the branding but that the content is biased towards hydrogen. unless you know a lot about this subject its impossible to understand this is biased content.

wait, you dont!?

​@@dannyhoberman5384 We can't all be Michio Kaku!

Did you know that the LHC has a seasonal aspect: it only runs when hydro power is available

@@flemlion13 No, I didn't know that, but I like it!

Oh come on. Any source of power could pump that water up. Just because your plant only uses fossil or nuclear, doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. Windmills have been doing exactly that for centuries.

Pump storage is fantastic, and in the past, yes, it used night time electricity. But you can equally use it during a sunny, windy day.

Flywheels aren't practical. They take a very large amount of energy to get to speed. Require continual energy to keep rotating at speed. Then lose their energy rather quickly. The energy they store can also be incredibly dangerous considering their mass.

Energy recovery from a flywheel is a constant drop compared to things like pumped storage that’s pretty flat energy output until the water runs out. And, one of the biggest problems with flywheels is the change in speed as power is taken from the flywheel. When it’s spinning fast it has a lot of energy, but likely is spinning to fast to really be used directly. Then as energy is removed it quickly slows down. All that means you loose a lot of efficiency with some system that balances out that energy recovery.

I wouldn't call it up and coming, it's one of the oldest ways of stabilizing an electrical grid and make it resistant to temporary drops, kind of like a UPS, gravity storage is a lot more practical to store lots of energy long-term and has great efficiency

Flywheels also have a cycling limit. Good for backup.

flywheels are relatively dangerous and inefficient

As I understand it, nuclear reactors are slow to spin up and shut down. So currently, they are used as the baseline power, with oil, gas, coal, etc, used to provide power for the spikes of demand during the day. Recycling the waste into new fuel pellets helps reduce the amount of waste, but there is still some radiactive waste that needs to be stored for centuries to millienia.

supply is more important than speculative energy futures.

quik maffz

Maths genius right there!.

@@Robert-cu9bm 😂

Nooo I thought it was 1000 times more!! Wow!

It's just maths!

I can see a few problems with this. Whatever you make the tank out of could corrode. Ocean life could grow on it clogging it. The air would eventually dissolve into the water losing capacity. I don't know how much of an issue these problems would be though.

@@Xeridanus corrosion can be managed, steel can be protected with Cathodic protection or concrete can be designed to last 100 years in seawater. Marine growth can be managed in a variety of ways and if you in deep water there isn’t much light anyway so growth is slow. Air would eventually dissolve into water but if you are looking at short term storage like a peak shaving plant, it would be minor. If you need long term storage you could use a membrane at the air/water interface (like an inflatable balloon).

@@sailorgeer Thanks for the answers, I'm by no means an expert so those problems were just what I came up with off the top of my head. Those solutions seem pretty reasonable to me.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b96VZqWItdmmhIk.html Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind and Solar Energy

unintented consequences of ocean life? - the cost and energy needed to pump each direction? what will the input / output ration be, more in than out - storage cost?

There's a big part that she missed: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aKtxZ9d1vt2yiaM.html I suspect that wasn't an oversight, but Toyota wouldn't want someone to spell out that they are causing the end of civilisation.

@@bertilhatt Does the military contribute to climate change, and if so, is it negligible?

For me this one is the best of the three other videos from the series I've seen so far.

I completely agree and know what you mean by mental impact from current social and global culture towards our energy future. I've been hoping for high schools to start putting more interest for students and incentives to attend Science Fairs like the Intel ISEF, and state-based consortiums, symposiums, etc. to help us as a society become more capable to adapting to our energy demand.

@@travism2013 How do you know what someone else is thinking? Is that a new app?

Don't be afraid to talk about the cons? Um, facts are how life works. We can't live on assumptions and gossip right? Social media is entertainment, I've never walked away from Facebook or twitter with the answer.

@@annascoria6178 sorry I'm not following what you're getting at? Also, I don't see where I said that so I have no idea where you got that from.

