7 Ways To Store Renewable Energy | Answers With Joe

[@sth128]

12:35 "Utility scale battery storage is going to explode in the next several years"... Poor choice of words Joe.

[@MrDoboz]

DEMONETIZED

[@dr.feelgood2358]

don't buy your utility scale batteries from Samsung

[@HorzaPanda]

When he said that I said "Hopefully not literally" to myself XD

[@christophbader3713]

Some probably will.

[@Glocktopus1]

Christoph Bader Making your entire business not go *Kaboom* tends to be one of the main priorities of people owning businesses

[@hightechredneck8587]

@3:00 just need to point out a small correction. Power plants do not want to overproduce not because of profits, but if they are producing more power than needed the frequency of the power starts to increase. If the frequency gets more than half a Hz off of 60 then protection systems start to engage which can shut down lines, cities, or plants.... Very bad things. For the record I work in Electrical Transmission in a grid control center.

[@joescott]

Thanks for that perspective. 👍

[@hightechredneck8587]

@@joescott There is much people don't know about the complexity of the grid. But I love the show and it is very popular with the engineers I work with. If you didn't live 3000km away I would invite you to the control center for a tour.

[@tara5742]

Nathan Peters Clark Joe has camera, will travel.

[@philtimmons722]

HVDC can sort make all that go away . . . .

[@hightechredneck8587]

@@philtimmons722 We operate 500KV HVDC.... It works well on paper.

[@ArthurBugorski]

0:00 Introduction 1. 4:50 Pumped Hydropower 2. 7:09 Hydrogen Energy Storage 3. 8:41 Compressed Air Energy Storage 4. 10:29 Thermal Energy Storage 5. 11:39 Batteries 6. 15:15 Flywheels 7. 16:07 Gravity Battery 17:11 Conclusion

[@BlackHeartScyther]

Nice! Thanks for taking the time to do this, definitely would have been nice to have this on the video from the get go!

[@ArthurBugorski]

@@BlackHeartScyther I suspect it's intentional to get watch times up.

[@jordanbuckingham8117]

"You know what's a sobering thought? It's literally 2 weeks away from 2020" I enjoy this statement for purely ironic reasons.

[@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis]

'The Lost Year', 'The Year Without an Easter'.

[@whatsgrowingon8099]

We are literally 2 months away from 2022 and we still haven't solved these problems due to the lack of political will. We have actually moved backwards into denying science...and vaccines.

[@jgray1831]

@Faulty Juice no

[@jgray1831]

@Faulty Juice no

[@jgray1831]

@Faulty Juice no

[@The1stFishBone]

3:23 that was the first time I've heard anybody other than me say that. You can't imagine how good it feels to hear anything other than alarmist bs or denial.

[@IzzyIkigai]

Well it's still an understatement. The planet will be fine. It always was and animals, plants and fungi will always have a few species that survive(see that big space rock that presumably was responsible for one of the mass extinction events). We as humans won't be fine tho. At least most of us.

[@werthersoriginal]

4:56 That's the best damn explanation of pumped hydropower!

[@heronimousbrapson863]

I often fill my cavernous bodies with gas, but I don't get more energy. Just complaints.

[@rafqueraf]

it can be solved with a butt plug that converts energy

[@carolcossa6244]

Perhaps you should convert your stored chemical energy into heat. I think we should invent the "Home Flatulator"...just back up to the funnel, and the small compressor sucks in your "output" and compresses it into mixed hydrocarbon fuel.

[@PatrickKQ4HBD]

It always puts a little pep in my step.

[@joescott]

You actively pump gas in there? Kinky.

[@77matius]

@@rafqueraf Ha! Outfit to bovines and take a chuck out of global warming consequences. :-)

[@filipskotnica971]

0:06 We still use the wheel, and build walls - seems to work pretty well. (but I get your point ofcourse, we need better alternative sources of energy like nuclear fission, or even fusion)

[@GlenWooden67]

Totally agree, Joe! I have been saying for years - "It's insane that we still dig stuff up and burn it for energy". Finally it is starting to change!

[@nolan4339]

Lithium Ion may be fine for light weight energy density solutions, but we can definitely find cheaper grid-scale energy storage solutions and I'm glad you pointed a few of these options out. I'll add Molten Salt Batteries as an additional possibility that deserves a mention as well though.

[@PontusEgnell]

I am an electrical engineer that have worked with several of the technologies that you mention. I have to say you did a very good job with this video, Joe! However, I think you forgot to mention the biggest energy storage we have by far: regular hydropower. Even if you can't reverse the water flow and pump the water, it is still a huge amount of energy that is stored in the large reservoirs and it's ready to be used at any time. Obviously you need a sizable amount of hydropower that can be powered down when solar and wind powers up, otherwise you still have the problem of excess energy that can't be stored.

[@ShelburneCountry]

But as the Cities grow, they use up the flowing water as well (Lake Mead is a good example). Transmission loss means the plants need to be close to the cities, and poor city planners see the nearby water as a water source instead of a power source.

[@PontusEgnell]

@@ShelburneCountry It's true that hydropower doesn't work everywhere.

[@RogerEverett]

>> Seconding the requests for a whole separate episode on Flow Batteries plz!

[@CapinCooke]

&Roger Everett ... Yes. I third your second 😂. Flow battery dedicated video please 👍 ARES gravity “Train Storage” video please 👍 Loved this video Joe. Great work (like always)

[@j-man72b72]

4th

[@deanc9453]

+

[@renchesandsords]

15:14 we need to keep an "ion" this one? Nice :)

[@huimoin]

That‘s why austria has so much renewable energy, we have tons of mountains and a lot of rivers

[@tomkelly8827]

I thought Australia only had one mountain, a large rock really

[@ghostridersinthesky21]

@@tomkelly8827 Austria lol, not Australia

[@theGoogol]

"Dam It" reminded me to hit that like because I do like this channel so much.

[@elweasel2010]

16:19 This just a huge grandfather clock turning a genny.

