The BIGGEST problem with clean energy

[@physicsgirl]

There are so many more discussions to be had around paths to using 100% renewable energy sources. I imagine some of you might suggest regulation or incentives for using energy when it’s most available to fix the supply and demand issue, i.e. the “duck curve.” Some municipalities already do this, and it works to an extent! Consider though, a supply like wind - the unpredictability makes it hard to exactly match the demand schedule to the supply. Another solution is to add other sources of energy that are more consistently available, like waves, and nuclear fission/fusion. (We actually visited a company looking into a wave energy technology!) I’d love to make more videos on these technologies, but we decided to focus this video specifically on energy storage technologies emerging as a solution to the Duck Problem.

[@monk9008]

Hey

[@Sgh589-h1z]

🖐️

[@localtitans4166]

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

[@westonding8953]

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

[@kalvindeane1]

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?

[@Libero6]

"Many juices for many uses" needs to be on your merch

[@randybobandy9828]

No

[@Libero6]

@@randybobandy9828 Yes

[@k98killer]

Christian teenage boys are gonna have difficulty with that one.

[@Libero6]

@@michagabo8819 wut

[@prototype8137]

You need a woman.

[@Benisuber1]

I researched "Grid Level Energy Storage" in 2014 for my chemical engineering design class my senior year of college. I remembered a few of the storage options presented in this video, but I was actually able to find the presentation and it's interesting to me how it matches up 7 years later. Our criteria, in order of weight, were as follows. 30% - Longevity of the battery, targeting 25+ years, or ~10,000 charge cycles, of useable life and weatherability 30% - Performance, targeting 90% energy efficiency with high energy-density, ideally as good or better than Li-ion 250 Wh/kg, and ability to store up to 500 MWh of electricity (to replace the avg coal plant) 20% - Toxicity of the materials used in the energy storage- this is probably the weakest criteria in the presentation 10% - Infrastructure required to make/use the energy 10% - Cost of storage method in $/kWh The most promising energy storage we found via these criteria was a liquid metal battery. From our research we found they would last conservatively for 15+ years, have up to 90% energy efficiency with around 200 Wh/kg energy density, plentiful and (relatively) low toxicity elements Magnesium and Antimony (generally any 2 metals with different densities), and a projected cost of ~$50/kWh once production is in full swing. Nice to see that one of our sources at the time, Ambri, is still chugging along and making their batteries. ambri.com/technology/ Next best in our estimation was 'pump-storage', which as Dianna has thoroughly described it is widely used, has good efficiency and makes use of existing geographies to store energy, but the downfalls are that there's not much room to expand and there is a high capital cost to create more storage of this type. 3rd was the Vanadium flow battery, which again I don't need to rehash since the video has the same conclusions our group came to. Easier to scale than Li-ion, but otherwise not much of an improvement. Last in our estimation was scaling Li-ion batteries to grid-level energy storage. The safety concerns along with limited availability of Lithium create the need for other sources. One interesting addendum to the project was a zinc-air battery that was in early stages of research in NYC. This was essentially zinc cells in a shipping container, which was a funny picture to me. www.aiche.org/chenected/2014/07/testing-zinc-air-battery-storage-new-york-city-grid Seems like this idea (metal-air) is still being innovated 7 years later. www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/worlds-cheapest-energy-storage-will-be-an-iron-air-battery-says-jeff-bezos-backed-start-up/2-1-1044174 Anyway, this was an awesome video and it allowed me to reminisce on a project I was very passionate about 7 years ago. Maybe its time to rekindle that passion...

[@forlornendeavor9183]

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

[@darioadrianz]

Good data! 📝

[@Tom89194]

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.

[@5353Jumper]

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?

[@charliedoyle7824]

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.

[@thepropertyelves]

What we have to realize is that there are MANY options and we don't need just 1 solution. We need the solutions that work best in whatever area. As long as the energy is renewable it's great.

[@georgevue8175]

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?

[@GamePois0n]

@@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.

[@MrWhiteVzla]

I don't know if Diana will ever read this, but I still want to express my admiration and joy to her. I remember finding her channel ages ago thanks to ViHart. The Physics Girl channel only had a handful of subscribers and a couple of videos with low views. After watching one video, I loved her content and expressed my wishes for her to get more attention. Now, she is working with Toyota after her stint with PBS, and it's been a pleasure to watch her grow. I think my favourite part, and why have supporter her at different capacities throughout the years, is that her message hasn't changed. She is still trying to explain things, and show that science is a fun endeavour where being wrong is ok and not knowing something means an opportunity to learn and grow. Thank you Diana. When it comes to me, I can say that you affected my life in a positive way. I wish you many more years of success and growth!

[@jameskolan9195]

In our rural district we have frequent power outages due to bad weather. We will soon have a system in place to store water in two man-made lakes which will be released to create power for the area when the lines are down. The water will be released when the main line electricity is out and then pumped back up from a lake below using solar power. Nice solution for an area with lots of water and lots of outages.

[@tojo.3]

I am in college right now learning about energy storage and I just HAVE to let you know; Diana you are amazing!!!!

[@ahblooloo8639]

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.

[@hitreset0291]

@@ahblooloo8639 hi troll.

[@beactivebehappy9894]

@@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

[@davidpowell8249]

@@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.

[@davidpowell8249]

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.

[@tmrogers87]

This series is really cool and has helped me understand energy challenges in a much more tangible way, thanks!

[@SupremeRuleroftheWorld]

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.

[@tmrogers87]

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

[@SupremeRuleroftheWorld]

@@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.

[@sch1sm115]

'Not sure they've ever seen a duck' 😂😂😂

[@benoithudson7235]

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

[@55Ramius]

Yes, that made me laugh. : )

[@jgv4945]

Not sure you have ever heard something funny.