@@travism2013 You said something to the effect of "mental impact" and that you understood. He was talking about "mental health". I'm sorry for the confusion. It struck me as humorous. I'm sorry to poke fun.

Question: Do you really think that we have enough time to stop the process of global warming?? The planet is basically out of control..🌅🌄🌴🏝️🙏🙀🌎🌎😭

@@raymondmejias8071 I’m always hopeful that new technologies will help to slow down the destruction we have caused but I do agree that I think we are already past the tipping point and something to reverse global warming is needed to make real progress.

@@spongebobsquarepants7837 well if we build economies of scale, make every country richer, we can probably terraform Earth too. Until then reducing emissions can be great, but at the same time it shouldn't mean to lower down the life style of people, nuclear is the best option we have and I still don't know why many oppose it, when it's the best option we have to reduce any sort of emission, even the waste is stored and sealed off. While solar panels are being dumped rather than extracting it back, since it's more costlier to do so. Plus cheaper electrycity from nuclear.

@@raymondmejias8071 The climate crisis is not a ticking clock, we are already experiencing it and it is going to get worse gradually as more heat is trapped by greenhouse gases and the nore of them we put in the atmospheric. Reducing carbon emissions and trying to reduce its amount in the atmosphere is important in order to slow down climate change and minimise its effects, so doing what we can to reach those goals is ultimately going to help us and the planet as a whole at any point and the sooner we get to those goals the more we can minimise its effects.

Yes, that's true (tbh I don't know, I'm just willing to believe you), but there's also the fact that 75% of all matter in the universe is hydrogen. It's fairly abundant.

@@samberg3864 Doesn't help us, unless you know a way to transport it back to Earth. Because while hydrogen is abundant in the universe, it is not abundant on Earth.

Desalinating and distilling the water is an order of magnitude less power demand than the electrolysis process.

@@lazydave137 it is on the earth but it is not in the form of H2 gas

Yeah you would probably need to do efficient desalination first say reverse osmosis followed by distillation, the problem is of course that costs energy but given that the climate doesn't look like it will be cooperating anytime soon it is probably going to be needed anyways out west in increasingly arid environments like California since unfortunately people are stubborn and unlikely to move to more sustainable locations(without natural selection being allowed to filter them out).

Imagine those with plants, that would look awasome

Full-on DOUBLE rainbows!!! 🌈🌈🦄

You have that in the water tower of every tall building. Just install the water powered smart speaker in your shower to make use of it.

I'd like to see a city full of solar panels and wind turbines to generate its own electricity instead of covering valuable food/crop producing land nearby and then grid lining that electricity to the city as is done now. Renewable energy has to find a way to stop destroying our extremely important food producing farmland

@@TheRoadfarmer Actually renewables can coexist not just along side agriculture, but literally on the same turf. There are already people installing solar on a raised canopy that sits above a crop field. And this actually benefits a lot of crops by limiting their exposure to the sun. Wind turbines take up virtually no farm space and are actually being leased on farm land so farmers get paid just for having them. Large solar farms are usually installed in high sunlight areas where you can't grow crops anyway. And also monoculture ag is actually a CONTRIBUTOR to climate change and needs to radically transform. We actually need to give back a LOT of the farmland we currently have to nature.

Just start studying once and the rosy picture will un-paint itself, I don’t know the complete picture in Norway but I have heard that it’s very good and practical and all that fad, But the exams and cramming stuff gets pretty hard in the places that I have seen…

I read that as “UFO in Norway….” 🤦‍♂️🤣

Go for it. And don’t mind the occasional class that might feel like a joke, there will be those you’ll wish you could have double portions :-)

They could be put up almost immediately but sadly they are caught up in red tape in Washington.

This. All the comments on the first two videos were complaints about her being a shill for Toyota and stating BEVs were all we'd ever need coz they were better than FCEVs for normal consumer use. Totally missing the point that there is not a single solution to the problems our species subjects this planet to. All of the technologies working together are the solution.

