Gravity Energy Storage : A very uplifting technology!
Переглядів 169,256
День томуGravity energy storage is not actually a new concept. We've been doing it with pumped hydro for more than a century. But that's very expensive to build and needs an awful lot of space. Now though, two new companies have developed systems that mimic the effect of pumped hydro by raising and lowering extremely large and heavy weights up and down over huge height distances. So, do we have yet another addition to the growing grid scale energy storage family?
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos?
Check out the FREE DiveDeeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.
climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Check out other UKposts Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown:
/ @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere:
/ @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Research links
James Auger - Water Cooler Bottle experiment
• Gravity Battery
Reconstrained Design Group
www.cccb.org/en/participants/f...
Energy Vault
energyvault.com/energ...
energyvault.com/energy-vault-...
www.forbes.com/sites/peterdet...
Gravitricity
www.gravitricity.com/
www.rechargenews.com/technolo...
#gravitybatteries #climateemergnecy #actnow
@petersilva037 3 роки тому
I have long experience with these technologies: My father has some 100 year old clocks. Every morning, we pull on chains to raise the weights up, and the clocks run on gravity energy for the next 24 hours.
@yggdrasil9039 3 роки тому
Same principle.
@Xray-Rep 3 роки тому
There's no such thing as "gravity energy". Every system that generates electricity via a mass falling from some height to a lower height, utilizes the energy of the massive object (may be water or any solid material) which was put into the mass (potential energy) while it was being raised to the highest point in the system. Think of gravity like a spring. The higher you raise an object away from the earth, the more the spring (gravity) gets stretched, pulling harder on the massive object. When the massive object is allowed to fall, that potential energy is slowly being converted into kinetic energy through gears and finally to a generator. Please don't think that this is some sort of "free energy" device. It most assuredly is not.
@tzenophile 3 роки тому
@@Xray-Rep "The higher you raise an object away from the earth, the more the spring (gravity) gets stretched, pulling harder on the massive object." It's been 40 years since my high school physics, but this is clearly wrong.
@pikkuraami 3 роки тому
Same principle. Now Imagine that weight being 10s of tons of mass and wire being 100m long in 20-35 m/s wind. Not that great thing when considering pendulum effect that system has. What works in small scale, doesn't always work in large scale. These are very good reminder of that. There are many variables that small scale can hide.
@neliosamch3195 3 роки тому
@@Xray-Rep You are missing the point. Eccessive energy by wind and solar which is free can be stored for later use in these gravity blocks is the subject of discussion.
@masterimbecile 3 роки тому
These energy companies be dropping a lot of new developments recently. They understand the gravity of the situation.
@tonynagy2042 2 роки тому
I made a crude gravity generator design around 2010(Then my computer got fried).... I presented a UV HVAC Upgrade system design to my employer around 2005(got shot down, as too expensive (BS).... I have other design's just in my head now about anti-gravity, and personal flying device(never seen a design close to anything like it yet) .... they'll have to dig me up and try to make sense of it through nuralink.... and thats all I have to say about that!!!... Cheers.
@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 2 роки тому
Theres a real problem with Just have a think as he thinks this stupid idea is good! Hes that stupid! and should not be listened too on any subject even basic logic!
@Moses_VII 3 роки тому
As a British person, there's nothing I love about this channel more than the extremely British way he speaks in this video.
@Chobaca 3 роки тому
Well there is the way he's trying to educate to save our human society...
@Bouyphe 3 роки тому
+1
@Sarahlenea 3 роки тому
As a French person, I love it too: finally someone who knows how to articulate to facilitate the understanding of non-native speakers ^^
@PlumSack79 3 роки тому
Say English person from now on pal, British isn't a thing now.
@LazyDog191 3 роки тому
As an American Colonist it is quite a treat to hear English spoken correctly..Also the content is quite interesting.
@rgbii2 3 роки тому
I'm not sure how sustainable it is, but if you drop that hammer on your toe, you'll release a lot of energy as you hop around on the other foot. Biggest problem will be all the noise generated by this system, which may not be appropriate if children are near by.
@andershusmo5235 3 роки тому
Simple fix: install a wind turbine in front of the noise source. The turbine turns the profanity energy into electrical energy, just as we do with the wind - you'd be surprised at the kinds of exit velocities that stuff can reach. With an efficient enough turbine, you can utilize a large enough portion of the profanity energy to make the noise all but inaudible, as well as putting some of that excess power to good use.
@brianwheeldon4643 3 роки тому
Noisy, quite likely. In that case utilising defuct mine shafts seems a good solution at least as a starter.
@wertigon 3 роки тому
Nah, it'd take way too long time to recharge - you'd need at least a week before your stubbed toe is fit for another go, I don't think your Netflix binge urge can wait that long!
@berniebrown928 3 роки тому
@@andershusmo5235 mo moo. Mo moo m
@kenrobinson8060 3 роки тому
The gravity system was used in lighthouses to turn the lenses for over a hundred years thus giving the flash, a weight was winched up on a cable and when allowed to descend slowly through a gearbox turned the lenses which floated on a tray of mercury.
@hessanscounty3592 3 роки тому
**Looks at all the empty mineshafts in the Appalachian mountains** Well, time to get cracking.
@nickward1277 3 роки тому
Same here for the north of England!
@DavidBeaumont 3 роки тому
@Bainsworth It's both. E=mgh. Double the height, double the energy. Double the mass, double the energy. I heard they have also been looking at using some of the abandoned mine railways with weighted carts (v. steep winch railways for moutain-side mines). Probably not as big in terms of scale but might serve a local community well and don't require as much building.
@grindupBaker 3 роки тому
Subterranean spaces can also be used for compressed-air energy storage (CAES) if there's a sizeable cavern down the shaft so a cost-performance comparison would be needed for those (if they exist with caverns).
@lawrence18uk 3 роки тому
@@DavidBeaumont railways in reverse!
@lucaswilkins9217 3 роки тому
Instead of weighed carts, you could have a load that you can take on and off, increasing the storage capacity. Or you could use thanks that get filled with water. This could be then be further optimised by using a pump instead of the train.
@MrDhandley 3 роки тому
The mine shaft is probably the best option. Not affected by adverse weather conditions, quiet and virtually invisible.
@davidleaman6801 Рік тому
Don't rule out abandoned open pit mines and the Grand Canyon. Existing Hydro dams also provide elevation. Lake Meade is drying up and will expose lots of room for a wind farm. Multiple installations and locations using the same concept but using varying techniques will be required.
@charlesharwood4724 3 роки тому
I had a gravity energy storage device for many years but had to get rid of it when I moved to a smaller house. It was also useful for telling the time.
@dewiz9596 3 роки тому
I like the mineshaft concept. Out of sight, out of mind.
@charlesinglin 3 роки тому
And there's no shortage of old mineshafts in the coal country of Appalachia, which could also use the jobs.
@fredericrike5974 3 роки тому
@@charlesinglin Same in Montana, Texas, Michigan and New York- all at one time big coal producers.
@PatrickKQ4HBD 3 роки тому
If they're digging new shafts, they can be put anywhere, including the densest of cities.
