YOU'RE FUNNY AND IT WENT RIGHT OVER PEOPLES HEADS : I AM A BIG *FAN* 🤣🤣🤣🤣

".....; and nobody recognises THAT"

@@johnkean6852 including your take I THINK NOT just the joke makers. Winds already mechanical unlike photon to electron pumping wtf would you electrify it if your goal TO do mechanical WORK _however_ far away especially later on completely some OTHER DAY. WINDMILLS ARE ABUSED PUMPING ELECTRONS. Many things they do better DUH. DO THOSE. BUILD THEM, MORE OF THEM FIR SAME DOUGH AND LEARN HOW TO BEST HARVEST THAT ENERGY FOW!

@@Irene-fu6gj : D HILL ...ARRIOUS! fAR AND aWAY ; )

@@johnkean6852 speak for yourself... it's so obvious it's barely funny

That sounds like an interesting idea.

People will stop fighting against renewables if they know there's a job awaiting them there. Many places where the fossil fuels are burned have very few large good-paying employers in the area. These dirty power plants pay for homes, pay for education, pay for health care. You can imagine why the local population puts up a fight and votes against their shuttering. I was surprised that they said that 200 people would be employed by the new plant. Seems like a lot, but from an employment standpoint it's a good thing. We'll take the oil drilling companies and their employees and turn them into geothermal ground source energy providers - the clean kind.

Don't stop there. There's no reason to think the coal-fired stations couldn't be converted to a hybrid model, which could use liquid air or coal/natural gas powered steam. That way, they could default to the liquid air and reduce overall emissions. Although, I specifically remember reports of scientists back in the 1970's claiming we were on the verge of a new ice age. It's entirely possible that man-made global warming caused by the use of fossil fuels saved the planet. Further, the greenhouse effect is not necessarily a bad thing. Plants grow much better in a CO2 rich environment. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere may well be exactly what's needed to allow farmers to feed an ever increasing world population. Of course, climate alarmists often also advocate for a reduction of human population upon the earth. But if you're truly serious about eliminating CO2 from power generation, then you should be advocating for thorium powered liquid salt nuclear reactors. They virtually eliminate the issues with conventional uranium/water cooled nuclear reactors, and there's enough thorium to produce cheap plentiful energy for the entire planet for thousands of years. With it we could lift third world countries out of poverty easily.

@@erikehlert People involved with international geothermal say they are working with natural gas companies measuring the heat in the thousands of dry drill holes left behind. The gas companies might get onto geothermal and measure the heat in their drill holes going forward.

@@motie38 How is that green when it produces toxic waste?

In one of the videos they said they can take the compressed co2 and sell it to brewerys to make extra money.

​@@imakevideos5377 There's a lot more Argon than CO2 in the air, and CO2 is also cheaper than Argon and other noble gasses produced from fractional distillation, because it's a by-product from a lot of chemical or industrial processes.

@Allen Loser I think what he's saying is that the distillation of noble gases as a byproduct of the compression process can be used to supplement current ongoing fractional distillation processes.

@@imakevideos5377 Brewers make there own Co2/ Yeast and sugar = Co2

You could probably set up a cracking plant as a side business, after all you have got to strip out particals and moisture anyway. Wouldn't take much to distill noble gases and oxygen, leaving the nitrogen behind. Probably safer to do it that way anyway...

i read that comment at the exact time of the video saying that....wild

God bless you

There's a sucker born every minute.

@@rwargo1647 Oh shut up. What are YOU doing to help humanity, besides throwing insults?

: ))

Energy storage needs many bright concepts such as springy floor energy storage. In future hardwood floors will be elastic so's you store the energy from dropping tools and use it to boil water for coffee later, rather than just leaving a bloody great dent in the floor, like Mister Think's one.

Keep banging the rocks together guys

LOL

rather good

Why not start a business?

@Christian Marquez : Yes, it would be an honorable endeavor but don’t kid yourself, your paycheck would be coming from some outside source. These kind of systems are subsidized by the taxpayer one way or another.