@@tyrannicpuppy What particularly galled me about those comments, was that if we'd applied their reasoning back in the latter half of the 20th century, then PV solar and battery tech today would be half a century behind because they were not "the best" solutions back then. And thus by their own reasoning those technologies were unworthy of attention and research back then. It indicates people who've already picked which solution they want to win, then gaming the comparisons to insure that only their choice is the winner. Not coming up with a wide range of solutions which tackle the problem, each with its advantages and drawbacks. As I like to say, if you can't come up with a decent list of advantages the tech you oppose has over the tech you support, that means you haven't done enough research and don't know enough to make an objective decision.

@@tyrannicpuppy But not missing the point that even from the figures shown in this video, Hydrogen was the least efficient storage medium. "25-45%". I'd LOVE to see justification for the 45% figure! But even that's poor.

@@solandri69 It's not a case of "picking the solution" It's looking at the physics (chemistry). As pointed out, Hydrogen likes combining with other elements (lucky for us?) THAT'S the problem. It requires energy to liberate, and always will. That alone makes it expensive to obtain, AND inefficient. Then there's the reverse, producing electricity (unless you burn it which is polluting). 25% just isn't "in the ballpark". If you can give even an idea of how it can be made "efficient" (and don't say "spare green", that boat doesn't float).... Then I'll be thrilled. But I bet you can't.

@@rogerstarkey5390 You do realize that batteries store electrical energy the exact same way - by using that electrical energy to drive a chemical reaction? All we're talking about is the efficiency of different technologies for driving different reactions of different elements as an energy storage medium, whether its lead and lead dioxide (lead acid), zinc/manganese (alkaline), nickel and hydrogen (NiMH), lithium and carbon (Li-ion), or hydrogen and oxygen. There's nothing inherent about hydrogen and oxygen which makes it less efficient - just the limits of what the technology we've developed is able to accomplish. In fact lithium-air batteries are pretty much the same thing as hydrogen, except using lithium and atmospheric oxygen as your reagents to store electrical energy. The only electrical "battery" which doesn't use chemistry is a capacitor, and those leak charge making them unsuitable for storage longer than on the order of minutes. As for making it more efficient, the research right now is concentrating on using sunlight to directly split apart water into hydrogen and oxygen. That eliminates the inefficiencies introduced by first converting the sunlight into electricity, then using the electricity to drive electrolysis. There was an IEEE article on it in 2020 Sep 1. Look it up.

Agreed 👌

High temperature nuclear reactors with heat storage in the form of molten salt or molten aluminum. Reactor can operate almost constantly and power can be taken out for peaking a d backup.

Just a wasteful way thinking. Consumerism at its finest.

@@marcohangman5312 why?

@@budders9958 Why build another production when u have over supply during low peak.

@@marcohangman5312 that's not what I suggested. Storage shifts the supply to the higher demand periods. It's like inventory

But that’s just another type of lithium ion, what you called “lithium ion” is lithium (nickel manganese) cobalt oxide. Just a different electrode formulation. If you puncture and short-circuit an LFP Li-ion battery it’ll still catch the electrolyte on fire.

@@kaitlyn__L Lithium iron phosphate has excellent thermal and chemical stability. It stays cool in higher temperatures. It is also incombustible when it is mishandled during rapid charges and discharges. Lithium-ion does not have the same safety advantages as lithium iron phosphate. Its high energy density has the disadvantage of causing the battery to be unstable. It heats up faster during charging as a lithium-ion battery can experience thermal runaway.