@fredericrike5974 3 роки тому
@@PatrickKQ4HBD Keep thinking like that. There is a solution to our energy problem- some one of us or several of us will find it!
@MSheepdog 3 роки тому
I feel like it's got less risk too. If a cable snaps in the mineshaft the ground might shake, but unlikely to lead to other property damage. With the stack of concrete it seems like there is higher risk of collateral damage if it collapses. Probably less moving parts in the mineshaft one too, which should make it easier to maintain.
@sophrapsune 3 роки тому
Don’t hold copyright payments against Johnny Cash. He did tell us, “Ain’t no grave can hold my body down.”
@humanperson5134 3 роки тому
Breakthrough! I've been watching this space for 53 years. This is far and away the most practical.
@pspicerwensley 3 роки тому
There is a train used to provide gravity energy storage in California. ARES (Advanced Rail Energy Storage) already has a test track in the Tehachapi, California, region and also in Pahrump, Nevada it is building a 50MW facility.
@bjarnecola6384 3 роки тому
I emailed gravitricity and asked about, combining it with heat-exange. Got an answer the next day. They already thinking about it.
@beebob1279 3 роки тому
Sure, because you gave them the idea.
@kalyana9705 3 роки тому
I heard about fully loaded trains moving up (by electricity) and down (by gravity) a mountain. They seem a lot more easy to set up. I think it is better than the crane based system shown here.
@johnburns4017 3 роки тому
Using defunct mineshafts is the best idea. There are countless shafts in the UK and many other countries. Also, boring down a number of 1 metre diameter 1 km deep shafts, with long thin weights sounds excellent. They can be dropping at different times. They do not visually defaced the surface. Little maintenace required. If a cable breaks, leave the weight at the bottom of the shaft, installing another. The sooner the better
@Ana-ui5ep 2 роки тому
I'm an Electrical Engineer and I loved your channel! Continues! Success! Gratitude! 👏🏽
@snowstrobe 3 роки тому
They should build a moat around that tower block to drop the blocks into. The mine shaft one is certainly less of an eye-sore.
@liamredmill9134 3 роки тому
Don't know if you have covered mechanical batteries(fly wheel storage)on your great series,which is another system which could quite possibly be combined with all these other systems(like an ion battery being the gravity weight,with a fly wheel).i would like to share my scale up idea for a heat battery(my own idea,with micro wave safe glass tubes(there patented invention)heating an iron filament from the sun,through the (patented glass,that by it's molecular structure,does not allow,Evan one ÷of the heat too escape.this in turn would be reconverted into electrical energy at night,by the geothermal method,or vise versa,but on a smaller interconnected systems way,a bit like solar panels.tell me what you think ( :and if maybe this could be tested,and Evan financed.freedom
@Digital-Dan 3 роки тому
I once saw a proposal to do this sort of thing by dragging heavily loaded rail cars up hills and recapturing the energy on the way down. Advantage would be that only rails need to be added to the landscape, not complete towers, and additional "weights" could be added just by employing more freight cars. Same idea, though.
@peterbrickwood3204 3 роки тому
Mine shafts are already there and less visible.
@PatrickKQ4HBD 3 роки тому
That project was my first exposure to this notion of using weights to spin a generator/winch to make grid-scale electricity, even though I grew up with weight-powered cuckoo clocks and grandfather clocks.
@mb-3faze 3 роки тому
@@peterbrickwood3204 The trouble with mine shafts is that they are inevitably full of water. You can either pump the water out which takes a lot of energy or be satisfied with less apparent mass powering your generator (dry mass minus displaced water mass). Still, worth a go: not much to lose in trying.
@ashketchup247 3 роки тому
I love your channel, keep up the good work and thank you to all the patrons.
@Yanquetino 3 роки тому
I'm really enthralled with these developments, and will comment in Patreon. Thanks, Dave!
@grantlauzon5237 3 роки тому
could you do this with elevators/lifts in an existing skyscraper? I know there's usually counterweights but you could use regenerative braking to offset the differences in either direction depending on the weight. You'd still need to power the lifting of a heavy car and the lowering of a light one.
@andreaswickman1508 3 роки тому
Angry Thunderf00t noises from the energy vault tower
@yamilcoloma6677 3 роки тому
lol you beat me by 30 min XD
@recklessroges 3 роки тому
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought that.
@CraftyF0X 3 роки тому
Haven't seem him in a while, did he already debunked this quite frankly ridiculously looking idea ? Im not a distinguished expert on the field but the whole contraption seems to me like an engineering nightmare with all the moving parts that can fail.
@chulhogan1445 3 роки тому
@@CraftyF0X Yes, ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hnmZd6uxr4Sn12Q.html
@useodyseeorbitchute9450 3 роки тому
It's a bit tricky to debunk it, as formally speaking it does not violate laws of physics. Though someone who is able to make such system of rapid block construction work is clearly wasting his talent in energy storage sector, and instead should offer to build some affordable skyscrapers in a few hours. ;)
@terrytytula 3 роки тому
Excellent video, surprised you didn't mention clocks. About an hour before I watched this video I went into my living room and pulled up the weights on my grandfather clock.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Good point Terry. Exactly the same principle :-)
@mitchmomlc 3 роки тому
i love his optimism. with you all the way brother
@Jecksnkovski 3 роки тому
I once had the fun idea to build my whole house as a gravity energy storage for to be installed solar cells or wind turbine while knowing that it would be far too expensive and impractical but I'm amazed that it's a legit strategy on such large scales
@magicsasafras3414 2 роки тому
Yeah but is only good as a pumped hydroelectric dam. The energy vault design is the worst thing I have ever seen.
@coenraadloubser5768 Рік тому
@@magicsasafras3414 How so? It looks like a massive art installation.... and it generates cheap energy!?
@magicsasafras3414 Рік тому
@@coenraadloubser5768 it doesn't generate energy it stores it and terribly too
@coenraadloubser5768 Рік тому
@@magicsasafras3414 Sure it doesn't have the best carbon footprint, doesn't store much... and it's not wind proof - but not anyone can build a hydroelectric dam... I'm sure it has a place somewhere...
@magicsasafras3414 Рік тому
@@coenraadloubser5768 listen gravity battery's are good but only when designed properly. The company gravtricity made a simple design that works flawlessly on a small scale. Energy vault tried making a small scale system big, but that doesn't work. Pumped hydroelectrics are meant to store a city's worth of energy. Pulley battery's are ment to power something like a construction site for a short time.
@matthewbrooker 3 роки тому
Kites on a windy day....messy but they might just work. The involvement of Cemex in the project mentioned has me wondering if this isn't just greenwash for a horrendous polluter.....I suppose only history will tell us....
@danyoutube7491 3 роки тому
Presumably they are just involved for their expertise in forming the blocks; as long as the stated ingredients for these blocks are all waste products as claimed, there will be no need to create fresh concrete.