[@sch1sm115]

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

[@christophersmith3216]

Just like the astronomers when it comes to naming constellations

[@JesudeGannes]

I think if Nuclear energy is developed properly, there'll be far less need to develop storage. Also, there'll be a massive excess of energy in the form of heat and electricity available, no need to focus on efficiency or worry about storage capacity limiting use. I could be wrong, but I feel like there is massive potential there.

[@SrikarMaddula]

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.

[@ElPsyKongroo]

@@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

[@dnocturn84]

@@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.

[@ElPsyKongroo]

@@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

[@solandri69]

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).

[@flagmichael]

You have hit the nail on the head! An underappreciated aspect to "on demand" energy in bulk electric power is grid stability. We tend to think of blackouts being the result of insufficient generation, but virtually every blackout is the result of instability. The rise of "remedial action schemes" is a big plus but it is not magic. Historically, automatic grid controls were disconnections to prevent damage to equipment; the concept is that the safest state is "all fall down." Now it is about surgically disconnecting sources of instability. (Recently retired from a Fortune 100 electric company as an IT field tech with emphasis on energy delivery.)

[@darthmoomoo]

1:48 "Supply of lithium is supposed to run out by 2080". [citations needed]. lithium is the 25th most abundant element on Earth. The total lithium content of seawater is 230 billion tonnes. Newer methods of extraction will soon make all of this readily accessible. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial

[@lesliefranklin1870]

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

[@SeanLinsley]

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)

[@TheScarnak]

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.

[@SeanLinsley]

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

[@TheScarnak]

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

[@mcdon2401]

Tom Scott released a video in the last few days showing similar problems in the Orkney Islands. With all the different tech being tested, there's far more supply than demand most of the time, and the interconnect to the main grid is nowhere near robust enough to export all of it. Nobody wants to upgrade the interconnect unless they can be guaranteed to increase the amount of energy produced, but nobody will commit without the upgrade being done 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@SrikarMaddula]

Bureaucrats as usual.

[@sietuuba]

@@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.

[@BlahVideosBlahBlah]

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.

[@garethbaus5471]

@@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.

[@kenhensch3996]

@@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.

[@mencken8]

At least here’s a video talking about this subject from the correct angle: there is plenty of energy, we just lack effective ways to store what is generated.

[@autohmae]

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

[@LeDuckDuckGoose]

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.

[@rauminen4167]

.... 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.

[@Tore_Lund]

@@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..

[@autohmae]

@@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.

[@michaelpullinger]

Great video as always. From someone in the industry, I have one minor comment though - pumped storage hydro still has a lot of room for growth. There are lots of potential sites still available, and opportunities are not nearly as limited as traditional hydropower. With newer concepts such as “closed loop”, the environmental footprint is decreasing. It is only one of many options, but it’s still one of the cheapest for very long duration storage. There are several very large projects just in North America moving full steam ahead, and it will likely play a key role in energy storage for some time yet (until some of the newer concepts such as flow batteries come down further in cost).

[@Michael-Ray]

Physics Girl has recently turned into Energy Girl.

[@MFARIGA]

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

[@MrLuc420]

Energy is physics

[@VitaliyCD]

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

[@VitaliyCD]

@@MrLuc420 Yesssss, 100%!

[@AerialFrameworks]

E = MC^2 E is for energy :)

[@marktalley2550]

“Many juices for many uses” - pure genius😹😂😂😎

[@edwardfisher79]

Thanks!

[@ranachhugani3090]

Makes me really hopeful seeing so many of people coming up with these great ideas and efforts to solve the energy problem. thanks for sharing!

[@DMP1327]

Could have been done 50 years ago

[@alternajarsandbladesforble8896]

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.

[@GabrieleNunnari]

I have been one of the most critical persons of the previous video, and I am a believer that is important to complain as much as to gratify. I have found this video extremely complete and precise, it is a very good compendium of really interesting technologies and does not aim at presenting one as better than other ones. I think is a great video =)

[@guringai]

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

[@GabrieleNunnari]

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

[@Jacob-jj8gi]

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

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

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

[@Marsoup1]

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

[@sailorgeer]

My company has looked at compressed air energy storage with an interesting twist : a “normal” compressed air storage tank (on land) requires a strong tank or pressure vessel to keep it in, and such tanks are heavy and expensive. An alternative is to build a thin walled tank with little inherent strength (hence cheaper) but place it in deep water, eg in the ocean hundreds of meters deep. At that depth the hydrostatic pressure of the water acts to provide all the containment pressure. The tank is open to the sea at the bottom and is initially filled with water at the same pressure as the water outside, so there is no net force on the tank walls. Compressed air is piped from the surface down into the tank, displacing the water inside which exits through the bottom. The air pressure inside is automatically equalized with the water pressure outside , again resulting in no net force on the tank walls, sort of like a diving bell. To recover the energy water is allowed back in, forcing the high pressure air back up the pipe to (you guessed it ) drive a turbine.

[@Xeridanus]

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.

[@sailorgeer]

@@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).

[@Xeridanus]

@@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.

[@thedink5]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6nIZHWNhdh1irc Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind and Solar Energy

[@alternajarsandbladesforble8896]

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?

[@bluefootedpig]

Kind of sad flywheels weren't mentioned, it is also up and coming and the great thing about them is that they are like 90% recyclable.

[@jonyemm]

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.

[@NBSV1]

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.

[@BarbarianGod]

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

[@kennethd.9436]

Flywheels also have a cycling limit. Good for backup.

[@BigCroca]

flywheels are relatively dangerous and inefficient

[@SamHowellnz]

Thanks

[@yungifez]

I love that when you plug in your tv, car and Hedron collider Like I have 1 in my backyard 😂😂😂😂😂

[@dannyhoberman5384]

wait, you dont!?