[@solarcabin]

You don't need a big system or lots of storage to use solar. When The Grid Goes Down: 400 Watt Solar Emergency Back Up Systems Explained: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iairoYCIqrmSoqM

[@haraldhimmel5687]

An emergency backup system is a different topic. If you do not use all the energy you possibly can, solar panels cost more energy than they generate and become part of the problem. For this reason it makes sense to send electricity you dont need back into the grid and the grid needs to account for millions of people doing so if this is supposed to be a switch from fossils. Or you avoid photovoltaic alltogether and install solar thermal panels instead. Those readily provide heating energy which you otherwise would burn fuel for and unlike solar panels, you wouldnt even lose energy in the conversion to electricity. This option is sadly disregarded often even though in many regions it would actually save people more money and energy.

[@sebastianfletcher-taylor1024]

Emergency backup systems are great, but they don't even begin to answer the issues of large scale long term storage and distribution (with associated efficiency losses), not to mention managing things like overfrequency/underfrequency problems that emerge with solar and wind (even when a nuclear/oil/gas/coal plant stops running, there is a turbine system weighing many tons that keeps on spinning and generating electricity as it loses momentum, giving the grid a lot of time to react). The large scale electrical systems we use are ridiculously complex and carefully balanced. This is one of many reasons that I think a solar/nuclear/wind mix is the best way to decarbonize the grid, especially as we develop better storage.

[@foxpup]

In the voice of Paul Simon: There must be...50 ways to store your power...

[@RichardBronosky]

foxpup Okay, Boomer. Just get on the bus, Gus.

[@toughluck8012]

@@RichardBronosky that is the most over used, unoriginal, stale, uninspired, least interesting, least intelligent joke there has ever been. If you have any mental capacity whatsoever, which it doesnt appear to be the case, I recommend you delete your comment, and sit in shame while you rethink your life decisions leading up to this point in time.

[@PenneyThoughts]

Pump water up a hill, Jill.

[@TexasScout]

toughluck8012 “Yeah but it’s funny huh” Just check on the puck, Buck, , make a new damn Sam, you don’t need to be coy Roy, just listen to me. Just suck up some sun, hon.....

[@donfields1234]

@@TexasScout lmao

[@SkepticalCaveman]

The easiest solution is to replace the natural gas with biogas, both are methane, but biogas is carbon neutral. It might actually be the most realistic solution, in the short term, since the same powerplants can still be used. Long term other solutions are preferable. Biogas is used a lot in Scandinavia for both electricity/heating and for cars and buses.

[@chitoge7816]

Wow I've had the pumping water idea before and i always thought the energy going through multiple transformation would face so much loss that it wouldn't even be 10% efficient. But they operate at 70-80% and rank among the top methods. And it's already industry-wide standard.

[@Changitojuanito]

“According to Wikipedia” is the way I started my final essay for my undergrad.

[@ghostridersinthesky21]

English is a bitch subject, my absolute least favorite. That is exactly why I majored in STEM

[@GuiSmith]

@@ghostridersinthesky21 As much as I love writing and art, I did the same thing because, while I do want to have artistic endeavours in the future, I don’t hate myself.

[@filip9564]

Wikipedia is the best

[@katevgrady]

English isn't the only subject for which you have to write papers.. I wrote papers for every single subject I took? Including STEM. STEM doesn't save you from doing research and communicating it.

[@dangleason9023]

"Now, are there any dam questions?"

[@cmfgates]

Yeah where's the damn bait

[@coasterfanleo3831]

Can i have a Dam Snack?

[@sreenidhibanda]

Dam yess 😂

[@Luke-jo4to]

Hey, fusion is only 10 years away tho... ^quote from 1980

[@JJs_playground]

No,no.. fusion is always 30 years away. Lol

[@donchristie420]

The Lucas Tomorrow, always tomorrow 😬

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Fusion is eight light minutes away, and has been, for quite a long time.

[@JJs_playground]

@@UncleKennysPlace lol... Nice pun.

[@Lucien86]

The truth about fusion though is that if fusion research had been properly funded we would already have it today already.

[@juliaconnell]

as someone who has traded (i.e. managed) electricity for THE major power generating company in my country (New Zealand) - *you don't need to STORE energy - that's not how the system works* - electricity is generated in real time for real time use - storage is just not feasible. 82% of our total electricity generation as a country is from renewable sources you only need to store enough energy for 'black start' (that's when the _entire_ electricity grid goes down). (and you only need one power station to do that - we had the contract with the organisation that controlled the national grid to do this - never needed to date) when I say THE - 40% of the market - next biggest generating company had 30% of the market (most of their generation was also hydro)(geothermal also in heavy use here) - even smaller players made up the rest. 100% of our power generation was sustainable (not just renewable). All renewable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, wave and tidal power are forms of sustainable energy - but not all renewable energy is sustainable. Renewable energy sources have low environmental impact, widely available and are naturally replenished. Sustainable Energy is one which is able to meet the growing demand of today’s people without compromising the demand of the people that would require it in future. An energy source can be considered as sustainable if it fulfills 3 demands of energy. The energy can be naturally replenished. Technology should improve energy efficiency. The long term availability most of our electricity generation came from hydro - naturally occurring lakes and waterways - same water used through 8 - *8* - power stations. (environmental impact huge part of daily operations and planning) the rest of the electricity generated came from wind. all these sources were managed by - the real time generation controlled by, well a Generation Controller - (strangely enough) - (with specialised computer systems). again, electricity is generated in real time for real time use - storage is just not feasible. many people here have solar heating for their water - and works just fine even though this strange thing called 'night' occurs.

[@NqyNik]

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but your videos send my wife straight to sleep. She loves your voice, she finds it soothing. I love the content, i get the knowledge she gets the much needed sleep... win win. As usual amazing video, so well researched and a joy to watch. Keep em’ coming.

[@egedanr7608]

For the last 3 months, you have probably become the best youtuber in this scientific story-teller area

[@hynjus001]

Not to take away form Joe, but if you haven't encountered him yet, look for Isaac Arthur (SFIA youtube channel).

[@dewiz9596]

FreeGoro But Joe is easier to understand

[@MrGonzonator]

@@hynjus001 Isaac is generally looking far further into the future than Joe, asking the big galaxy-spanning questions rather than concerning himself with down to Earth matters.