@matthewbrooker 3 роки тому
@@danyoutube7491 I agree with you within the parameters of the individual project, but think bigger, more strategically - can Cemex be persuaded to find radical alternatives to their business model or is this simply the equivalent of oil companies planting trees and building one off hydrogen refuelling stations, doing just enough to keep away regulation and guidance from elected governments?
@fireofenergy 3 роки тому
Cement? All construction materials will also be made with clean energy, so it doesn't matter - unless more energy is used to make whatever storage than the energy it will ever store in its life. This last metric is the ultimate limiting factor. All else is just a matter of scaling. We _still_ need fossil fuels to kickstart renewable energy and storage until awesome clean energy industrialization really gets going (like Tesla's factories in a couple of years).
@matthewbrooker 3 роки тому
@@fireofenergy Conventional cement does indeed use a lot of energy, but the basic chemistry of mixing coke with lime or other carbonates is intrinsically CO² emitting. This is Cemex's basic business model - I hope they can change to using other methods, but fear they may not.
@737smartin 3 роки тому
R.e. Kites...That’s energy generation, not energy storage. Even still, kites = wind turbines but much more fussy.
@michaelmcclafferty3346 3 роки тому
Fascinating, what a brilliant idea. What a great use of old mine shafts. Thanks for an informative video.
@Wol747 3 роки тому
I have a book on sustainability written in the sixties advancing the thought that why use a weight for gravity storage when useful weights are commonly available. Houses, for example. You could live in the “weight” which is elevated during offpeak/renewables and dropped when the energy is needed. OK, you need pillars and umbilicals to bring the water, telephone etc, but heh! live in your battery AND have a better view half the time!
@davidpowell3396 3 роки тому
Like a houseboat
@conrad2381 3 роки тому
Totally had this idea in Collage back in 2002. But, if you don’t put your ideas into action then it’s your own fault. Good luck to them.
@bureboburebo4188 3 роки тому
Rail cars heading up and down mountains is another similar approach being explored in California.
@CaedenV 3 роки тому
yes! Been looking forward for this to be covered!
@dadikkedude 3 роки тому
You give me hope for the future of our planet by sharing these innovations!
@kdeuler 3 роки тому
it would be interesting to consider cases where harnessing the weight energy doesn't involve using electricity for power transfer. For example, the mechanical motion of descending weights could be hard-geared to a coolant compressor for a large AC system.
@ps.2 3 роки тому
Sure, or build a wind turbine on top of the mine shaft and run a (clutched) belt from it to the mineshaft cranes. Thing is, electricity as energy transport can be very fungible and cheap. The efficiency losses in converting to electricity and back are often a small price to pay for the ease of moving the energy around. That is not to say it's *never* practical to use other means of energy transport. District heating is a prime example, in which you have a central boiler supplying steam to heat many buildings.
@daos3300 3 роки тому
@Kurt Euler or you just utilise the nearest free source of energy = wind or solar
@matthewknobel6954 3 роки тому
Old clocks used to use gravity weights.
@michaelgian2649 3 роки тому
Big Ben?
@raykent3211 3 роки тому
Yes, it's a very efficient form of energy storage.
@epiccollision 3 роки тому
@@raykent3211 no it isn’t, it’s just useful for clocks...
@raykent3211 3 роки тому
@@epiccollision à planet following an elliptical orbit is described as converting to and fro between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. This must be lossless or it would have lost energy and crashed into the sun before I was born. So, 100% efficient, pretty much by definition. So, per se, the conversion from gravitational potential to kinetic is lossless. Losses are incurred elsewhere, such as friction in gearing, which can be minimised. Yep, mate, the principle those old clocks are based on can be hyper-efficient.
@elonmask50 3 роки тому
@@raykent3211, interesting in theory, but fails in practice, the human has to convert food into energy in order to lift the weight once a day to power the clock for only a day, the self same clock can run for better than 12 months on the chemical energy in a single 1.5V carbon / zinc cell. Even in the “Matrix” that’s wasteful.
@mickwilson127 3 роки тому
Brilliant content as usual, this channel is the got source for sustainable energy info.
@jfirebaugh 3 роки тому
There are huge wind farms in west Texas which are surrounded by table-top mesas. A slanted rail system from the top of the mesa to the plains below could be a kinetic energy storage solution. The rock removed from the mesa to make the rail bed could be part of the moving mass.
@yggdrasil9039 3 роки тому
Maybe Energy Vault can paint the blocks in bright colours of the rainbow, to imitate a children's toy and make it a bit post-modern.
@matthiasf.1869 3 роки тому
I like your public relations kind of thinking 👍🏻
@kaitlyn__L 3 роки тому
That could certainly be a way to improve the public's receptivity to such a project and reduce NIMBYism. A rainbow, or some mural about the local area, so they can get excited when it's close to being put back together in the right order.
@ShawnDickens 3 роки тому
@@kaitlyn__L they would need two and have the blocks turn so the correct side is showing for each stack. Where something like a curved rainbow would just reverse in the other stack.
@niallrussell7184 3 роки тому
a Tower of Hanoi variation might work! 😂
@thtiger1 3 роки тому
Thunderfoot poked a lot of holes into this concept.
@seanhoare7639 3 роки тому
That's his claim to fame though.. A real downer man.. Except a lot of his holes are not well, quite, well PROVED !
@thtiger1 3 роки тому
@@seanhoare7639 He made some good points on the cost benefits. You use more power than you get back. Gravity power is nothing new. London had a whole hydraulic power grid back in the last century pre-electricity powered by the same basic concept. A very heavy weight compressing water which was then piped to several blocks of industrial buildings. I believe it was elevated by steam power.
@seanhoare7639 3 роки тому
@@thtiger1 The point is that the power you use is NOT required at the time it was generated so the choice is lose it or use it!
@thtiger1 3 роки тому
@@seanhoare7639 But you need to get a return on your investment. A money pit does not do the trick. I can't do Thunderfoots arguments justice here, but he makes some very good points about how viable this is.
@seanhoare7639 3 роки тому
@@thtiger1 If a return on investment was the ONLY criteria (& it seems money does talk) then I would agree But there are other societal / ecological benefits to be had or we could just waste the excess power.. As a species we seem to be very good at waste!
@ElElGato1947Gato 3 роки тому
Thank you, Dave, for yet another wonderful video. I really enjoy how you explore new options & new directions. Your videos enrich my lockdown experience.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Cheers Anthony. I'm delighted to hear they are of some use. Thanks for your support. I really appreciate it. All the best.
@SimonAmazingClarke 3 роки тому
I love the diversity of inovation. If you could raise and lower your house by 1 meter that would help most households cover their peek energy needs. Obviously a ramp would be required to exit the house.
@b43xoit 3 роки тому
And when the house is up, you could peek under it.
@Bibibosh 3 роки тому
It's basically a massive grandfather clock.
@mikebikekite1 2 роки тому
It's been really interesting to hear about all these energy storage ideas like gravity energy, flow batteries, liquid air, flywheel, iron-air, lithium, zinc etc etc but I'd just like to see an overview that compared of these different technologies listing the pros and cons of each. Things like efficiency, storage available, cost, size, environmental impact etc. Has there been any real life comparison tests made to see how these storage technologies work in practise?