[@kindlin]

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

[@flemlion13]

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

[@kindlin]

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

[@AlejandroMeri]

1:38 "A 40 hour battery will cost about 10 times as much as a 4 hour battery" Wow... That's like, insane to even think about!!

[@brothermanben7140]

quik maffz

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Maths genius right there!.

[@brothermanben7140]

@@Robert-cu9bm 😂

[@bennybooboobear3940]

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

[@gregbailey45]

It's just maths!

[@johngee9018]

Thank you for doing this series. It started out feeling a bit like a Toyota *Hydrogen* EV Infomercial. But it progresses into an even-handed overview of EV / energy tech options. This video in particular, is a great introduction to various electricity storage options to help scale-up "the grid" for a greener, low-carbon energy economy. I hope it inspires more young people to enter the alternative energy technology field.

[@bertilhatt]

There's a big part that she missed: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHakZad6jtyBj9E I suspect that wasn't an oversight, but Toyota wouldn't want someone to spell out that they are causing the end of civilisation.

[@romanski5811]

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

[@adammarkiewicz3375]

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

[@kendesmarais9018]

I found your channel by mistake but now I love your videos! Keep em coming, great job!

[@Conceptcreator]

Ok this is a really nice video! Need to check the rest of these series! Well explained!!

[@Sivah_Akash]

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

[@adityasahasranshu7503]

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

[@Sivah_Akash]

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

[@adityasahasranshu7503]

@@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.

[@ankitrai96]

@@adityasahasranshu7503 true.

[@AventurasdeumEk]

Hey Diana, I love your videos, and I'm happy to see you're posting with such a good frequency. I hope you stay productive and post these great videos.

[@chinmayk8004]

The notebook doodling was really creative !!

[@MisterLobb]

There was a symposium in 2008 at MIT about alternative energy. It looked at availability, cost, environmental impact, and ability to use/store in a variety of environments and locations. The consensus was geothermal provides the best option. I think you would find it interesting. It should still be available online maybe through MIT open courseware open university.

[@Glenn.Cooper]

A really great overview of the options out there. And I especially like that you included information about round-trip efficiencies for most of these. Thanks!

[@spongebobsquarepants7837]

This makes the future feel a little less bleak when it comes to renewable energy and the steps that are being taken to be carbon neutral.

[@raymondmejias8071]

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

[@spongebobsquarepants7837]

@@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.

[@pramod_p5]

@@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.

[@Pingwn]

@@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.

[@ArchaeaZero]

One of the best creators to ever bless this platform. Thank you so much for doing the things you do.

[@sriku1000]

A good video on how to understand and use your instincts kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqPQqnqqmdKapbs

[@dougtaylor8735]

Very good presentation. I worked in power generation design for almost 50 years. Over that time we constantly worked on projects to make our systems better for the environment. I also did some work in wind and solar plants. One thing that has always concerned me is the shear amount of area that it would take for enough renewable energy to make the required amount for our nation’s usage. If electric vehicles become mandatory it would increase substantially. The costs to produce this amount of power will be staggering and I’m not sure the population realizes what their costs for power will be. Finally, I’m not sure if anyone has quantified the actual carbon footprint for renewables “from cradle to grave”. We need reliable base loaded units to cover all the weaknesses of renewables and I agree with a lot of the comments that nuclear is the answer.

[@georgevue8175]

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.

[@Cerberus984]

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?

[@CalebJMartin]

One of the most fascinating things I've been picking out of these videos is the need for adaptability. It's human nature to try and look for the _one_ best solution. But in situations like this, it'd be best if we create a system that uses different sources of energy at different times. This has been a fascinating ride so far!! Looking forward to the next installation of this series 😁

[@tyrannicpuppy]

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.

[@solandri69]

@@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.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@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.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@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.

[@solandri69]

@@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.

[@michealoflaherty1265]

Love that your going large on energy Diana.

[@Bleeto]

what is that even supposed to mean?

[@michealoflaherty1265]

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

[@Bleeto]

@@michealoflaherty1265 thanks

[@MiscMitz]

The tech is so interesting and we are leaping forward. Thank you

[@rodimusprimex5232]

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!!

[@knottyboy6086]

Natural gas

[@tellmey1]

it's a great leap forward

[@ramanmono]

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

[@ExistenceUniversity]

"Great leap forward" Ok Mao

[@mujibamirali]

I am 60, takes me to watch twice to understand 10% of it. But I enjoy to see the future energy storage. Love your way of explaining in simple way. Keep it up. I have subscribed yr channel too.

[@halsti99]

one thing i take slight issue with: you mentioned "just look at all those oceans" for hydrogen production. yes, but thats salt water. that produces chlorine gas in electrolysis. small problem :P

[@samberg3864]

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.

[@lazydave137]

@@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.

[@benoithudson7235]

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

[@Vignana_Pradarshana]

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

[@Dragrath1]

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).

[@GlenHunt]

I'd love to see a sprawling city with decentralized pumped hydro: pretty waterfalls everywhere! Probably rainbows, too.

[@U_Geek]

Imagine those with plants, that would look awasome

[@__mads__]

Full-on DOUBLE rainbows!!! 🌈🌈🦄

[@jmr]

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.

[@TheRoadfarmer]

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

[@todddammit4628]

@@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.

[@Jaibie123]

I'm loving your videos and also how neat your writing is! Such a a rare sight these days! Also love your way to relay information and your passion :)

[@peterdobos1606]

The first battery technology ever was thermal storage, and it's been in use for 10s of 1000s of years. Rocks around a campfire.

[@kjamesjr]

So you mean burning wood.