@@happybluedog You seem to not understand how a Li-ion battery work and you are confusing the crystallographic stability of the LiFePO4 cathode material with thermal stability of the battery pack. It is not the cathode material that can catch fire, it is the electrolyte and anode. As a LiFePO4 battery and a LiCoMnO2 battery will both have a graphite anode and both have organic carbonate electrolytes, they will burn just as merrily. The cycling stability is good for LiFePO4 partly because the crystal structure of the material does not change when extracting lithium, i.e. the main Fe-PO4 network remains the same although with some small distortions. This can be compared to LiCoMnO2 electrodes where the Co and Mn ions have some mobility and can if mistreated move inte the crystallographic sites of the lithium ion. This will block lithium from cycling in and out of the cathode and lower capacity and possible render the battery useless. In addition, overcharging a LiCoMnO2 cell will cause permanent crystallographic changes to the material and will render it inactive. But crystallographic changes are only one of the degradation mechanisms in a Li-ion battery. Degradation of electrolyte and electrolyte salt is another problem and that will most likely be lower in a LiFePO4 battery due to the lower redox potential of the active Fe2+/Fe3+ ion couple as compared to the Co3+/Co4+. And Kaitlyn is right, any battery concept that works by shuffling Li-ions between two electrodes is a Li-ion battery.

Not mentioned because this is a Toyota hydrogen advert.

@@TechRyze It was mentioned in passing, problem with them were also mentioned as well as another, one of the availability of lithium. At current consumption, there is plenty, but if we are going to be using it for vehicles, (just vehicles) well, the available reserves get used up in less than 90 years as the demand will increase by 400%, that does not include fixed storage or other uses.

energy storage is a problem created, not a problem that we have to challenge with. if we use 50% nuclear and 50% renewables we don't need energy storage. if we want to go to 100% renewables we have to spend tens of trillions on energy storage.

I was about to mention flywheels. Simple, cheap materials, reliable, scale-able. A lot to like.

Just use E = 1/2*m*v^2, approximate that all the mass is in a thin disk, plug in some reasonable numbers, and you'll see how uninteresting it is. A ton moving at the speed of sound is about 16 kWh, which requires delicate balancing, magnetic bearings, vacuum systems and more. For the same energy you need about 1600 18650 cells, at about 4$ each retail price.

I was about to point out the same, is a very interesting alternative. Also @Antalz is using the wrong equation. You want the rotational energy equation where the energy is proportional to the square of the angular velocity

@@nicolasaraya7605 That's why I said to approximate all the mass being in a thin rim. You can also use the true rotational version but then you have to look up the moment of inertia of a hollow cylinder and that's more effort than it's worth.

@@antalz yeah, i checked my math.

:-)

Thumbs op for "op" -- it's rounder than "up"

@@isaakb4442 Oops, that's my Dutch coming through

@@rschroev lol

There are also aluminium-air batteries, which are much lighter, which makes them a much better alternative for electric cars, as well as using sand for thermal storage. You should also watch the video "Dirt Simple Energy Storage | In Depth" by "Now You Know" on youtube. The technology uses hot air to heat sand or dirt kept insulated underground, and later on uses the same hot air to generate power, or to heat water for municipal water heating (where it applies). And unlike using water for heat storage, the sand can be kept much hotter than 95 degrees Celsius, at 300-400 degrees celsius, possibly more, depending on if there are advances in cheap-enough materials used for storage. And it can be easily paired with existing solar through and solar concentration towers, by simply moving heat from the thermal fluid to air and backwards. They are used in nordic European countries to heat the storage in the summer and heat their homes in the winter, so it works well as a very-long-time energy storage, too. Much cheaper than the the other alternatives, per unit of heat stored, and uses off-the-shelf components for the pumps and power generation systems, but needs a large area to be in (which can be underground and built above, so city plazas can work, for example, and greenhouses can be built above, to make use of the little heat which does escape, and building long corridors under streets could help keep them snow-free), which makes them a much better deal than the alternatives.

I love your videos, but how can you possibly have a clean energy series that doesn't even mention all the benefits of nuclear power? Nor the environmental drawbacks of wind and solar power, which not only can't store energy, but also take up a huge amount of space and are deadly to birds. Nuclear energy can be produced with a very small footprint, (no destruction of wildlife or habitats required) its waste is miniscule these days, and it can largely solve the energy storage issue. We could achieve zero emissions without waiting for all these technologies to be developed, because safe nuclear energy production has already been invented.

Not "metal hydride", just metal!