@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan Рік тому
Simple overview is that all of the once you mentioned are far far too expensive to ever store energy on a grid scale.
@mikebikekite1 Рік тому
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan I'd still want to know what their cost, efficiency, storage capacity and a list of pros and cons. Pumped hydro (using gravity to store energy) seems to be used on the grid scale. Switzerland, just this week, introduced a 20GWh system.
@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan Рік тому
@@mikebikekite1 Yeah, there are plenty of pumped hydro around, but in general they do little more than grid stability and handling peaks, not used as baseload for days on end. And, pumped hydro has the same issues as hydro, it ruins local nature and can only be put in a handful of locations. But reading about the one in Switzerland i must say i am impressed! But even with its 2.3 bn usd it can still only give energy for 20 hours.. Its decent, but we'll probably never be able to combine renewables and batteries.
@Rezac66 3 роки тому
Amazingly interesting as always! Thanks!
@justaninja1 3 роки тому
Your quick-release design was ingenious 😂😂
@MrWokyman 3 роки тому
I watched the Thunderfoot vid on this a while back, will be interesting to see the results now that they have a real world test version in play. I think he raised some interesting questions about the effect of wind on the system, in that it would lead to sway in the cables and impact the precision of the system's ability to stack the blocks. He also speculated that the blocks will slowly chip each other away at the edges which seems like a possibility. Not sure what the tolerances are in terms of the stacking? Their website is pretty heavy on the marketing and light on information.
@laughingvampire7555 6 місяців тому
well Thunderf00t made the video and the calculations and it wasn't useful at all.
@pierre-lucdoucet1179 3 роки тому
There seems to be a hell lot of moving parts in the "Energy Vault" system. As a general rule, the more moving part you have, the more risk of failure you have. Frictions between blocks, degradation of the concrete blocks, mis-alignments due to wind and rain on the structure, resilience to earthquakes. Those are only some points that came to my mind is a couple of minutes. The only advantage it seems to have against pump hydro is the energy density of the system but I think the constant need of maintenance to keep this system running far out weight the gains.
@lGODofLAGl 3 роки тому
Other strength pumped hydro is much more limited when it comes to *where* it can be located, but otherwise I totally agree with you. The Graviticity proposal seems much more reasonable, but because it's less flashy it seems to get less attention (especially here in the comments), shame really.
@kimsteinium4532 3 роки тому
true
@MrBadbonesaw 3 роки тому
Agreed. The liquid redox battery is going to prove to best the best option down the road. Being able to stack shipping containers of liquid batteries and leave them for 25+ years without moving around will be the safest and least amount of maintenance. I would rather see those concrete blocks be made of carbon capture concrete and used as levees of building blocks.
@chrislaf2011 3 роки тому
But this is entirely missing the point. If the world is to move to clean, renewable energy sources (as it surely must), then - as is so often pointed out - various means to store energy from times of surplus to times of high demand are essential. The fact that a given storage system may be "less efficient" in terms of its maintenance needs is irrelevant. No one denies that there are problems that will need to be overcome; but the big picture has to be looked at. Why be negative? Why not try to see the positive and the potential?
@MrBadbonesaw 3 роки тому
@@chrislaf2011 it all comes down to 2 major factors 1: cost per megawatt storage 2: renewable materials that are abundant and nontoxic. Gravity storage has the material part figured out but the cost per megawatt is probably 2-3x pump hydro and loss of efficiency and maintenance. This project might be fine for R&D but I believe redox batteries will be a far better investment. It will eventually have a low cost per megawatt and be made from non-toxic materials that can be recycled after their 25+ year lifespan. They can also be stackable to fit into major metro areas where space is a major cost premium.
@hailstorm711 3 роки тому
Great content as always. Keep the videos coming. Thanks.
@gw7754 3 роки тому
Hello Dave, I was the guy who suggested that you address gravity storage batteries way back when a few years ago. I appreciate the quickness of these designs, which I never thought of (not a battery specialist, just an engineer). Anyhoo, my concept was to build simple gravity storage system in a modular fashion - a single one doesn't do much but you can easily construct lots of them. You have the on ground collection source of water, with the downhill component lying underground (to minimize evaporation and deal with places that might experience an earthquake). Then I thought that why not just power the pumps to move the water back uphill with renewable energy sources in the form of solar panels and wind turbines. If it should be not too sunny and not too windy then pumping the water up will simply take longer - just meant to be a baseload component in any case - fire up the natural gas and god forbid the coal-fired power plant instead, should you need it. I even imagined that channels could feed the above ground portion of this system, and also why not line the channels with solar panels? Would keep them clean and you've got more solar panels to assist if there's plenty of water filling the channels, reducing their effectiveness) to the above ground reservoir. Wind is wind and let it blow. My final thought involves charging Lithium Ion batteries, they are the ones for quick response, not the system itself. However the sheer quantity of LiOn batteries required, even in a modular approach is likely to be immense. Well at least you can charge them for free.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Hi GW. Sounds like you're describing a system very similar to Pumped Hydro. There is definitely an important place for that in the mix. All the best.
@techloidtech2051 3 роки тому
I prefer my term "Kinetic Energy Storage" lol. Should have been doing this kind of stuff decades ago.
@zerpollo 3 роки тому
That's potential energy, though. E.g. the Flywheel energy storage is a kinetic energy storage system.
@davidvondoom2853 3 роки тому
It's existed for centuries, just never applied large scale.
@Kevin_Street 3 роки тому
Thanks for another great video! Of the two of them, Gravitricity seems more realistic to me, since it's a lot simpler. Energy Vault sounds amazing, but it has so many moving parts with all the cables and hundreds of blocks, there's lots of ways it can go wrong. Seems to me these gravity batteries need to be big, dumb and reliable. You've got to shift lots of mass over and over again without anything breaking down, which makes "dumb" simple designs preferable.
@magicsasafras3414 2 роки тому
Energy vault is a scam(at least I think) because I refuse to believe that someone is stupid enough to come up with such an awful design. Gravitricity is an actual company that actually works because the design is literally one of the simplest batteries out there and its realistic. Weight based kinetic batteries are only good at small scales. For a city you need pumped hydroelectric dams because they only work at large scales. A weight battery at it's largest would probably be the size of an elevator (though you could go bigger, the potential storage to size ratio would drop significantly). Dams need to be large because water only has high storage potential in large volume. A dam the size of an elevator would have terrible potential storage(I would say the smallest dam is a small lake but that's only going to power like a few houses for an extended amount of time). They are both good but they are meant to store power on different scales.
@harrywhite7287 3 роки тому
Excellent. Thank you.
@ramzeneger 3 роки тому
Thank you for the video
@lakpabhutia3554 3 роки тому
Okay, now you should watch thunder foot debunking this technology. 😂
@peterbrickwood3204 3 роки тому
Please post a link.
@lakpabhutia3554 3 роки тому
@@peterbrickwood3204 ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hnmZd6uxr4Sn12Q.html
@steevesdd 3 роки тому
The liquid metal batteries promise a high efficiency , high cycle life grid storage option that is un restricted in deployment.