[@peterdobos1606]

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

[@kjamesjr]

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

[@peterdobos1606]

@@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.

[@effyelvira]

There’s also the flywheel batteries, I find them rather interesting as a mechanical engineer

[@theslimeylimey]

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

[@antalz]

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.

[@nicolasaraya7605]

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

[@antalz]

@@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.

[@nicolasaraya7605]

@@antalz yeah, i checked my math.

[@energyeve2152]

This is why I got into energy storage :D yay! Thanks for sharing ^_^ keep shining ☀️

[@cfnorg5308]

I recently heard about sodium-ion batteries. They seem to have a quite decent energy density and are made from overly abundant materials. Maybe we could even use NaCl from desalination plants for these.

[@SapioiT]

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.

[@Raichle9]

Many juices for many uses! That is great!👍🏽 This video increased my understanding of the technologies needed for energy storage. Thank you.🙏

[@rschroev]

Thumbs op for "effiency": I think it's is more effient than "efficient"

[@hope5480]

:-)

[@isaakb4442]

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

[@rschroev]

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

[@bennybooboobear3940]

@@rschroev lol

[@StianOke]

Thnx to physics girl and veritasium for helping me fall in love with physics. Hoping to get into physics and astronomy at UiO here in Norway, and its all thanks to these channels 🥳

[@beactivebehappy9894]

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…

[@288theabe]

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

[@emix1010]

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 :-)

[@Maelwys]

When both Dianna and Tom Scott make a video on the same subject in the same week, you know it must be important!

[@dwalinozzo]

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.

[@projektsstenders2738]

Thank You very much, for mentioning mechanical energy storage. Here is more available. For longer storage period - Iron-air batteries ("Reversible Rust" Battery) For shorter storage time, more dynamic use - Flywheel energy storage (FES) For quick access - Supercapacitor (SC) Complex solutions may be needed to meet all needs.

[@budders9958]

"another solution is to add other sources of energy that are more consistently available, like waves, and nuclear fission/fusion. " - even with a constant energy source, storage makes more sense to smooth out the peaks.

[@stanleytolle416]

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.

[@marcohangman5312]

Just a wasteful way thinking. Consumerism at its finest.

[@budders9958]

@@marcohangman5312 why?

[@marcohangman5312]

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

[@budders9958]

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

[@nikize]

We should have more nuclear, especially to reduce what is currently viewed as "waste"

[@jesperlvendahl6144]

YES!!

[@shanerichins3532]

THIS!

[@daniel.lopresti]

It's the elephant in the room. People often refer to two well-known disasters, but apart from the fact that most people have a vastly exaggerated idea of the damage done in both cases, the fact that _only_ these two accidents occurred in the history of nuclear power (either due to extreme ill-management by a totalitarian state, or a freak natural accident which is a once-in-a-century event) should actually be largely in its favour. Many more deaths occur due to the extraction of fossil fuels and/or the pollution they generate. And that's without going into the harms that wind turbines cause, by having to clear out the natural habitats of various animals species, killing off birds at prodigious rates, and the fact that they have quite a limited lifetime and all that material is largely unrecyclable. Oh, did I mention how stupendously inefficient they are?

[@rogerheuckeroth7456]

The problem is it's too expensive. Even the small modular reactor life cycle cost is not competitive with renewables.

[@nikize]

@@rogerheuckeroth7456 To expensive? Compared to what? That nuclear is expensive is a myth. Sure there is expensive examples. But that is cherry picking.

[@meister-t]

What would be good, is mini hydrogen separators (from water) for use at home. You use solar and wind to run it during the day, and you use it to fill your fuel cell in your car, and for heating the home at night. But this will never happen, because no company gets the repeat income as is the case for a gasoline infrastructure for example. It would mostly be a one-time (or rare repeat) purchase of the unit.

[@getbent5639]

Just stumbled onto your channel recently, some pretty interesting stuff!! I work at a Pump Storage plant, and one thig that you failed to mention was in order to pump the water up, you need an outside source of power. Since most Pump cycles for these plants are in the middle of the night when bulk power is cheapest, (Buy low, sell high), you are reliant on Fossil Fuel or Nuclear Plants

[@annamyob]

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.

[@maikmeier5032]

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.

[@shrutimoydas3756]

I am really loving this renewable energy series. The number of variations in the way researchers have tackled this problem is amazing!

[@jacobvriesema6633]

I’ve had this video on my Watch Later for a long time, and it’s interesting that you talk about flow batteries. It was recently discovered that the US spent atrocious amount of tax payer dollars into flow battery technology, and even had working models. Then they shut down the whole research facility and sent all schematics and data to China. I cannot comprehend why they would do that.

[@soylentgreen6082]

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

[@Cerberus984]

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.

[@happybluedog]

AS always a great video but I am disappointed you had not mentioned Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries which are safer and have extended cycle charging but instead kept comparing each technology to the more dangerous older Lithium Ion.

[@kaitlyn__L]

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.

[@happybluedog]

@@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.

[@muppen74]

@@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.

[@TechRyze]

Not mentioned because this is a Toyota hydrogen advert.

[@linusa2996]

@@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.

[@abhishekgautam3913]

at first i did'nt wanted to watch ur videos but after watching few now I think best thing i found that u talk so calm, u r not hyper that the other science videos creaters do They talk so fast building all the hype n music also in their videos serves the same purpose

[@BlackBearForge]

Does extracting hydrogen from water result in a net loss of water? Or does it all recombine with oxygen?

[@cloudpoint0]

You split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which separately are higher potential energy states than they were together. Combining them again gives you active energy to do things and allows the system to slide back into a lower energy state. A by-product of combining them is to produce water again, the same amount that you started with. Hydrogen won’t hang around on its own if oxygen is nearby.