[@extropiantranshuman]

Hey, there's room for both. Joe provides the realistic means for the Isaac Arthur future

[@bsjeffrey]

the hot air in washington seems endless. if only we could use it for good,

[@morosis82]

Not just Washington. Political centres of all types could be the answer to all our energy problems.

[@Lucien86]

Sadly politicians of all types are dim bulbs. Not a lot of power there I'm afraid.

[@yuut8434]

5:57 when you tell your dad a very bad joke and he thinks he's supposed to laugh

[@Ta3iapxHs]

You have a good dad. Be happy

[@martiddy]

Joe went from normal person to Joker really quick

[@giordanobruno9106]

3:01 It's not about finding the minimum amount to produce to maximize profits. It's about finding the minimum per product not total production (total production actually increases more than necessary in many cases). Big distinction and clarification and it's part of why this system that you give a thumbs up to is exacerbating the very problems you are struggling to solve.

[@jbj27406]

Years ago, my Dad had a little place up at Smith Mountain Lake. We always marveled at the fact that the lake had daily "tides". The lake would gradually fall about a foot each day, and then miraculously rise back up overnight. We were aware that they were using the lake as a "battery" for electrical storage, but were blown away by the magnitude and scale of what was happening electromechanically each and every day. Still kind of mind blowing.

[@fatoundiaye6338]

He enjoyed that dam talk, i can feel it

[@4Gehe2]

I love how whenever hydro is mentioned in the environmental impacts of flooding big areas with water quickly get brushed aside. Yes. Hydro is AMAZING source of power and energy reservoirs... but it is a major disturbance to the natural ecosystem of an area.

[@VolkerHett]

At least it won't be radioactive for a couple of decades :D

[@shaydza]

Nothing humanity does has no impact to the environment. Best to do less harm than to stay on the current high harm coal mining etc.

[@donfields1234]

@@VolkerHett decades???

[@UTUBESUCK666]

Still far better than burning carbon or millenniums of radioactive waste. To be in line with your thought process, we should petition for the extermination of the human race, which is the real core issue here. No matter what we do, we have a dramatic impact on the environment. Us not being here would truly solve the problem.

[@5000mahmud]

@@VolkerHett Not if you use Gen 4 Reactors

[@StrifeA217]

This is pretty awesome. I'd love to see a video on geothermal heating for a home.

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

More accurately called "ground sourced heat pump". Geothermal is most commonly refers to one of Iceland's energy sources, tapping into volcanoes.

[@donfields1234]

@@CarFreeSegnitz correct

[@dominicfastbender4029]

Half of the time, I live in a place in central Europe where they have streams at almost boiling point. Yet there is very little usage outside of large scale agriculture. It makes no sense at all. Mainly it is a legislative issue.

[@simonfontaine7950]

About the flywheel storage system, you have to see it as the supercapacitors of the powergrid. As you said, their energy density is quite low, but their main advantage is that they can provide huge amount of energy in a very short time without degrading the storage.

[@bearcubdaycare]

I enjoyed the tour of the current state of various energy storage systems. I'm familiar with a pumped storage facility near where I went to university. However, the video frames the problem incorrectly in a few ways, which is important because a friend who edits a renewable energy science journal mentions that any near term storage solutions won't be adequate for 100% renewables, like California has mandated. Wind and solar aren't just temporally variable (intermittency), they're spatially variable, and that's an opportunity. Visualize a weather map of a continent. Somewhere on the continent it's the right speed of wind for power production, and during the day, somewhere it's sunny. An American study showed that wind generated by farms spread over a thousand mile diameter were as reliable as a coal fired utility boiler. (A UK study showed that over a 25 year period, the UK was producing commercial wind power 100% of the time.). And a commercial DC electric line has been carrying electrical power 1000 miles from British Columbia to Los Angeles for decades, with 10 to 20 percent losses, so transmitting electricity that far efficiently is a solved problem. A combination of storage and of transmission from where it's sunny or windy to where the power is needed, is more likely to succeed than storage alone, even with foreseeable improvements in storage. Why rule out overproduction? The costs of solar and wind have been plummeting for a good decade, and continue to drop. The cheapest, most effective solution may be some combination of storage, transmission, overproduction and occasional natural gas.

[@MikeOfNotts]

The British use of wind power is only going to increase massively from here on. When the new larger turbines get to be built that's only going to increase. The turbines stretch out across the sea and over the horizon. They talking about the plan as far back as the nineties. On my street alone, there are solar panels on roofs from one end to the other. We have had national pumped hydro power storage since before I was born. It can be done if you make them do it.

[@p3rtang]

JET uses lead flywheels in order to not destroy the whole grid when starting up the fusion reactor

[@Jonathan-cw4tq]

Tom Verhulst I agree.

[@Basement-Science]

using lead as the flywheel material makes very little sense....

[@p3rtang]

@B. Rippy @Basement ScienceE oh yeah the metal i could be wrong on its been a few years ive been there. I must have remembered totally wrong. But all sources on wikipedia lead to redacted pages from JET so i cant check which type of alloy.

[@j-man72b72]

@@p3rtang Probably steel frame and lead ballast flywheel.

[@Soken50]

@@Basement-Science It is a cheap dense metal so it does make sense, you'd definitely need to encase it in something more rigid though.

[@jeffmathers355]

Hey Joe, I have a question you may find interesting to research: When are humans expected to evolve into a new species? Meaning do scientists agree on a common threshold after which we become homo sapien neosapiens, and have any (reputable) experts speculated about when that may occur? Thanks for the awesome channel!