@incognitotorpedo42 3 роки тому
How do they compare in fully amortized cost to the gravity storage described here? Gravity is claimed to be 4 cents per kWh, according to the video.
@adolfodef 3 роки тому
@@incognitotorpedo42 We should combine this systems for grid frequency estabilization & baseload grid filling. . The gravity storage contains huge ammounts of energy, it can "blackstart". . The liquid metal batteries requires heat to keep themselves "liquid" (so in case of a failure it shutdowns & needs a lot of input of energy); but while they are operational, it is more efficient. -> Combined with liquid air storage (the heat reservoir in/next the liquid metal batteries), there is a thermodynamic sinergy [plus allowing different ways to charge/discharge].
@steevesdd 3 роки тому
@@incognitotorpedo42 my understanding is that it is cheaper than pumped hydro.
@steevesdd 3 роки тому
@@adolfodef as part of a grid , it would be expected to have multiple charge and discharge cycles daily. The longer that a liquid metal battery is expected to hold a charge the less efficient that it gets. This technology is for frequency regulation and short term power storage for 1 or 2 days. But that is exactly what is needed for solar and wind farms or grid scale frequency regulation.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Hi Drew. We'll be looking at those in the next video.
@richardservatius5405 Рік тому
imagine a mine shaft and the waste pile nearby. this energy storage system has an automatic dumping system located way above the shaft bottom. electricity hauls waste rock to the shaft and puts it on a big tray. when electricity is needed, the tray drops and dumps the waste down the shaft, then comes up empty, ready for another load.
@anders21karlsson 3 роки тому
Oh my. This channel is the best on UKposts. Simply excellent. Thank you.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Cheers Anders. I really appreciate your support :-)
@oisiaa 3 роки тому
The energy capacity is WAY too low for how complicated they are. Pumped hydro is the clear winner since you can store millions of tons of water very easily.
@Pants4096 3 роки тому
It's not one-size fits all. If these technologies can be optimized to be cost-competitive, they'll play a role in a comprehensive grid-level storage solution. A win no matter how you look at it.
@ragerancher 3 роки тому
Pumped hydro has a far lower energy density and would actually take as more material to make than an equivalent capacity system. It also has large ecological effects and can impact across national lines (eg the damming of the Nile). These systems also provide a potential use for otherwise waste construction material.
@anonuser12345 3 роки тому
Pumped hydro can't be built everywhere. People will need different solutions for each situation. In the plains/prairies, there is no suitable landscape for pumped hydro.
@guringai 3 роки тому
PH is only good where there is plenty of water & suitable geography. That excludes large parts of the planet
@bmlbigbang 3 роки тому
That's really encouraging and indeed something I wanted to explore mathematically for economic feasibility. Do you know how well each energy storage technology will compared among the many that we have explored so far?
@channelwarhorse3367 3 роки тому
Go constant clean energy 🌟 drive.google.com/file/d/1bvjs-U307TGyz1z6AUsZ9oZiG4u_x4Ev/view?usp=drivesdk
@channelwarhorse3367 3 роки тому
Encouraging to who...what do i care, treason hang me, what do I care, clean energy technology 💪. Be the Greatest 👍 drive.google.com/file/d/1--MtSpDpex-zxEcPFOw0EQxVcWcaAk1O/view?usp=drivesdk
@bmlbigbang 3 роки тому
@@channelwarhorse3367 encouraging for humanity.
@grindupBaker 3 роки тому
Presumably, you have to go with their claimed levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and you don't get to see how their number crunchers (number manipulators ?) derived it. I don't know though, just an assumption, and I'll not be researching that.
@channelwarhorse3367 3 роки тому
Grind up clean energy technology before we all oven out, Baker Love 💘. Baking bread is easier then peace ✌ ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rqKXaq-dfJVimHk.html
@pattirockgarden4423 3 роки тому
So many great designs & systems to produce alternative energy!
@brokkoliomg6103 3 роки тому
I'm a big fan of Gravitricity and wanted to see it on this show for quite a while. I'm very happy the time has come now and it is a great video! I don't like EnergyVault as much due to aesthetics and doubts on its practicality, but I'm eager to see how both projects (and others if there are more of course) develop and what he future holds! I hope we really see these in action sooner than later.
@jowjor 3 роки тому
PS power stations are using thousands of tons of water with hundreds to thousands of meters of drop height. And they are far from enough to store energy from renewable sources. In France, we have water and mountain, so we use relatively speaking a hih amount of hydropower, and we mainly use them to regulate the power grid (but only 18% of our hydropower is PSPS so maybe we have some margine to improve on storage). now, if we replace PSPS by a mass of heavy steel, with a density of 8, we'd need 1/8 of the surface of a lake at a few hundreds of meters to generate a comparable energy. 1MW of power output for 8 hours, so you'd need 4 of them to simulate 1 medium size wind turbine, and 8 more if you want electricity for a full calm day. That's a joke. We are seriously looking at batteries. because it's more feasible. Potential and kinetic energies are weak. Chemical energies is 100-100 times more concentrate. And then nuclear energy is again 100-100 times more concentrate. Potential energy= mass*height*g, physic is a bitch.
@davidvondoom2853 3 роки тому
I guess you also have to factor in the costs and lifespans of chemical batteries, vs these batteries made from recycled materials with potentially longer lifespans.
@bimblinghill 3 роки тому
I think it's unrealistic to think of the energy vault as a mass storage device like pumped hydro, for the reasons you say. I think this would be more of a competitor to the sort of load-balancing that those new Tesla grid batteries do, with quick response but relatively short charge/discharge times.
@PinataOblongata 3 роки тому
How quickly and cheaply can you dig a hole compared to building a nuclear station?
@PinataOblongata 3 роки тому
We could fit about a thousand of them in one open-cut mine.
@jowjor 3 роки тому
@@PinataOblongata Good thing you can fit a thousands of them if you want that instead of a nuclear power plant (even if they don't serve the same purpose), because at maximum power of a few MW you'd need 1000-6000 of them to replace a single thermal power plant, only to have same power output, but not the same energy output. And you don't produce any watt if you don't have an equal energy input beforehand so you still need a source of energy. Now, is it still cheaper and faster to build 1000 overbuilt clock weight like this, and his power source like 250 windmill, or 1 single thermal power plant, being nuke if you like it?
@markchip1 3 роки тому
With all due respect to you & Energy Vault, this scheme has been torn to shreds on Thunderfoot's channel! Rail systems on longish slopes are far more practical.