[@AB-nv7bz]

Ya its a huge net loss. 20% loss to create it, 40% loss back to electricity, 10% loss back in a device. Congrats your at 43% efficiency of whatever you used to create the electricity. That's why no major auto maker sticks with it. The math simply doesn't work. Not to mention transport costs to get it to a fuel station. Just use nuclear power. Yes it creates extremely toxic waste you must contain, but zero emissions. It's literally the only short term solution. Battery powered vehicles and nuclear power. We can't hold out for commercially viable fusion power.

[@cloudpoint0]

@@AB-nv7bz The losses show up as water that never became electricity so are not pertinent to the original question. 43% efficiency - that’s better than gasoline, which is between 30% and 36% efficiency. That’s probably why no major auto maker went with gasoline when they could have gone with diesel at 50% efficiency. Nuclear fission power works but it is not scalable to the extent needed to prevent climate change during this century without abandoning safety (the math has been worked extensively). It can only be a niche player much like it is now (and like hydrogen will likely be). We’ve lost if that’s our only solution. Not to mention new nuclear power is three times more costly per megawatt-hour than new utility renewables and it can’t load follow demand in any practical way (it’s for base load), plus it goes down for months at a time every few years and cold starts take days to do. Most of the reactors need water cooling so the huge power plants needed can’t be built close together and we learned oceans aren’t a safe cooling option. The km wide development exclusion zone around a nuclear plant mean they tend to be far away from the big cities that new their power (so increasingly suffer from line loss). No private interest will fund a new plant with government backing either. These problems and more are why the world has almost abandoned building new nuclear plants.

[@infini_ryu9461]

When you "burn" it, it will bond with oxygen to form water, this conversion produces the energy you want. Just like when you burn hydrocarbons you get carbon dioxide and water(You're basically exploiting hydrogen attached to carbon the same way you exploit pure hydrogen). To burn something is to change the chemistry into something else, the atoms are conserved. Oxygen in the atmosphere is effectively free(I mean, it typically comes in pairs) but most of the oxygen on Earth is actually oxidised into the land and oceans. When you get down to Fission, Fusion and Radioactive Decay you're looking at literal alchemy, changing the very atoms into something else. With Uranium fission you get a ton of fission products, although you can't make everything that way. In fusion you fuse lighter elements into higher ones. So you could say that way you lose something, but there's typically so much of that something that we couldn't comprehend the timescale. If we utilised all the Uranium and Thorium of our crust, oceans and water erosion we're looking at billions of years worth of fuel. Earth won't even feel us. I don't think we should bother with Fusion on Earth, Fission does everything Fusion can much easier. You literally just pull a control rod and the reaction gets going. When you get to space you're looking at a lot of Hydrogen out there as the most common element in the universe, just getting to it may be a hassle.

[@nodehead9475]

@@AB-nv7bz that's the best case in higher temperatures of around 25-30'c efficiency can go down to as much as 20% because of thermal expansion.

[@ljprep6250]

"But when you plug in your TVs, your dishwashers, your particle collider..." LOL "Round-trip effiency"? Good vid, Physics Girl.

[@thekimandzacclub]

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.

[@sciencekarateii8011]

So cool, as a High School Physics teacher really great to get this out to my students as they will be designing the future storage

[@TheWhitetailrancher]

Most impressive thing about this entire video is your penmanship in your little tablet!

[@radreaxnoh4038]

Hey, here's a great idea. How about nuclear? You can plug a reactor into the current grid and don't have to worry about lithium battery storage farms.

[@RickSanchez167]

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

[@muche6321]

​@@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.

[@pepelapiu2004]

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.

[@lylestavast7652]

efficiency improvements in hvac, motors and pumps of all kinds will free up a lot of generated electricity along the way - too little attention is spent on making efforts in this regard. RMI has some good ideas and practices they propose/support - worth looking into the potential of these...

[@kokofan50]

Why would you waste your time on a peripheral problem? Also, as efficiency has gone up so has energy usage; making what ever gains pointless.

[@lylestavast7652]

@@kokofan50 actually, the scope of losses due to inefficient uses provides a large cushion on future generation. I understand that this video is about storage, but if you fix demand levels - and I'm talking about areas that are well into double digits of loss... reduces those needs, and that stuff is super expensive and adds it's own inefficiencies and losses too....

[@lylestavast7652]

@@kokofan50 also - many things happen in parallel in large systems - it's not a scenario where there's only one focus, and these things are going to vary in solutions all over the place ... end use efficiencies is common everywhere.

[@kokofan50]

@@lylestavast7652 it really doesn’t matter if you go from 5mw to 4mw if you only have 5w of storage.

[@lylestavast7652]

@@kokofan50 just as a data point for reference - LLNL has a graph which traces energy from source to ultimate usefulness. 60% of energy used in the US ends up as rejected heat... THOSE kinds of inefficiencies exist... it's everywhere, for the picking... and every bit that you make more efficient, reduces volume of storage needed...

[@Seegalgalguntijak]

For stationary home storage, a heavy-mass flywheel magnetically levitating in a vacuum being magnetically driven to store energy at tens of thousands of rpm and then being braked down electromagnetically in order to extract energy would also be a neat technology.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

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?

[@bahamatodd]

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

[@Seegalgalguntijak]

@@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).

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

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

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

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

[@Keelops]

Very motivational video on people coming together from diferent angles for solving a big engineering problem! As an Engineer, almost want to stop what i’m doing and join the effort!

[@wilurbean]

If only there was some kind of "nuclear option" that would provide base power loads and future technologies that would be a "fusion" of current research.