Dispatcher : You mean like Solyndra?

@@professormawillett4297 I mean find a group of similarly minded folks and make it happen

Dispatcher : I would gladly participate in an “green” endeavor that was honestly funded with truthful and honest goals. It is a noble challenge. You got some money laying around. We’ll get started right away.

That sounds like an interesting way to make it more cost effective in the long term

Compressing air cranks out heat...not sure if I would want an on-site bakery and urban waste heat loopery, so it would tend to be aimed at the open sky as available where compressor turbine boosting avails not.

Very well articulated

There are companies that have been using this for 15 years

@@udaysaireddi6265 Any information please

Alvydas Urbonas losing, not loosing.

Neil Hughes, some screws are looser than others. Such as with the person who gets their pansies in a bunch because a stranger on the internet used the wrong they’re there.

@@tcorris Communicating is difficult enough, and there is no need to make it harder by not using the correct spelling. English must be a very confusing language to learn because of all of the words that sound the same, but loosing and losing are not in that category.

@@neilhughes3823 Did you understand what he meant? Then stop being a pedant.

You keep all the power if supplied by baseload nuclear and don't have to dick around with storage at all.

Mostly due to grid stabilization not storage. And I think it was only a quarter of the cost. But that is still pretty good.

No, it took about two years to pay for itself.

Ancient history is awesomely important and the predicate for further history writing but as you and Deaver to do that you apparently haven't included in your comment any mention of Miss Fong and her innuendo not just in her reams of patents Rich old white dudes paid her to file. She called her company lightsail of course and by shutting it down and putting solar panels on the glider the General Public exist in a naive dazed state like she never tried. Among the insights the general public would clamor to enforce give it a chance is the fact that you don't need a tube for the boring technology to work great you just have to create the vacuum in front of the bullet that the cargo and people ride in. That bullet concentrates the atmosphere thereby obtaining the heat needed to boil the liquids and operate the turbine.

Love the humour too :-)

My pleasure Tim :-)

And me.

@@JustHaveaThink you should check in electrolytic hydrogen peroxide . It's already powered the World's Fastest Cars -pollution free

60% efficiency is crap.

Right, they have a huge efficiency problem.

I fix... LIquid nitrogen

I think using magnetic refrigeration this higher efficiency is possible.

@@princefriendship I'm afraid that magnetic refrigeration will not be anywhere near economic at sufficient scale. The problem is that the magnetic field needs to be of the order of >1T over 10's of metres cubed. Superconducting magnets this size might bankrupt a small country.

@@princefriendship I haven't heard of a magnetic refrigarator in that temperature range though. You would probably need several different refrigerators in a line, because the entropy change just isn't that large.

Yes, to expand on that: Lithium batteries are not great for big grid storage, but very useful in smaller/mobile units. Using spare capacity of your E-vehicle to power the house at night could be very useful. For wind-parks and large solar arrays, liquid air seems like a perfect scalable and environmental friendly approach, that is used to power the grid. Really 60% efficiency round trip for a technology that needs very little scarce metals and is very well recyclable is way preferable over batteries, and with much lower environmental impact than hydro dams. And it works great on our Dutch flat and windy land too. It's always important to see an energy mix, suited to goals and distribution factors. For storage of wind and solar energy, I can see a mix of somewhere in the regions of: 75% grid solution to capture renewable energy in liquid air (or similar clean grid-scale tech). These storages can be put close to the source, in order to minimize pressure on the national grid during peak production. Liquid air could also be a solution for new production sites on a grid that is already saturated, like in many places in the Netherlands, taking energy from the grid during peaks as well. 20% in batteries for mobility (cars) and local use (or off-grid locations). These are close to the user, and are charged via your own solar panels or via the national grid (preferably in peak production hours). and 1-5% in Hydrogen, also for mobility in large trucks that need lighter solutions than huge batteries. Hydrogen can be moved around and distributed like petrol. This percentage becomes as low as possible, because of the many energy losses in the conversion and storage, but it can play a role in small amounts for specific uses.