@Leopold5100 3 роки тому
you need to find more comprehensive sources
@alexhu6422 3 роки тому
@@Leopold5100 just watch the video its pretty clear from an engineering point of view
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Ah..Thunderf00t...bless him, and his nihilistic depression-fest channel :-)
@alexhu6422 3 роки тому
@@JustHaveaThink haha good point, i also dislike his attitude but its still fun to watch and he is right about most things he debunks :) i like your channel ! energy storage is a huge topic with lots of different possibilities. Im very interested in flywheels
@manpetepetrop8034 3 роки тому
@@JustHaveaThink But still his criticism is valid, if you take some time to watch the video, i too very often find many errors on his videos (sometimes making mistakes in his calculations - or using too much hyperbole, or self rightfulness). But his "busted" series is most of the times on the spot exposing charlatans and scammers alike, to people that lack basic science and engineering education - esp. those that drink too much of Green Tech Kool-Aid, and believe that for every problem there is a simple (or should i say simplistic) technological solution. There is a rule for exposing such scammers (that take advantage of people's real worry about climate change, and taking their money and run), if you only see from the beginning animations and no working prototypes, promising extraordinary things on performance, durability, longevity never mentioning anything negative or technical hurdles then... sniff sniff i smell a scam.
@anothergoogleuser 3 роки тому
Thanks for sharing.
@daveandrew589 2 роки тому
Not only informative, but the world's most subtle comedian.
@davidtindell950 3 роки тому
Thank You Once Again ! Happy New Year 2021 !! BTW ... the proposed “Space Elevators” could also serve as gravity-based generators !!!
@MukhaMisra 3 роки тому
Will the heavy blocks moving up and down be stable enough in a windy place. Plus too many moving parts
@rupert7565 3 роки тому
And I wonder if it can survive a single earthquake.
@MrBizteck 3 роки тому
Danmit I just commented the same ..I should learn to read the comments first 😂
@BatteryOnBoard 3 роки тому
I suppose it could be a part of a multi-prong system where wind turbines are employed in windy conditions and surplus wind energy used to stack until such time as it becomes dangerous to move cranes.
@rupert7565 3 роки тому
@@MrBizteck To be fair youtube does not make reading it's comments easy.
@stevesedio1656 3 роки тому
@@rupert7565 Especially, when the comment is in the replies. A search feature would be nice.
@lamajigmeg 3 роки тому
Another great video my friend thank you very much I’m going to share it with all my engineer buddies
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Cheers. I really appreciate your support. All the best.
@torbenalstrup3902 3 роки тому
I wonder who is tidying up in his shed after that tool box attack :-)
@IvoryOasis 3 роки тому
Another idea is a buoyancy generator. Basically make a giant steel vessel that you can pump air into and out of .... fill it with water, it becomes as buoyant as the weight of the steel container (so make it heavy) and can sink down as far as the ocean goes generating energy. Then when it gets to where you want, pump in air and repeat.
@mikegraham7078 3 роки тому
Ivory - The drawbacks, here, are a loss of mass due to the weight of the water (i.e. you need a lot more mass of steel to get the same 'weight'), the hoses for the air, and the marine environment.
@johnburns4017 3 роки тому
Great idea. But, seawater will corrode it quite quickly.
@IvoryOasis 3 роки тому
@@johnburns4017 I don't know about quickly. There are a lot of long term marine structures. Could also make it out of things like ferro cement (cheaper).
@IvoryOasis 3 роки тому
@@mikegraham7078 Yup, it would have to be large enough to be worth it. And then the cable / chain would also be an extreme weight consideration.
@michaelrenper796 3 роки тому
Complete bullshit. You get the same energy by just keeping the vessel on the ocean floor an letting water flow in. Compared to said concept you idea has only disadvantages and lots of them for no obvious benefit. The later concept is being investigated but is not terribly economical either.
@jamesag4135 3 роки тому
Love this channel.
@lbronw 3 роки тому
Some countries have 40% obesity rate. If we eat more chicken wings, descend down the mineshaft generating energy, people automatically come back up when the food is metabolised. Tadah, repeat, it's a win win, everybody happy. Jokes aside, love your channel, very inspiring to see solutions to big problems we face in our lifetime.
@Ssyphoned 3 роки тому
can this be integrated into elevators and cranes like alternators for the building/vehicle?
@OMGAnotherday 3 роки тому
Good point, I live in an apartment block with lifts, the energy could be used for the communal area lighting at night.
@alexhu6422 3 роки тому
it already is. at least here in austria. they reduce power consumption but are just viable in some big apartment buildings. www.otis.com/documents/256045/6552829/Regen_Drive_UK.pdf/f470aba1-af7d-b4b3-ecc1-547c2984fbf1?t=1591127484167
@SkaterJanF 3 роки тому
Modern elevators, cranes trains do operate using this principles: if it is possible a lift will generate electricity and put it back in the grid. Same goes for trains and cranes (at least for the modern ones).
@scottarmstrong5607 2 роки тому
Yup they already do this. But gravity on earth is very weak so there is not that much energy that is possible to be stored in such a system. Now if we built elevators on the sun, we could store a lot more energy!
@gerardvila4685 3 роки тому
Exercise: Find out the energy storage capacity of a Tesla power wall. Design a gravity storage system with the same capacity that would fit inside a house.
@yggdrasil9039 3 роки тому
You'd put it outside the house. Maybe at the end of the house where the chimney used to go?
@nerdy1701 3 роки тому
To have the same energy storage capacity of a tesla power wall 13.5 kwh you would need to drop a chuck of concrete that weighs 1 tonne almost 10 meters. Not practical in my opinion.
@gerardvila4685 3 роки тому
@@nerdy1701 Thanks! If we assume concrete has density 2 (actually it's 2.3 approx) then a tonne block would occupy a volume of 50 x 100 x 100 cm. 10 m is 4 storeys each 2.5 m high; a typical detached house would more likely be 2 storeys, or 5 m high. You could store the same energy by doubling the weight and halving the height. So you could have 4 half-tonne weights 50 x 50 x 100 cm (or cylinders, like clock weights) going up and down the whole height of the 5-metre house. If you spent a little more money on the weights you could buy lead ones (density 11), and either shrink the actual weight or weights, or shorten the height about 5 times, so you would only need about a metre instead of 5. In conclusion it doesn't seem impossible, just cumbersome - the best solution might be to build a dedicated tower, either up against the building to give it a medieval look, or free standing like an Italian bell tower.
@alandalsing522 3 роки тому
@@nerdy1701 I have 4 tonne in cars sitting in my garage every night...2.5 meters might be feasible...
@yggdrasil9039 3 роки тому
@@gerardvila4685 Great idea.
@gwitichis1 3 роки тому
there is also a thing called ski lift. Which is quite common in the alpine region. This thick wire cable weight lifting infrastructure is when idle a candidate for gravity energy.
@CaedenV 3 роки тому
I love this idea. It is just so deceptively simple. Just as efficient and usable as pumped hydro, but much more compact and faster at turning around from charging mode to discharge mode. Can't wait to hear about results from these initial testing facilities. I do have some concerns about the open nature of the first example as high winds could make for a very bad day; but but a fairing around it, or throw it in a mine shaft and what could go wrong?
@edcranium500 3 роки тому
Maybe we could all have a shaft in the garden. No pun intended.
@GilesForrester 3 роки тому
The Victorians knew this... did you ever see the inside of a grandfather clock ? Two lead weights on cords runs the clock for a week before you wind them up again...
@rogerbarton497 3 роки тому
Well before the Victorians, the bloke who made my grandfather clock (S. Lawson) died in 1770
@GilesForrester 3 роки тому
@@rogerbarton497 thanks , I'm no historian !