[@whyjerrywhy]

Producing isn't the problem it's storing it. It's almost like you didn't watch the video

[@AnexoRialto]

Oh that'll get the YT comments going. Nuclear power generation is an ideologically impossible subject. Storage is part of the solution, but won't solve the whole problem.

[@orkin2525]

@@whyjerrywhy nuclear power is on demand, so there is no real need for storage. Most US plants run full power, 24/7, for months.

[@SokarEntertainment]

@@whyjerrywhy Or he released its only a problem, because our offensively backwards society (on this issue), insists we don't use the one option, which would make it a non issue.

[@CarmenSantiNova]

Hahahaaaa....was just about to write a sarcastic answer like this myself but assumed that someone else would have written it before...didn't have to scroll far down =O)

[@MrRobbyvent]

Thank You for let me know that energy storage by gravity exists. Must be great to work in the energy storage industry, looks like it has a great demand for the future!

[@devforfun5618]

that was the most obivous enviromental friendly technology i thought about, lift some weight when you have sun, drop it when you dont, it was used in old clocks, you just used your hand to raise some weight in Brazil most energy is taken from water, but water evaporates and relies on rain, if you could use something like sand for example that will remain forever were you leave it, and use solar panels to lift the sand during the day you could storage that energy source for a long time

[@pvic6959]

You are making a difference. Thank you

[@samedwards6683]

Thanks so much for creating and sharing this educational and entertaining video. Great job. Hope that each day you are feeling better than the day before.🙏

[@stefanklass6763]

Ahh jeez they got you with their anti battery propaganda. The supply of lithium won’t run out Diana, it’s literally part of sea salt. The price will increase until it’s viable to get it from sea-salt, then we have virtually infinite amounts of lithium. Cobalt is the problem with batteries, but there already are solutions without cobalt (solid state batteries) coming.

[@nonconsensualopinion]

And she thinks Hydrogen will power cars. Hydrogen is not going to happen. Go research why Elon Musk calls fuel cells "fool cells".

[@jonathanfairchild]

@@nonconsensualopinion It seems to me Elon’s main problem with hydrogen is that it’s pretty inefficient to make. That’s a fair point. However there are countries out there that produce so much excess electricity that they’ve taken to creating hydrogen as an energy store. They also use it for ferries and all sorts of things. If we already have a problem with creating too much energy then why not use the excess to create hydrogen. I think we’re being too tribalistic about fuel cell vs Li Ion. Li Ion has its problems, hydrogen fuel cell has its problems and both have their benefits. Elon has a history of saying things recklessly. He may come to eat his words later. I love his work with Tesla and SpaceX, but he’s not the be all end all expert. I guess my point is he has as much to gain from naysaying fuel cells as Toyota does batteries. However both could be used to great effect.

[@heartofdawn2341]

How does the thermal photovoltaic battery actually store energy? Wouldn't it be constantly discharging?

[@someonespotatohmm9513]

and how to get such a high efficienty? Even if you don't waste unabsorbed light you still have losses from a unmatched bandgap. Or are they planning on using high eff pannels. Might be financialy possible if you can focus the radiation without to much loss.

[@solandri69]

@@someonespotatohmm9513 I imagine it's being done in a vacuum. That eliminates (well, greatly reduces) conduction and convention as energy losses. The only remaining loss is radiation. Mirrors (with coatings) can be designed for extremely high reflectivity (like 99.99% or higher) within a band of frequencies. So if you can cover most of the blackbody radiation frequencies with your mirror coatings, most of the radiated energy either ends up in the PV cells, or is reflected back to the carbon sink to be reabsorbed as heat. It's a fascinating idea which I initially never would've thought would work. Basically a miniature Dyson sphere.

[@sriku1000]

A good video on how to understand and use your instincts kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqPQqnqqmdKapbs

[@nathaneyring4858]

Super fascinating. The length in these developments though is absolutely the reason I wish we used nuclear at least for the next 50 years so these could have time to grow while limiting carbon emissions right now.

[@Makatea]

Take a trip to Chernobyl or Fukushima and think again...

[@daveseddon5227]

I get what you're saying but if we carried on with nuclear then there would be no urgency/incentive to produce alternate solutions. I worked on electric vehicle tech back in the 70's but funding was hard to get due to the oil companies finding more and more oil reserves. More oil meant that ICE were still favourite to power vehicles. Nuclear is a very good energy source but with the drawbacks we all know about. Technology advances quicker with challenges and with climate-change funding available for many diverse projects now is the time to do it. It will happen quicker without the nuclear power option lurking in the background. Of course the other option to give tech a super-boost would be WWIII but I'm not sure that we'd still be around to see the results of the technology boom!

[@IronmanV5]

The problem with nuclear is that it takes too long and costs too much to build out. Just look at the debacle the expansion at the Vogtle power plant in Georgia.

[@carlgodfrey4482]

We spent 1000% more on nuclear weapons than energy, nuclear it's the future we are just scared because we made mistake

[@eckligt]

@@Makatea Chernobyl was an obviously terrible design, and the accident was a result of this combined with bad training and workplace culture. In Fukushima, well, no one died. There were twenty to thirty thousand people who died because of the earthquake and tsunami directly, but no one as a result of the nuclear accident. Yet that is what people outside Japan seem to remember. A neutral assessment of the events in Japan should classify it as an ordinary industrial accident -- unfortunate, yes; costly, certainly; but not the human or environmental calamity that it has become in the popular imagination. Compare this to other heavy industries, like chemical processing plants. Between fiften and thirty thousand people died in the Bhopal tragedy in India, yet no one is suggesting we stop doing chemical processing in factories. We apply the standard that we need to make good chemical processing plants, and have regulators that are able to make sure they are properly managed. The same standard should be applied to the nuclear industry.

[@mrwest5552]

love love your hand writing style, and this video.