[@aurelias9539]

Jeff Mathers I read ppl think autism is the next step in brain development i.e. Wrre getting less able to communicate with each other less trapped in our own brains

[@matheussanthiago9685]

not joe, not a scientist either, but I could guess we won't the advent of modern medicine messed up with our species' ability to adapt in response to environmental pressure, we no longer need to be born fit to survive naturally until reproducing age in order to pass on our genes and while that's obviously great at the individual level, our right to live is no longer determined by random odds it also means the 'drive force' of evolution, natural selection, is no longer affecting us as much as it used to and while yes, there are other 'forces' that also play a role in the gradual change of a population that can potentially lead to speciation (which is the arbitrary line we draw to say one group of a population have become a new one: when the individuals can no longer produce a fertile offspring), like sexual selection for instance all of them, just as natural selection, do operate on the scale of dozens to hundreds of generations before speciation can occur and in the past dozen of generations of our species, we've more then doubled our life expectancy due to modern medicine, among many other factors our 'man-made change' operates lot faster then evolution, so if we ever 'became another species', my bet is that it'll rather be through our own doing and not standard natural speciation that has putted us on this world ps: sorry the bad english, and the lack of sources, I'm just procrastinating

[@bernadettestar]

Maybe we're just going to have to go with intelligent design and accept that life adapts but it doesn't evolve.

[@Melthornal]

You forgot the most powerful energy source of all: angry billionaires scared of paying taxes.

[@Melthornal]

Christian incorrect

[@Melthornal]

Christian because its a world renowned source of energy

[@Melthornal]

Christian you clearly dont know what boomer means. generally speaking you should only use a word if you know what it means because when you misuse words you look really dumb and people make fun of you behind your back.

[@Melthornal]

Christian Tell that to the billionaires who spend 95% of their waking hours thinking of ways to avoid paying taxes.

[@FagOfTheForest]

This is the best comment I've ever seen

[@tyleroconnellt]

@12:19 The Horndale power reserve in South Australia was a 129 MWH power reserve with a max power output of 100 MW, it is worth noting that in November 2019 this power system was upgraded to 195 MWH storage with a max output power delivery of 150 MW! I love your channel @Joe Scott :D

[@gregseward3897]

I have learned something that Joe imparted that made me think that not everyone is oblivious about the facts it is very refreshing. Always anticipate you're next project keep up the good work.subscribed.

[@Mariuspersem]

Compressing large amounts of hydrogen underground sounds like a giant explosion waiting to happen

[@francisboyle1739]

Yeah, but you could always just blame the other guy.

[@romenxgames1239]

It would need oxygen to explode

[@Flomes]

There is actually no safer place than "underground" for storing explosive things, first of all the ambient conditions are more stable and controllable and maybe more importantly the scary things are deep and far from humans

[@AnalystPrime]

Even if some H2 managed to leak out, it is not going to find enough oxygen to explode with unless someone decided to store O2 down there. Of more concern is if whoever is running the place decides to go overboard with the compressed air storage, as eventually the rock would give out and apparently Romans used that as a mining tool: Dig a tunnel sloping down, then a shaft up and a chamber in the middle of a mountain they want to remove. Then you let a lake empty into the tunnel, filling it so that the water pushes the air into the chamber, where it can't get out. Eventually the pressure rose so much the mountain cracked open. Spain used to have more mountains but they had gold in them that Romans wanted...

[@haliax8149]

Why does everybody want hydrogen storage? Just generate a more dense, stable compound for christ's sake. Methanol is an obvious option.

[@BloodAsp]

12:36 Yes, FBI ?! Hello, just here to report Joe Scott saying, "Utility scale battery facilities are going to explode in the next several years." I suspect he may be the ringleader. *edit, forgot a quotation mark. *edit two, I see I am not the first to point this out. XD Exceptional choice of words.

[@modernkennnern]

4:55 - I did not expect that! xD

[@Flyguy779]

dam...

[@robinsuj]

Ah, the English language, such a beautiful beast.

[@samanjj]

Dam this and dam that dam it all!

[@sliii9163]

Joe! I love the new format/product/layout/educational time length. Awesome!!!

[@extropiantranshuman]

Thanks for giving us the low down really quickly so people who want to talk my head off to try to sound smart to impress me end up allowing to get annoyed by them instead, so I don't get my ear chewed off. I'm really thankful for that, even though it's past thanksgiving. It's ok to be late to the party lol

[@bitebetsy]

I'm happy to see - though we are still lacking so much - we have come so far, and so many good ideas have been discovered and utilized - especially by the Energy Sector, along with governments! It is almost as if - someone has begun to realize that there are no profits to be obtained by an extincted civilization!

[@christianpattison8238]

Awesome video Joe thanks , a small pumped hydro has just been completed on the water supply dam for Brisbane QLD , sad thing stupid government has hardly said a word about it

[@markumbers5362]

Shhh the coal lobby will find out and then they would have to blow it up.

[@danieljensen2626]

Joe: "These are all the best methods for storing energy on a large scale." Advanced Rail Energy Storage: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@sth128]

ARES is basically the same as the potential energy mass storage system Joe talked about with the mine shafts. Except less efficient and more visible and exposed to the elements and idiots who throw shit in the way. Also much like the mine shafts, completely dependent on there being elevation change / mine shafts near by. Battery is the only realistic way forward. It has the smallest footprint and least likely to explode. Compressed air is basically fracking but with higher pressures. Any mass-driven storage is basically a potential natural disaster (floods, train derailment, snapping cables, etc.). Hydrogen meanwhile is just inefficient and basically combustion. Oxidation is combustion.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

It's less efficient than any of the systems mentioned because of rail friction, less scaleable and the3 amount of energy stored is tiny compared to the amount of land needed.

[@danieljensen2626]

Sure, I'm just surprised he didn't mention it.

[@craigcorson3036]

@@sth128 "Any mass-driven storage is basically a potential natural disaster" There's nothing natural about such energy storage methods. Potential disaster? Surely. Natural, nuh-uh.

[@AndreasStanglPlus]

Welcome Gravity Storage. heindl-energy.com/ There are so many of those, he just can't mention all of them.

[@gaeb-hd4lf]

Men what an underrated channel, awesome content and delivery!

[@jgedutis]

13:58 If we used flow batteries in cars, would we be able to go to a flow station and pump positive and negative fluid just like gas for a quick turn around?