The only practical way lithium ion batteries could be used as a major energy storage method for the grid is if you can get them cheap, I think that a few years after we get enough hybrid and electric vehicles on the road there should be a good supply of old batteries that are too degraded for road use but are in good enough shape for grid use, and hopefully by the time these early batteries are too degraded for grid use we will have developed the infrastructure to recycle them.

@exorientelux As opposed to the millions of birds, bats and insects killed by smog and climate change.

exorientelux ..but surely a lengthy working lifespan of 25 years or so makes wind and solar environmentally viable? The static foundations, pylons and support frames last much longer, while turbines can be re-built. Solar panel technology is leaping ahead in terms of materials and recyclability.

James Brooks : Not really. Short term it looks good but long term, it’s no better than the gasoline engine that powers it.

Clive Mitchell : Good point. Let’s just double the carnage. That will fix everything.

James Brooks : You are overly optimistic. The lifespan is based on proper maintenance. Fold in the maintenance cost in time and money and it is a failed system.

+Genghisnico13 The earth will die if the CO2 isn't put back into the atmosphere from where it came. Plants live on CO2. If they die we die.

@@Islamisthecultofsin You can goo as low as 100ppm, no problems. Do you understand that TODAY CO2 is 50% higher than last million years? Last 10 000 years ykcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/017-carbon-ppm-415-co2-2.jpg And last 800 000 years live.mrf.io/statics/i/ps/cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/190513113159-mauna-loa-observatory-co2-415-exlarge-169.jpg?width=1200&enable=upscale You see it was lowest at 180ppm and no more than 300ppm, average was 220ppm. Also more CO2 in air is harmful for human breathing and animals. You omit all bad consequences of so fast increased CO2 like acidification of oceans, plant fires from increased CO2 in air because global warming. Effect from global warming are devastating for humans and agriculture pretended plant lover.

@@Islamisthecultofsin No, plants will die without water. They already have plenty of CO2 as is. Despite what the name "greenhouse effect" might suggest, we don't live in a carefully controlled greenhouse. Increasing the amount of CO2 isn't going to do shit when that isn't the bottleneck. Oh, and guess what a consequence of climate change is. Worse droughts.

@@rendomstranger8698 CO2 slowly declines with time. All of the CO2 contained in rocks and fossil fuels used to be in the atmosphere. Eventually the CO2 will go to low and the plants will die. You can live for three days without water but only 3 minutes without oxygen. CO2 is oxygen to plants. Global warming is scam so stop being stupid. It's been the coolest summer that I've ever experienced this year. It's 80 degrees out and it's July.

Go take a look at a tree. You know what that is mostly made out of? Carbon, taken from the air. That's over 95% of the mass of that tree when you exclude water. This idea that we have to strip the world of CO2 is madness.

@@erdelegy That was the efficiency quoted, so the loss would be 40%.

Pumped hydro (and presumably pumped air) are pretty efficient, but they have major geological constraints, not to mention the ecological problems associated with flooding a valley. The relatively small footprint of the liquid air batteries is a plus compared to the pumped approaches.

He wasn't listening to the video. 🙄🙄

Hi Mark. Here's some comparative gumpf that I found... Overall coal plant efficiency ranges from 32 % to 42 %. This is mainly dictated by the Superheat and Reheat steam temperatures and Superheat pressures. Most of the large power plants operate at steam pressures of 170 bar and 570 °C Superheat, and 570 ° C reheat temperatures. The efficiencies of these plants range from 35 % to 38 %. Super critical power plants operating at 220 bar and 600/600 °C can achieve efficiencies of 42 %. Ultra super critical pressure power plants at 300 bar and 600/600 °C can achieve efficiencies in the range of 45% to 48 % efficiency. Gas turbines in the simple cycle mode, only Gas turbines running, have an efficiency of 32 % to 38 %. The most important parameter that dictates the efficiency is the maximum gas temperature possible. The latest Gas Turbines with technological advances in materials and aerodynamics has efficiencies up to 38 %. In the combined cycle mode, the new “H class” Gas turbines with a triple pressure HRSG and steam turbine can run at 60 % efficiency at ISO conditions. This is by far the highest efficiency in the thermal power field. I think 60% efficiency is regarded as pretty good.