[@brunoscs]

I think you should talk more about nuclear power.

[@stephanbergmann4519]

Nah, this has been discussed at length: Nuclear power (in its current form) is too expensive, takes too long to build and doesn‘t work well in tandem with renewable energy to be worth the trouble. Future nuclear tech may change the discussion, but we can‘t wait for this to happen.

[@thomasmaier7053]

Nah, too expensive.

[@margaretarmstrong2445]

@@stephanbergmann4519 Nuclear power plants last up to four times longer than solar and wind power plants, have far less toxic and physical waste, and the advantage of a tiny footprint of land.

[@bananaclub69]

no

[@davepetro5676]

Biden is against Nuclear power. When Biden was Vice President he was in NH. Bragging about shutting down Nuclear power plants. And lady said we have I in our backyard and Biden said he was working on shutting it down that was when he was Vice President

[@saltibagostsoupakabras4671]

The amount of work that went into a 13 minute video is extraordinary. Well done girl keep up the awesome work !!

[@PurpleElixer]

I got the animation for Kojima Productions as my Animated Background. Also yeah cool energy storage things :D

[@tommyj73]

"Not sure they've ever seen a duck" reminded me of the Bluth family in Arrested Development and their impersonations of chickens.

[@dielaughing73]

Ca-coo ca-cha!

[@americaswayout4489]

You might want to investigate "Liquid Metal Battery" as maybe, in the end, a better solution to grid storage, not so much for a single home, but for solar farms or wind. This incredible technology came out of research at MIT. As for renewable fuel, a humble plant that grows in saltwater could be planted on the coastline of 25,000 miles of desert lands and be used to both store excess CO2 in its roots, but also recreate a very clean oil in its seeds becoming a forever source of oil needed for not just energy but all the many other chemistry-related uses coming from it.

[@kylorenkardashian79]

You forgot to mention ARES (Advanced Rail Energy Storage) also located in California

[@HectorSanchez-ll8iw]

I'm loving this series 🤩

[@kedaruss]

So li-ion can catch fire but no word about it in the case of hydrogen? If just hydrogen refueling station damaged tens of houses around it what would happen with larger-scale storage?

[@kedaruss]

@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.

[@williammeek4078]

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

[@williammeek4078]

@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

[@williammeek4078]

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

[@kedaruss]

@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.

[@petarkolev6928]

Love you and what you do! Thank you for the wonderful videos ❤

[@Kinan.Eldari]

Ah yes, plugging in your particle collider. That common household item everyone has 🤣

[@emlun]

A mere decade ago, they did! Well, maybe more an accelerator than a collider, but still: a CRT (cathode-ray tube) monitor is in fact a desktop ion cannon.

[@seanbirtwistle649]

sitting around smashing things while in lockdown sounds therapeutic

[@3mtech]

@@flyinbrian865 Well they could watch videos about it. If we "need" a particle collider now, we must need one in the future? Thats gonna take a BIG battery

[@sriku1000]

A good video on how to understand and use your instincts kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqPQqnqqmdKapbs

[@marmundo9110]

Yessss! As always, I learn a lot with your videos! And they are super interesting 💙❤ Amazing Plus, this is exactly what I'm studying at the moment, and it makes me super happy 😄

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Do t believe the hydrogen angle. It's a con

[@sriku1000]

A good video on how to understand and use your instincts kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqPQqnqqmdKapbs

[@margaretarmstrong2445]

Make sure you research all the negatives aspects of the energy sources you do research on. Most people leave that out.

[@bat2293]

Next topic. "Why We Should Be Talking About _Baseline_ Energy Generation": Specifically, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMR's) and Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's).

[@stoweby]

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

[@p.io7]

Storage is one way of doing it, another way is to transport the electricity to nearby timezones so we could extend that duck curve and need less energy to store in the first place. Then optimize the electric networks to go from East to West instead of North to South.

[@davidgiancoli2106]

Thank you so much for making this series!

[@xavierlebeuf3061]

I'm sad you didn't mention Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage! That technology is so interesting.

[@IDoNotLikeHandlesOnYT]

Flywheels too?

[@xavierlebeuf3061]

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

[@fyimediaworld]

Energy shortage is a mischaracterization. There is no shortage of energy, there is a void in the technology that can collect, store and transport energy.

[@marcohangman5312]

Yeah, they keep talking about efficiency while other energy production plants have to temporarily shutdown so they won’t overload the grid..🤷‍♂️

[@therealjetlag]

Right. I wish someone would talk more about this. Electricity consumption has largely flatlined in the US and has been dropping in the UK since 2005, despite growing populations in both countries. What we need is efficiency with, and better storage of, the energy we already generate.

[@k-isfor-kristina]

100%. I am so sick of hearing the whole "well the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow". It seems so narrow-minded to me, this idea that power has to be transported and used as soon as it is generated. You don't only use your phone, tablet and laptop while you're charging them. You charge them when it's a good time and then you use that stored power throughout the day. If we had an energy storage system we would always be running off of that storage and the storage would be getting replenished at varying rates depending on weather conditions. And if that storage system was connected to both solar and wind generators, then the stored energy would never be fully depleted since one of the other would always be "topping it up". Like if you wanted to charge your phone with solar power you'd get a solar powered battery BANK. Tesla home battery packs and SolarCity panels can already do this on the scale of a house. Imagine a city or country.

[@crhu319]

It's called a BEV. See V2G

[@therealjetlag]

@@crhu319 it is. Sadly it’s only in trial phase, but it’s definitely the way forward.

[@andrewroberts5988]

Excellent video. I just finally subscribed! Thank you.