[@Dinitroflurbenzol]

Not usable in a propiarity system. ever wondered, why there is no standard with plugs in evs? +your stuff will end up in the hand of a competitor +spacious +heavy onside, with short distances and in ex-areas would been a market, but swapable batteries / vehicles already exist for that role (seen with forklifts in a chemical plant)

[@FlatOutFE]

Why are people who have issues with the viability of wind and solar labeled as "anti-green"?

[@markcastellanet9672]

They usually are.

[@AsIsStuff]

Cos doing math is evil, while worshipping is, what makes a really nice person.

[@gladonos3384]

@@markcastellanet9672 No, they are what you call realistic.

[@morosis82]

Because they usually use worn out arguments that have been debunked. Ergo they are ignorant, and just spouting shit because they are anti-green. This is an engineering issue, if we can propulsively land rockets we can make a grid work with intermittent power production. What we lack is the political will to solve it.

[@markcastellanet9672]

@@gladonos3384 no, they usually value business and greed over the environment. Coal and oil would struggle to compete with renewables if not for government subsidies. I don't see how that is practical. This is coming from someone that has accepted the short comings of renewables because of the storage issues.

[@wadetisthammer3612]

5:57. Joe's maniacal laugh. You're welcome. 😆

[@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis]

Thanks!

[@elyakimlev]

12:14 Tesla installed 100 MWh of power packs not 100 GWh... I wish.

[@sumbody694]

I kept hoping you would talk about flywheel storage and you did not disappoint me. The first time i heard about this method my first reaction was that I brought this up years ago when I found out about regenerative braking. Thank you for the interesting video.

[@TheMarrethiel]

The Adelaide battery has been awesome in smoothing out the flow of electricity. It reacts faster than a power plant can, which means that it gets to sell the high cost power. Then if renewables arent available it tops up with cheaper low demand coal based power. It is apparently so good at this that at first it wasn't getting all the revenue it could have until systems were put in place.

[@ondrejmelich8927]

Australia is 100 MW Battery. Not 100 Gigawatt one :)

[@VolkerHett]

And with a 90.6 million investment it earned 30 million in its first year. There'll be a nice profit from 2021 on. Yeah! Capitalism!

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@VolkerHett That's what we need to convince the Deniosaurs of. Once they realise we won't stand for their current pollution, but they can (unfortunately) continue to make *more* profit from green solutions, maybe even they will change?

[@RubenKelevra]

You missed a really cool one: *Pumped hydro with concrete half spheres under water* - lakes or in the sea. When there's excess power a pump will remove the water, leaving just a vacuum with some steam behind. When you need power, the water will rush into the vacuum chamber again. A 30 meter diameter half sphere in 700 meter depth can store 20 MWh of energy with an efficiency between 75 and 80%. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelpumpspeicher

[@_aullik]

you can link the English one. and its not half speres, its full spheres en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Energy_at_Sea They store about 66 GJ with an energy density of 4.67 MJ/m³ which is about twice as good as a battery. The biggest advantage being that it can store energy for a long time. However as you can see in the wiki article you wont make a lot of money from it, specially if you use it as a long time storage. And this is the main problem with most storage solutions. We won't solve the storage problem until there is some redistribution tax on electricity that helps paying for storage.

[@FabiWann]

We need more nuclear energy. And transition to Thorium based nuclear.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

When will that be? 5? 10? 20 years?

[@dongiovanni4331]

@@rogerstarkey5390 gen 3+ have been built today. We just need to expel the NIMBYs

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@dongiovanni4331 Where have they been built? How long will the program take? Will YOU allow one in YOUR back yard?

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@dongiovanni4331 Ok, do you mean EPR's, or MSR's? It seems there are 4 EPR's "working", but not at full capacity The EPR's *being* built are experiencing problems, delays, cost overturns and will produce expensive energy (as discussed). Molten salt reactors? None. No designs even approved. They won't be ready in time. Some consider them problematic, possibly dangerous.

[@dongiovanni4331]

@@rogerstarkey5390 Yes, yes I would. There are also several Chinese adaptations to the AP 1000 operating. The trick is good project management and serial production.

[@cjannack]

The Picture of the pumped hydro plant at 6:05 is the Herdecke plant in Germany. Guess what: On the white spot right to the big building are today three 40-ft shipping containers containing EV-batteries for 7,6 MW and 7,8 MWh of storage (Either the picture is old, or the white spot are these containers mashed into pixel jam...). Since a pumped hydro plant can only react to frequency drops within minutes, these storage units can bridge the gap reacting within milliseconds. This is actually a cool combination of a variety of storage methods mutually overcoming disadvantages of both.

[@MrWeebster]

Really nice video but I got a question about the hydrogen storage. If it ever had a leak wouldn't it make a huge cavern full of explosive gas? I know that it would have to have a ratio of oxygen to hydrogen to explode but still wouldn't any small leak make it mix with air and get that ratio?

[@davidnichols5429]

I like the idea of each home having solar energy systems placed on their roofs.

[@MikeOfNotts]

We get a lot of that. Our government provides grants to get it for free. Additional charges are taken out of the saving in electricity..

[@bearcatben4762]

then when the dip happens and no one needs the power given all that electricity is wasted

[@jonathanbane4884]

@@bearcatben4762 All the solar energy we don't collect gets wasted anyways though...

[@bearcatben4762]

@@jonathanbane4884 yep but that doesn't cost 40 dollars per square foot and won't wear out in 40 years

[@mrjgrothe]

So where do solid state batteries fit into this. Thats only 6 or 7 years away according to you. Low cost and sodium from the ocean is more abundant than that metal

[@MrVelociraptor75]

Solid state batteries just improve upon the energy density of our current best, of Li-Ion, through its various advantages*. This means we should see vast improvements in portable technologies, EVs and plausibly enable things like long-haul Electric Aircraft. Depending on how cost effective the tech is - I wouldn't expect it to directly** play a large role in grid-scale energy storage, as, similar to Li-Ion, the strengths lie in weight and size reduction. The grid doesn't really need that, per se. (size and weight are fairly unimportant when you're storing things underground or in a field. Storage/discharge times and return of investment are.) I do expect other battery and storage technologies to play a larger role there, eventually (Li-ion is very cost effective atm, because we have spent a lot of effort making it so, as it's necessary for so much more) * - Solid state batteries have a better ratio of active ingredients, so, more of the battery is "doing battery things" for its weight. There are theoretically other advantages, like faster dis/charge, no flammable liquids and such, but that will be determined by the final products (as opposed to laboratory examples) ** - I say "directly" because I'm a HUGE believer in Vehicle 2 Grid tech and the important role it will play in the future energy mix. It's basically mandatory for renewable uptake imo

[@marcuscicero5033]

Where's my shoutout to Mr. Goodenough in this video?