@Bassotronics 2 роки тому
They can redesign this by using a huge Neo magnet inside a huge copper tube. As the Neo magnet goes down, the copper tube slows down the magnet from falling fast due to eddy currents but still can generate the power needed from it falling. They can use that same eddy current via loop wiring to store energy to power the crane arms instead of using the wind turbines.
@Bibibosh 3 роки тому
This has blown my mind My god! This is genius. I have seen alot of fantastic idea, but "dam" terrific!
@davidsharpe7869 3 роки тому
What about useing the tyde to lift heavey weight twice a day.
@yggdrasil9039 3 роки тому
You can use the tide to capture tidal flows at high tide and then gradually release them to generate power, so long as you have enough water and a decent difference in water levels.
@romuloramosdias1137 3 роки тому
There's a system called tidal lagoons. They do basically this
@yggdrasil9039 3 роки тому
@@romuloramosdias1137 Good idea. Where are they currently in operation?
@romuloramosdias1137 3 роки тому
@@yggdrasil9039 there are many of those in Europe, but I don't remember exactly where. There's a video explaining this
@michealoflaherty1265 3 роки тому
I really need someone to check my math(s) here Potential energy = m g h So 25 tons over a 150m mine shaft P. E. = 25000 x 9.81 x 150 P.E. = 36787500 J (sounds good) Or 10.2kWh Or ~1 €/£/$ of electricity. Not so good. A little more than 1 Tesla powerwall. Not a great return for a hefty crane hanging over a very deep hole. Would appreciate any corrections
@PaulMansfield 3 роки тому
Looks right. This is why gravity storage needs such large scale.
@michealoflaherty1265 3 роки тому
@@PaulMansfield At least I'm not going mad. Pumped hydro works because you have huge amounts of water. You would need enormous amounts of concrete and pulleys and motors that need to work under enormous loads for large amounts of time. Doesn't add up for me.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Sounds like you're referring to the gravitricity site. That one is only a small scale demonstration. They will be far larger at full scale and have multiple weights in multiple drop shafts.
@michealoflaherty1265 3 роки тому
@@JustHaveaThink Thanks for your response. Day made 😊.
@thtiger1 3 роки тому
I had a think, and I realized that town water towers are actually gravity storage systems. You pump water up into a tank high in the air, and it creates water pressure for the town water supply. You could run the outflow from the tank through a generator into a pond to create power, and pump it back up from the pond to the tank to store energy. Far fewer moving parts than lifting big bricks, and no worry about outside forces like wind interfering.
@Bavvo69 2 роки тому
A tiny amount of energy storage though. All these gravity systems need a combination of high mass and a large height differential to work, you don't get a lot of energy otherwise.
@schdifn4025 3 роки тому
Amazing theme again
@ristekostadinov2820 3 роки тому
Please make a video about earthships.
@peterkratoska3681 3 роки тому
Here is a critique of the Energy Vault by Thunderfoot - he's a little over the top at times but raises some pretty good points. Pumped hydro is definitely costly but it is also gigawatt scale. I think Highview Power liquid air storage system (mentioned briefly and in an earlier video) is far more practical. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hnmZd6uxr4Sn12Q.html
@BalintPais 3 роки тому
Fascinating!
@kasimirb5155 3 роки тому
Good idea. Such a contraption can be built anywhere.
@mdombroski 3 роки тому
If we'd just scale up nuclear, we could have reliable electricity without all the extra mining for all these half baked battery storage schemes and we wouldn't have to blight all those landscapes with rust prone wind towers and future landfill feedstock.
@nerdy1701 3 роки тому
Let's not think too logically! Lol
@Bob_Lob_Law 3 роки тому
?_? Aside from the fact that you are totally not on the ball, rust prone? Lol they are literally made from fiberglass! Last I checked fiberglass was not famous for rusting.
@bamiebal6242 3 роки тому
I really love your work but energy vault is not a grid scale solution and actually a dumb idea. You need to move much larger masses to make gravitational storage viable 500T doesn't make a dent on grid scale. Liquid air is much more viable and less of an eyesore especially if you put them underground.
@rudylikestowatch 3 роки тому
@@wishmasterbrazen Link here: m.ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hnmZd6uxr4Sn12Q.html
@gamingtonight1526 3 роки тому
Hydropower is basically water affected by gravity. We say the water produces the electricity, but really it's the gravity.
@glenmcd 3 роки тому
I'm the inventor of "drag negation". I think there are many possibilities using the weight of the ocean itself as energy storage. Some years back I thought of giant balloons on ocean floor, filling and then using escaping air pressure to drive generators. But perhaps something with higher efficiency would be a vacuum chamber at depth with variable volume (piston/cylinder arrangement). Water seals at 500 atmosphere pressure might be difficult but if possible, would be an excellent giant battery and if anything goes wrong, there's no humans around to injure. Glen McDiarmid.
@eddydogleg 3 роки тому
6:30 "They claim a 50-year design life -with no cycle limit or degradation" Sounds like marketing wank to me. I've worked with 450 tonne (1,000,000 lb) cable hoisting systems and sooner or later the cable will have done enough work that some or all of it will need to be replaced.
@elipson1 3 роки тому
I don't think they mean "without maintenance". I think what they mean is that after 50 years, it will still produce the same quantity of power as when it started. For example like how batteries degrade over time, even with proper maintenance. It was an odd statement either way, like the 90% efficiency claim also....
@anonuser12345 3 роки тому
Obviously the system will require routine maintenance. The statement was "no cycle limit or degradation" - which is accurate to the system as a whole, but not every single piece of equipment in it.
@AndreSomers 3 роки тому
@@anonuser12345 That would be the same for battery storage though. You can exchange the cells, the system as whole remains.
@Shmidtk 3 роки тому
This idea has too little energy density, so it is almost impractical to lift any solid materials. You will get extremely high forces and complex machinery to get it working. And you need millions and millions of tons of solid materials. Just do the math. If you lift 1 ton of material at 1 m, you will get E = mgh ~ 1000 *10 * 1 = 10 kJ of energy. To get any sensible amount of storage for example, 10 kW of power for 1 day you need 864 Mj of energy, or you need to lift /drop 8.64 Kt at 10 m height. To get 10 KW you already need pretty massive machinery to work with 8 640 000 kg object. All project of this type looks like a scam.
@ragerancher 3 роки тому
In the first example each block weighs 35 tons and the building is 150m. That means each block lowered gives you 52.5 MJ. Considering it looks like it can do 6 blocks simultaneously, you could get 315MJ from a single simultaneous drop. That's not far off what you say is required and that is just for 1 drop.
@DreadX10 3 роки тому
@@ragerancher At 3:57 how much energy in lowering the remaining blocks? These people also use cables that never wear out (according to their calculations). Pumping fluids is better if possible at the location.
@ragerancher 3 роки тому
@@DreadX10 Not saying whether the other considerations make it good or not, just that you may as well use the numbers given in the video rather than some generic ones.