@@gregbailey45 I just took what I recall Professor Sadoway at MIT call them - reckon he should know... I will check - maybe the chemistry has moved on in 8 years - or they have simplified the language for Marketing / Investment readiness attractiveness!

@@gregbailey45 wow you are right - the word hydride has been removed from all the literature!

Yes Biased much? (The video)

I presume a damaged lithium battery would have exploded or burnt down?

Because nothing left of the lithium battery but a crater?

Nope. Just google images of swollen li batteries

@@rogerstarkey5390 I believe it was a mistake. There is a report talking all about how lithium batteries need to be spaced further part when they are placed in giant containerized systems. On the cover, a photo of the SnoPUD Vanadium battery, placed closely together. If she were really biased against lithium, she would have mentioned that the Victoria Tesla Big Battery she mentioned had already caught on fire once, and took 3 days to put out. Lithium batteries are far safer than any gasoline, CNG, propane, or similar source, but it is far from the safest battery.

A good video on how to understand and use your instincts kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jtidrKqlydPLn40.html

@TheGoat Last year we had about 300 hydrogen refueling stations in the EU and the US combined. In 2 years 2 of them exploded. That's 0,75% chance of explosion per year per station. I don't know if I can call it "well sorted in terms of safety". Hydrogen isn't as easy to handle as other flammable gases. If a big storage facility goes boom it will be a slightly different outcome.

@TheGoat given the number of gas explosions, I wouldn’t call it “well sorted”

@TheGoat The problem is that with humans involved, regulation isn’t enough. And as to ICEVs. We are moving to a safer tech (your other example that is 10x less likely to catch fire) as it becomes available so that example doesn’t exactly help your case

@TheGoat The flaw with this argument is that we are getting rid gas stations along with gas cars.

@TheGoat You are correct about the sample size but it shows that storing hydrogen isn't as easy as with other, larger molecules. Even when well regulated. And yes - if someone releases a new car and a bunch of them explodes on contact with water it is a reason to be concerned (Fisker Karma) but even in the beginning of the production Tesla showed that their cars were safe.

I looked into getting solar with a storage system... it's a great idea, but it's a pricey investment 😕

Well, maybe not a Tesla power wall but some form of energy storage.

On a small scale and maybe hydro or mechanically this might be a reasonable energy storage. But large scale lithium battery storage is awful, whether done individually or in more centralized areas. The chemical waste of renewables and energy storage is ignored so quickly... :(

@@andrewcopple7075 you are right about the chemical waste. Hopefully we develop ways to recycle the waste and reuse it in other products/applications. When I think of renewables I think of the future. When we eventually go to other planets in 100 years, after Im dead, we will need these technologies to be mature because we wont have oil on other planets. Also, we need to save our oil for when we want to terraform other planets. Perhaps there is more than one way to heat up a planet and keep the air breathable, but fossil fuels has done a pretty good job on earth as a greenhouse gas 😅

This sounds nice but the question is what is cheaper? A powerwall in every home or a centrelised storage system that would be able to hande that same outage.

Just be aware that Hydrogen currently is mostly made from fossil fuels. :)

It's more like a advertisement for Toyota, with cherry-picked data.

@@adityasahasranshu7503 , what exactly are you referring to when you say cherry picked data?