[@Jo-Jo8vs]

some comments. 1. Pumped hydropower, the transformation loss is about 20 to 25%, in addition, you need a lot of space and it also costs quite a lot, as you also mentioned within your vid. So maybe in US it could work, but in smaller esp. flat countries not really. So only for Germany (I'm for there), we would need more than 400 big ones, costs about 500 Billion EURO. We currently have 13 and already run out of space to build new ones. 2. As you mentioned, but in addition, together with pressed air, it could cause massive problems with the ground stability up to earthquakes. 3. All storage is common that they are more or less expensive and often currently in a pilot phase. So we need costs decline and larger scales. 4. Battery isn't such a good idea despite that they would min. double the engery prices easly. 5. Some of this storage we must consider a more or less risk for serious damage when something went wrong. Have you ever seen a Batterie of an E-Car burning? Its' going up to 2000 Celsius. 6. Overalls my current best guess is that it will take min. 1 decade to bring technology to a state where we are able to install it in larger scales we need to an acceptable cost. And another decade or even two, to install them in our countries. As you mentioned we really need a lot of this kind of storage. Maybe we have fusion power at that time as well.

[@BrightestBlessings7899]

I am so excited to get our first solar panels. My hubby and I have been very discussing harnessing the wind! Intermittent heat is from wood. Hands down best heat!

[@mahadaalvi]

Just use the mitochondria 🙄 Y'all know what it does 😎

[@robinsuj]

Powerhousing the cell?

[@NuclearTopSpot]

Narrow the cause of the well?

[@cerebralm]

flower mouse in hell?

[@rymc420]

That powder has a lovely smell?

[@eidolor]

Shower less and wipe with a shell?

[@StanleyOrchard]

Another dam-fine video sir. Pumping the water of knowledge through the floodgates of stupidity once again.

[@CapinCooke]

Stanley Orchard ... Dam-fine comment there, Stanley 😂.

[@StanleyOrchard]

@@CapinCooke lol

[@TheAknok]

I missed molten salt storage when you talked about solar farms

[@RandomGuy-nm6bm]

Was featured tho

[@MrVelociraptor75]

Yeah, he skipped over Thermal Energy Storage very briefly. I believe they had been trialed previously in the States, to no real success, so there's possibly a bit of a stigma there for them. There is a couple of Australian companies developing improved versions of these. The one I'm most familiar with (only heard about the other recently) is "1414 degrees". They store heat in a silicon medium at much higher temperatures to the previous generations (1414deg C as opposed to 600ish) so contain a much better usable temperature range, thus, much higher energy density (and other advantages) One of their trial plants is going to be a Solar Thermal Tower, currently in construction. Should be interesting to see the results, as I believe it has a lot of merit.

[@interferon4800]

Whenever there are mismatches between supply and demand, such as shortages, it means something is preventing market mechanisms from working correctly. In this case, the regulators aren't allowing a large enough price difference between peak usage and low usage times. There will always be some level of price difference that will incentivize end users to shift their usage patterns to match supply, or purchase energy storage to save money for themselves.

[@procrastinator41]

Mechanical > Chemical ? The mechanical systems (Flywheels, gravity, pumped hydro) seem superior ? 🔹Relatively inexpensive, Off the shelf technologies we can build now. 🔹much greater system longevity 🔹safer 🔹 less poisonous chemicals

[@prateekrajput3436]

5:57 most evil laugh ever

[@kornbread5359]

phoenixx force funniest laugh ive ever heard

[@Bgrosz1]

Early on you say "anti-green people always say something like this..." When they are making correct points. They aren't anti-green, they are pragmatic. I don't know anyone that wouldn't love a safe, cheap, abundant, always available, renewable and zero emission energy source. Nuclear checks almost every box but that isn't good enough for the pro-green crowd. Checking all those boxes is incredibly difficult. Recognizing that doesn't make someone "anti-green".

[@alekzamonski1179]

Bryon Grosz I know someone that would hate a safe cheap abundant available renewable energy, anyone in the coal or oil industry, and unfortunately they have a lot more power than scientists who know what we need

[@markleyg]

We won't destroy the planet, just us so nothing to worry about.

[@Chobaca]

Dude we're killing speicies at at least twice the rate of any other mass extinction all ready!

[@treasurehunter3744]

@@Chobaca If you discount islands, the number of species humans have exterminated since 1500 is... 9

[@Chobaca]

@@treasurehunter3744 wrong

[@treasurehunter3744]

@@Chobaca I did say excluding islands. Rats and snakes we carried with us did ravage island species and kill hundreds of species for those islands. But human caused extinction has only taken 9 species on large land masses. While we are on the topic, I'd say human life is more valuable than other species anyway, but it's important to conserve ecosystems while we are still connected causally with them.

[@Chobaca]

@@treasurehunter3744 your wrong.

[@eddydogleg]

I've worked drilling wells since 1979 and have worked on about 10 wells that were used for gas storage. These wells are no way as easy a Joe makes it sound like they are. Your best bet for a gas storage cavern is to set casing in a salt formation then use fresh water to dissolve the salt.

[@etienneguerou2016]

5:12 Picture is Osaka, Dotonbori Canal. Very nice place and fantastic restaurants there.

[@afallingtree9114]

"renewable kinda suck" *objects in New Zealand*

[@generalharness8266]

You need to check how much we produce in NZ. We could have done it but we have geothermal and renewable plants where scaled back about 30-40 years ago as gas was just so much cheaper. New Zealand is no longer Clean as it was just so much cheaper to pollute it

[@afallingtree9114]

General Harness yeah I know, it’s unfortunate that we didn’t pursue renewables further but then again NZ isn’t the wealthiest country due to it not being much more than a tourist destination.