@Shmidtk 3 роки тому
But you need 35 tons and 150 m height just to barely support 10 kW or small house. Typical consumption can be up to 50 kW. Have you seen 35 tons crane with 150 m arm? Looks way to complex for such small energy.
@d_shepperd 3 роки тому
What looks obvious to me is this energy is computed and reported using the max height of 150m but that's only for the first few blocks. Then the height gets less and less as the blocks from and ever shrinking pile are lowered to an ever growing pile. Maybe it works but I remain skeptical.
@anthonyfletcher4250 3 роки тому
Well articulated without the need for technical jargon that is off putting to the layman. l think it is a great idea to encourage the crafts, especially the use of sustainable timber to replace our present reliance on plastic, steel and concrete.
@bobwallace9753 3 роки тому
A problem with raising and lowering blocks as shown in the video is that 'not all blocks are equal'. As the system moves to lower blocks in the stack there's less energy to be recovered from the block. The block has less distance to fall, less energy was used to raise it to its lower position in the stack. In a 100 block high stack some blocks store 99 units of energy, the second from the bottom block stores 1 unit of energy. The bottom block stores none. Mount the crane at the edge of a cliff. Install rail tracks at the top and bottom. Raise and lower "rolling weights" and move them from the crane to storage areas. We should have an abundance of no longer needed coal rail cars. Fill them with something cheap like waste concrete. Slope the lower track away from the crane. When recovering power from the system let gravity move the lowered weights/cars. Then when there's power to be stored store some of it as travel to the crane. At the top do the opposite. Move weights up a slope when there's power and let gravity bring them to the crane during discharge periods. Huge amounts of energy could be stored by simply making the storage tracks longer and increasing the number of cars/weights. All cars/weights store 100% of the energy needed to lift from low to high.
@JustHaveaThink 3 роки тому
Hi Bob. Sounds like you have a plan. Might be worth talking to investors.
@domsau2 3 роки тому
"Train storage" seems more interesting.
@turboconqueringmegaeagle9006 3 роки тому
It makes a lot more sense to use the terrain and rails.
@oisiaa 3 роки тому
Trains store far too little energy. I know the idea has been proposed, but it's 1,000x too small. A better idea is capturing potential energy from existing ore trains hauling from high elevation to low elevation since then you're actually generating energy and not storing it.
@turboconqueringmegaeagle9006 3 роки тому
@@oisiaa rails are very efficient, you just need to find a hill the same hight as this tower and once you are at the top, you've stored the same energy.
@stm91 3 роки тому
At least in Austria it's already common practice that energy spikes from regenerative breaking of trains is used to accelerate trains elsewhere in the network.
@domsau2 3 роки тому
@@turboconqueringmegaeagle9006 Not train on mountain with gravity effect, but vacuum O-shape tube with magneto-train, with kinetic energy.
@krap101 3 роки тому
Thunderfoot has an interesting view on this " invention"
@dogwalker666 3 роки тому
I was going to say that too!. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hnmZd6uxr4Sn12Q.html
@davitdavid7165 3 роки тому
the guy that just compared fuel tanks and batteries and concluded that there is no way you can have a future with electric cars, failing to mention the weight or efficiency of the engine? he just likes to pretend he is smarter than everyone else while spamming decade old memes. recently stopped watching him, recommend you do the same.
@dogwalker666 3 роки тому
@@davitdavid7165 electric cars dont have engines! Oh and Tesla's are crap in the snow.
@davitdavid7165 3 роки тому
@@dogwalker666 cars in general are hurt by snow. There is no way a selection of colder climate focused electric cars does not exist. Also electric cars use an induction motor that is more efficiant then the ideal(inpossible) internal combustion engine. Look it up.
@dogwalker666 3 роки тому
@@davitdavid7165 mate not only am I an electrical engineer and know a hell of a lot more about motors than you, I also own a diesel/electric car and today had to tow a Tesla and a leaf out of the snow, and another electric only car that was completely flat and miles from a charging point. How do you carry a gallon of electricity to get it going? Yet my car didn't even slip once,
@rbzanatta 2 роки тому
I just heard that Energy Vault is coming to Brazil with an experimental plant arround a large wind farm. Looking forward to seeing their results arround here!
@petterbirgersson4489 3 роки тому
I leave a comment for the algorithm. I really love how you are creating an online library for descriptions of both energy storage systems and energy generation systems. Keep up the good work!
@SkaterJanF 3 роки тому
The energy vault energy storage is a bad idea. Using cranes, which can't cope with wind for energy storage from windfarms is not a good idea. Furthermore picking up blocks and dropping them off somewhere else (and not damaging them) is a very complex task which still does require human interventions (take a look at container shipping). In the container shipping the picking up the containers from the ships is still a manual job. This task will be complicated further because the blocks will be prone to wear and tear. Furthermore one needs to be sure that a whole stack of blocks will not fall over. The energy vault has only shown CGI's of the principle. I doubt that this concept will work in a practical cost efficient way. The concept where old mine shafts are used sounds more promising. Also concepts using trains going up the hill are being investigated (ukposts.info/have/v-deo/inijoKSlmYCmpZs.html). But I do have my doubts on the side of the maintenance side and durability of these concepts. (Pumping water from A to B is so much easier and does require a whole lot less maintenance.
@musaran2 3 роки тому
Telltale sign : These projects don't give their maintenance costs. Also, factoring density (concrete ≅ 2.4) and height, these equate to a modest hydro dam. For MUCH more cost per unit of storage.
@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039 3 роки тому
Just had a look at container shipping, seems just a matter of time before that's fully automated www.wired.co.uk/article/rotterdam-port-ships-automation
@roccov3614 3 роки тому
I agree. Energy Vault is WAY too complicated. It'll never work.
@3gunslingers 3 роки тому
_"Using cranes, which can't cope with wind for energy storage from windfarms is not a good idea."_ Yeah sure.... like do you really think the actual location will be the same as in the promo video? _"Furthermore one needs to be sure that a whole stack of blocks will not fall over."_ That's why they use a lego-like system with interlocking -pricks- bricks. _"The energy vault has only shown CGI's of the principle."_ Hmmm.... 4:29 Seems like you didn't pay attention to the video.
@SkaterJanF 3 роки тому
@@3gunslingers1) The benefit of placing a storage system near the point where energy is generated is that the load on the electrical network can be "shaved" and optimized. Placing the storage further away takes away a key benifit. This places questions on the validity of the concept. 2) Interlocking bricks adds to the complexity and makes it prone to wear and tear. Furthermore it adds to the complexity of the system. These interlocking bricks can be a solution for a height of a few metres. If it is a solution to the scale which is presented has to be proven. Furthermore the foundation on which the blocks will be placed will also be a relevant factor. 3) In the video it is shown that cranes are built. In the video the autonomous operation of the system is not presented. Please prove me wrong and show the autonomous operation of the system.
Just Have a Think
Переглядів 415 тис.
ВОТ ТАК SHORTS
Переглядів 2,7 млн
Супермама
Переглядів 1,2 млн
Just Have a Think
Переглядів 96 тис.