@@Sivah_Akash i've already written a while 5 point breakdown of how she was just doing advertisement for Toyota, and trying to make hydrogen look good, in the last video. But here u go, its the copy and paste of the whole 5 point breakdown from last video, so it's addressed to her, so when i say "you" I'm not indicating towards u- The amount of bias in that video was not expected, from such an well respected scientific youtube personality. 1. Range - here you stated real world range for EVs but stated EPA estimated range for FCVs. Then considering EPA range Tesla model S had 405 miles of range. 2. refueling - U pulled the trick of I'm just going to focus on California, restricting sample size does help to create a narrative. 50% in California doesn't have access to in house charging, but those BEVs owners over 5000 supercharging options, but the other 50% can charge at home and also have the option for supercharging. But, now let's take a bigger sample of the whole USA, there are total 48 hydrogen fuelling station in USA and out of those 48 (afdc.energy.gov/stations/states), 47 are in California vs 5000 fast chargers and if public chargers are included then it's over 42000, in case of FCVs each and every customer in the United States has only 48 stations. 3. Efficiency - Batteries are already at 350wh/kg mark, company like CATL, LG, Tesla 4680 are steady making batteries that are over than 350wh/kg (10-15% expensive than LFP) mark. 4. Yeah i want a fuel cells to charge my phone and then get refilled at the 47 stations to charge again. Really? Why don't we just make chargers that take gasoline? Full it up and there you go. Every promising FCV & BEV semi-truck are under development. But talking about company like Nikola? Really? The biggest fraud. That's your credibility, for god's sake. Now considering Tesla semi, Yes the truck has been delayed but main reason battery constraints not chemistry but production. Tesla semi will've 500 miles of range at max load of 36287kg (80000lbs). So, saying BEVs going to be bad at load carrying vehicles is misleading. Now talking about speed, there is not a single FCV on road today that can compete with a BEV of 2012 model S, a 9 year old car is faster, quicker than the best of FCVs of 2021. So no there is no advantage for FCVs in speed and acceleration rather they'll be slow and will lag behind in both of those key aspects. 5. Infrastructure - Fuel cell infrastructure is one of most ineffective, inefficient, high maintaining infrastructure ever for public transportation. Its hard to scale, maintain, needs extensive amount of energy to keep it running, cost of building a Hydrogen station is around $2million and for a supercharging network is at most around $200k. Safety -It doesn't matter how much precautions you take, in real world accidents do happen, and if at some point in future one station catches fire then the amount of devastation hydrogen can cause is underestimated, but the same can be said about lithium-ion battery storage, and the scale of destruction in a Li-ion is localised, as seen in Australia, fire in one module during construction was localised to that module only while having 100s of other modules in close proximity, and way more controllable than a hydrogen station catching fire. And one thing we are not taking into account is Solid state batteries, which are higher in energy density, doesn't catch fire when punctured, but hydrogen no matter what, will have the vulnerability of catching fire and exploding.

@@adityasahasranshu7503 true.

what is that even supposed to mean?

@@Bleeto "I like that you are going into energy in a big way, Dianna." (hope this helps)

@@michealoflaherty1265 thanks

Keep goin, even a "successful failure" is a learning experiment.

unfortunately, we aren't. In most cases, we are picking up concepts and projects that were set aside decades ago. So, in a lot of ways we are actually looking back. That's the unfortunate park. We are fortunate that there is finally momentum and funding!!

Natural gas

it's a great leap forward

Yeah, pumping water up a mountain and making it fall. What technological leaps.

"Great leap forward" Ok Mao

You should start an ocean energy company. What could go wrong, kid? ;-)

Flywheels too?

@@IDoNotLikeHandlesOnYT Yeah the latest flywheels are quite impressive, but SMES is still my favorite hehe

Ca-coo ca-cha!

Aahhh no thx. Then i would rather take a bucket full of E-Fuel and power my oven. Which i both don't need, i just use LFP batteries instead. Much lighter, cheaper, easier to handle and nothing wirrs around with many thousands of G's and many thosuand of Kilojoule of kinetic energy in my own house. Besides which existing material withstands many thousands of G forces you want to realize in your flywheel?

@@wolfgangpreier9160 Flywheel energy storage is already in the market. Plenty of information out there about it.

@@wolfgangpreier9160 I would actually have it underground, in a covered hole in the back yard or so. Make it 2m in diameter, and put it 3m deep and then cover it up with some kevlar lined carbon fiber or whatever else could withstand these forces at least to a degree so that that it won't escape if it came dislodged (which would of course require a technical fault against which you could also employ further measures, like force braking the wheel or something like that).

@@bahamatodd I can not find one single manufacturer or distributor in Europe. Could you name one?

@@Seegalgalguntijak WoW what a mess. I have my battery in my garage. Plenty of space for it.