[@afallingtree9114]

Brian Henry how so?

[@Franklyhesaid]

5:55 best laugh ever

[@michaelhowell2326]

The best thing ever said by Joe: the planet is not going to be destroyed.

[@ronnetgrazer362]

Best look is the one he gave after he said it. 3:30

[@Humbulla93]

3 things i want to point out 1. if you compress air it gets hot and if you relieve the pressure it gets cold because the molecules draw heat from the surrounding area to get moving, and it gets so cold that it would freeze the turbine 2. LOHC (Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier) is the most promising Hydrogen storage because it isnt flamable and the existing infrastructure (Pipelines, Gas Stations) can be used so this is a huge saving monetarily and ecologically wise. 3. the gravity battery has a problem with its own weight of the cables reducing its efficency but with some cool nanocarbon cables this problem might be solved

[@Eyedunno]

I think the most exciting ones are the liquid metal battery (because it's cheap, safe, and lasts basically forever) and Eduard Heindl's gravity storage. Heindl's concept is different from the one in this video in that it uses ginormous (100-250m radius) hydraulic pistons excavated out of the bedrock and sealed with cement on the outer surfaces, with a rolling seal between the outer wall and the piston. There are two advantages to this concept: 1) a doubling of radius increases the capital costs by 4X but increases the storage capacity by 16X, meaning much lower costs as you scale up; 2) you can use existing pumped hydro equipment but without needing any elevation differences; and 3) it's much more robust than a cable-based solution--cables wear out fast when they're constantly raising and lowering tons of weight, but water never wears out.

[@mikes6281]

You’re gonna need huge storage facilities and lots of them.

[@thefinder8087]

No u

[@IntrepidFraidyCat]

0:41 So funny!

[@leslawangelo]

hydrogen is a good idea until you realize that it likes to go BOOM

[@johnpossum556]

There have been hydrogen cars for more than 20 years now. BTW hydrogen explosions are not very dangerous overall because its so light whereas propane will sink and surround you then burn up from there. Hydrogen is already escaping and trying to escape higher. Hydrogen is really where the future of energy lies. The only issue is making the supply chain. Hopefully the oil companies will see this and step in. They're sure hurting now.

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Only goes boom in the presence of oxygen and an ignition source.

[@12201185234]

So does natural gas, propane, oxygen, etc. We've been safely storing compressed explody gasses for a long time now.

[@LG123ABC]

That's what makes it a good fuel. ALL good fuels like to go BOOM.

[@12201185234]

@@johnpossum556 The issue is the energy it takes to generate the hydrogen in the first place. Electrolysis isn't very efficient. You still end up with the question of how to produce that hydrogen. I agree with you that fuel cells are far superior to Li-ion batteries for things like cars. I'm all about 4th generation nuclear for electricity production.

[@philippesantini2425]

Thanks Joe, for yet again, another very informative, humorous & seamless production. I like how Joe acknowledges the negative aspects of reality yet focuses more on the positive, solution based perspectives...instead of an alarmist approach. It's much more inspiring. I follow independent journalists(Grayzone & others) for my news thus I am already alarmed. Joe's approach helps me to find balance & not act like a headless chicken. Way to go, Joe! \0/

[@rancidbeef582]

Nuclear. Not the old school pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors, but some of the newer designs that are virtually impossible to melt down and leave very little waste. Hell, some of them can BURN the waste in our current stock pile.

[@AndDiracisHisProphet]

No,not alle the waste. Only possibly depleted uranium

[@rancidbeef582]

@@AndDiracisHisProphet My understanding is that once you recycle the U-238 and Pu, you are left with fission products that have a much shorter half-life (on the order of hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands of years), making long-term storage of the remainder much more viable. And the thorium cycle might be even better than U-Pu with regard to waste and proliferation concerns.

[@AndDiracisHisProphet]

​@@rancidbeef582 well, shorter that U238 for sure, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. but not "only" hundreds of years. there is a debate whether thorium is better or worse than uranium regarding proliferation. U233 (the fissile material made out of thorium which is in itself not fissile) is easier to track than U235 might be harder to sneak away for small terrorist groups. But it is easier to fish out of the cycle on a larger scale which makes nuclear weapons easier to mass produce for industrial nations. in short most of the advantages brought forward by the thorium crowd are at least highly exaggerated and often there are outright lies.

[@2g00dt0btru]

We don’t NEED to see them grow. We could be running safe, clean, and cheap nuclear power like France decided to do decades ago. If we standardized our nuclear design and used economies of scale to realize cost advantages, we could meet our demand with no carbon emissions and no new breakthroughs. The USA (and most of the world) does nuclear power very wrong by making a new nuclear plant every time we build one

[@gingeetheginge6071]

All this talk of solar, fossil and hydro. I just wanna fuse

[@harryiii3361]

Solar is fusion sort of

[@LordSlag]

Weight goes up, weight goes down...YOU CAN"T EXPLAIN THAT!

[@hooplehead1019]

Nice one!

[@AdamSchaumberg]

Yesterday my son asked me, 'What if there wasn't fire?' It made me think about all the things we can do by simply burning things... this video was very timely.

[@MrWildbill]

Most of those will never make it mainstream or will have limited applications where conditions are perfect. He throws around big numbers, which is great, but he does not put them into perspective as far as alternative energy production and/or storage. While renewables are at 30% now and we'll likely see that grow substantially it will likely peak in the 50-60% range. The real alternative is nuclear and while fission has many drawbacks as we saw in Japan and Russia we likely will have no choice since fusion is perpetually 25 years in the future. Nuclear fission is probably going to be to next "big" power explosion once we tap out solar and demand exceeds it.

[@12201185234]

*M O L T E N S A L T R E A C T O R S*

[@dominicfastbender4029]

I second this. It is ridiculous that we are not already doing this en masse.