[@MastroGippo]

"let's talk about lithium batteries" ... *shows a swollen PB-GEL battery*

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Yes Biased much? (The video)

[@markraumer2336]

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

[@RandyTWester]

Because nothing left of the lithium battery but a crater?

[@MastroGippo]

Nope. Just google images of swollen li batteries

[@bob9802]

@@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.

[@SirHackaL0t.]

I thought Hydrogen had a problem that it is an accomplished escape artist and can find it’s way out of most containers

[@johnjaynejr.2332]

Hydrogen is a ticking time bomb! Just a matter of time til explosion n much worse than a gas (vehicle) explosion

[@midnight8341]

Actually out of every container. Even one continuous, perfect sheet of graphene can not keep hydrogen from escaping, as it can split off at the layer into protons and electrons, with the electrons flipping across the graphene boundary and the protons being small enough to pass between the carbon atoms. Only the next biggest atom (helium) is too large to pass through graphene (but only because it won't react with it).

[@MrSJPowell]

Watch the first video in the series. Apparently hydrogen leaks are heavily regulated, and they have to engineer for that. Per the first video, the storage tanks Toyota is using are rather robust, to the point that they had to use armor piercing rounds to get it to fail. There is of course question of how scalable that is. Will this be a thing where the cube square law is in our favor so that larger containers will be more efficient?

[@MrSJPowell]

@@johnjaynejr.2332 That's an engineering problem for any energy source. Gasoline's problems are well known. It burns, and will continue to be a risk of catching fire well after a wreck, unless accounted for. Lithium ion batteries, if punctured when charged, create awful fires that are incredibly difficult to put out and burn very hot. Hydrogen needs at least 5% oxygen to be flammable, and 19% oxygen to be explosive, so the storage containers themselves are quite stable, as they need the hydrogen to be very pure. In the case of an accident, as they pointed out in the first video in the series, they've heavily engineered this to avoid containment loss. That said, in the case of the inevitable breach of a tank during a crash, since Hydrogen is a gas, and is lighter than air, unless there's an ignition source immediately after it breaches, it should begin to float away from the source of the crash fairly rapidly.

[@maximilianwimmer627]

you can use the generated hydrogen and react it in a further synthesis method called Fischer-Dropsch-process to turn it into hydrocarbons by combining it with atmospheric carbon dioxide. you can make both synthetic natural gas as well as synthetic gasolene, both offer good enery density and are much simpler to store long term.

[@NathaNeil27]

I would love to see every single house have it's own battery, like a Tesla power-wall, to help decentralize the power grid and add durability during short interruptions to power production. You wouldnt even feel the effects of a short power outage caused by a storm like you do now.

[@mcdon2401]

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

[@KS-mt1lb]

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

[@andrewcopple7075]

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... :(

[@NathaNeil27]

@@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 😅

[@someonespotatohmm9513]

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.

[@jchrisbotz6035]

thanks for the information and hopeful outlook.

[@eFeMGhosts]

I am deeply inspired by this series!!!! My mental health often suffers from the futility of our current culture. The practical science of this series and the choice of subjects to focus upon, is very level headed and actually useful. We have a very long way to go, this series is giving me hope. Not because of inflated vision or egos; but rather simple analysis of pros and cons!!! Thank you soooo much !!!!!! Please continue and don’t be afraid to talk about the cons of systems. This series might very well be the roadmap to our future, it’s good to know the difficulties as well as the benefits!!!!!!

[@travism2013]

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.

[@annascoria6178]

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

[@annascoria6178]

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.

[@travism2013]

@@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.

[@annascoria6178]

@@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.

[@Sasquatchian116]

Gravitricity is IMHO the best energy storage option for large grid level operations.

[@subhajit201]

FESS and liquid metal batteries.

[@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20]

Gravity is very inefficient (not as in round trip efficiency, but instead as requiring a lot of mass or height to store tiny amount of energy). That's why, unfortunately gravity alone cannot solve the problem, but for sure it can be part of the solution.

[@o_o6869]

she is one of the sweetest personality to explain science, GOD bless her.

[@MatSmithLondon]

Instant subscribe! Really enjoyable and educative content. I would love to see this video without the crazy fast cuts, sped-up footage etc. I know millennial’s attention spans seem to dictate everything these days but this video has such gorgeous footage but there was no space for reflection, no quiet, no slow transitions. Too much like an advert where the brand pays for each millisecond. YT doesn’t need to be this way! An example of a channel I like is Great Scott. Compare his video footage of writing on a page to get across concepts: all very zen.

[@Violet-Storm]

Honestly want to move past to point where ppl can’t shut up about whether renewables are “viable” or “necessary” and get to the point where we’re all just trying/working/funding to solve this

[@Jay-ho9io]

👍🏽

[@rapid13]

Can’t do that until it can be proved that “renewables” make even a little sense. They don’t. What needs to happen is people need to lose their completely irrational fear of nuclear.

[@andrewcopple7075]

@@rapid13 Agreed. And recognize that the environmental impact of long term renewable power is horrifying... what is our waste solution for storage? I brought this up at a physics colloquium, and not only could they not answer my question, they ridiculed me for asking. -_-

[@someonespotatohmm9513]

@@andrewcopple7075 Because whatever waste you have, it is still easier to clean then the CO2 that is diffused trough the atmosphere and oceans. Nuclear is competing with renewables on price and public perception, and sadly lost both.

[@eckligt]

Part of the problem is that the environmental lobby have since the 1970's been engaged in a campaign against nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has been viable since the 1960's, but its continued growth was thwarted by their campaigns. If more nuclear power had been built throughout the 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000's, we wouldn't even have this problem today. The people in the environmental movement have been right on many things, but no one is without fault, and on this point they clearly share the blame for the current situation. There is an expression: The best time to build a nuclear power plant is 20 years ago; the second best is now.