[@12201185234]

@@dominicfastbender4029 It makes me want to pull my hair out. We had a functioning MSR in the 1960's. The only reason why we went with pressurized water reactors is because they are able to produce large quantities of weapons-grade material. And now the public is so gun-shy about anything "nuclear" that it's nearly impossible to break through the hysterics to get people to understand the inherent safety of MSR designs when compared to PWRs.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

*TWENTY YEARS TO PERFECT AND BUILD* We're out of TIME!

[@kallehalvarsson5808]

It's not like TMSRs are a perfect solution that and nobody has simply thought of this, there are numerous challenges to overcome for this technology to become viable. Firstly, you need *highly* enriched uranium (U235) to kick-start the reaction, which is expensive. Once started, it could theoretically run solely on Thorium - but this is hard to achieve, and in practice you usually need to add Plutonium to sustain the reaction, which mitigates many advantages. The process of melting and mixing the Thorium with fluoride salts is also much more expensive than creating Uranium fuel rods, and this mixture is highly corrosive, which poses issues with reactor degradation. It is certainly a promising option, but the thing is, even if we invested in this, the research and construction times could take upwards to 20-30 years, which might not be fast enough. vittana.org/16-big-thorium-reactor-pros-and-cons

[@12201185234]

@@kallehalvarsson5808 You know that MSRs don't have to be run on thorium, right? Uranium works just as well. I'm okay with modern LWRs too, honestly. I just see nuclear as the only viable option in the long run. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be using solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. We absolutely should. But hydro and geothermal aren't viable everywhere. Solar and wind are great *supplemental* sources, which can supply the majority of the load in many circumstances. But nuclear is great for on-demand generation. As for the U-235, well we have quite a bit which is readily available, as we have decommissioned what, a couple of thousand warheads at this point?

[@ianvandeventer196]

We could just wait another 20 years for fusion 🤣🤣

[@MrVelociraptor75]

That's a statement of the Human condition, if I've ever heard one ;)

[@johnwang9914]

How many billions have been invested in fusion, how many decades have we be researching fusion. Fusion is all marketing for basic research. The fusion in the Sun only occurs in the core and the energy production of the Sun's core is 300 watts per cubic meter, about the energy production of a hot compost pile. If we do manage to reach the holy grail of the Sun's stable sustained fusion, we would just have the energy production of an equivalent pile of garbage. Look up fusion in the Sun's core if you don't believe me. Now, we know from fusion bombs that a lot of energy can be released quickly if safety was not a concern but nothing says that a reasonable balance between safety and energy production could be found to meet the dream of safe civilian fusion power. The other thing is that liquid fluoride thorium fission reactors would actually bring use safe plentiful inexpensive nuclear energy which would actually consume our existing stores of nuclear wastes and would cost a fraction of the cost of these experimental fusion reactors. If all you wanted was safe, plentiful, inexpensive civilian nuclear power, fusion would not be the best choice. Note that the molten salt part of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor has been proven at Oakridge National Labs so we know the technology will work.

[@dansanger5340]

A large percentage of household energy use is for heating water. And, every water heater with a tank is an energy storage device that can be used to reduce load during periods of high electricity demand.

[@dreamxcviii3249]

That "Gravity Battery" is honestly the most ingenious thing I saw in this whole video, it's so simplistic and simple I'm actually very shocked I haven't thought of it before let alone people a hundred years ago, that seems like it would've been one of the first sources of nocturnal power to ever arise in history yet it hasn't, at this point I think we've moved past the stage where that would be useful to powering our large scale civilization or even the consumer market but I'm shocked that that wasn't one of the first primitive steps to getting us where we are today, very fascinating

[@coprophob907]

17:19 The 2020 battery study by the IEA states that by 2040, "nearly 10 000 GWh of batteries and other storage will be required to meet demand across all sectors." That is quite the jump!

[@BrokenMedic]

At work we have a few concept ambulance that use solar and I was assigned one. We “post” in parking lots around the city and normally the unit would just run to heat and cool the rig. This would keep the batteries that also charge the batteries that run the box and lights. With solar we could shut off the unit and we can run things from battery and if the solar could not keep up for what ever reason the rig would restart on its own and shut off when it could. It was cool to be apart of the concept.

[@guygrotke7476]

There is tremendous potential for storing "low-quality" energy. This means thermal energy that is not hot enough to turn turbines. Like backyard thermal solar panels, to heat all your water and provide a baseline of home heating. I live in Southern California, and a large percentage of our household electricity usage is for hot water and heating during the winter months. But in winter, we usually have clear skies so we could store heat and then use it at night.

[@billsprague7094]

It is important to understand that when we talk about energy storage, we are really talking about 2 different types, short term and long term. Short term is measured in hours. Long term is days or weeks. Long term is what is needed when the wind does not blow or solar conditions are suboptimal for an extended period. High capacity/low cost grid size storage does not exist today. This cost is not in LCOE and leads to misleading conclusions that renewables can compete with fossil fuels. The truth is they cannot, and by a wide margin. The other problem with love is that it does not include the infrastructure cost to get the power to my house. Renewable requires huge acreage for wind and solar farms, with will be further away from the consumption than fossil fuels. The measurement that is missing from LCOE is the percent reliability. LCOE is based upon assumptions of average weather. Weather is never average. Fossil fuel is low cost high reliability. Renewable is high cost low reliability. The cost to achieve equal reliability with fossil fuels needs to be included to have an accurate cost comparison.

[@Cerevisi]

Oh! I have an idea for power storage, tidal stored power for coastal towns and cities. basically all you need is a half circle shaped installation of rotating slats that are open as the tide comes in and close at high tide and then a central (middle tower of the semi-circle) turbine can be driven with the captured water... power, from the moon! Slat movement can be wind turbine driven since coastal regions tend to get windy from temperature differential. I have yet to build the 3.6 million dollar proof of concept, but the math checks out.

[@Leopold5100]

Joe, took up your suggestion and subscribed to CuriosityStream and Nebula and just wanted to say "WOW, you weren't just doing a sales speel, fantastic value for such a meagre amount" Love your 'answers with Joe' on the complementary NEBULA site as well. how can there be 347 down votes for this fantastic presentation ?????