Mark - LAES is Bullshit. its only 75% Efficient at BEST, whereas Tesla MEGAPACK is 98% Efficient. and LAES still requires FOSSIL FUELS to Power the Plant. and Tesla Autobidder software can BUY Energy when its Cheapest and SELL it back when DEMAND is HIGH. Megapak can be Delivered on a Flatbed truck and installed in 100 Days.

Jonathan Strandberg we might have avoided the climate crisis.

Thirty years would not have changed the power density or intermittency of wind or solar. Batteries can't fix it either.

We might be free from semitic bankers

Imagine if they started funding this 300 years ago... 3000... 300000000000000

The "We" would have probably not existed now. The We, for some mysterious reasons, all died of heart attacks, according to government sources.

¡ Vale !

Cheers Matthew. I appreciate the vote of confidence :-)

I don’t get why people have to announce their nationality.

@@JustHaveaThink you are aware that ages ago the Wikipedia article was retitled from the correct nitrogen economy to utter nonsense decades out of date in its current sourcing and continuously policed by the darkest money. Well I guess you should learn about that! Liquid nitrogen is stable at atmospheric pressure it can be pumped through the same hoses that we use for offshore delivery of liquefied methane. Power lines resulted from Surplus electricity at Niagara Falls Etc and are cancerous metastasizing protecting internal combustion engines worldwide. It's actually not complicated if you have courage and civility but I'm not sure your mind is open. The floor is yours.

​@@JustHaveaThink Mr. Borlace, please see my other newly posted comment. Apparently, YT no longer allows direct tagging, so I thought this might be the best way to reference my other message. Cheers!

If you're talking about the Peugeot hybrid system, I'm afraid it doesn't really work

@@simonz5905 no nothing to do with Peugeot!

@@simonz5905 did you even bother to look at the air-car?

@@simonz5905 ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rYKhrJ6jj2p4wmQ.html

Nope, CO2 & H2O are contaminants, that would freeze and block pipes. Remember even at global warming levels CO2 is "only" 415ppm

H2O and CO2 are removed prior to the cryo stage by zeolites. When those are saturated, the H2O and CO2 are removed by baking the zeolites.

And oxygen, too. Running an advanced (65+%efficient) engine on as close to pure oxygen as it will handle sounds grand.

@@williamgoode9114 So you're saying that no issue brought up by a sub-genius after 2 seconds of thought can be solved, even if operational examples of the declared impossible device currently exist?

@@richardcaldwell6159 exactly, 2seconds, firststage of cooling out comes the water vapour. CO2 also is easy, but the other gases oxygen and nitrogen are not seperated.

Oil has drawbacks, like damages the people that sell it don't have to pay for...which make it obviously pretty competitive. All other solutions are hard, because they have to be almost perfect. Meanwhile, everybody has no problem whatsoever with their oil engine having a poor 20% efficiency...but they will cry for hours if there is a hint of inefficiency in alternatives...what a world.

Efficiency is a red herring if the energy would have been wasted if the storage wasn’t available. If we had excess storage, that’s when efficiency is significant. There is a lot to be said for having systems with no dangerous or difficult to obtain components.

@@Muppetkeeper Well, yes. For example, despite pretty abysmal efficiency, hydrogen obtained by electrolysis might be a viable way to spend excess renewables since it can conceivably be used as a clean fuel in aviation and long haul road transport where batteries are too heavy and not enough energy-dense.

@@bazoo513 Hydrogen itself is light, but to hold it requires heavy tanks. Batteries are lighter than the combination of H2 + tanks.

@@Elviloh the problem with your enemies is their lack of articulateness this because they are on the right side of History regarding feasibility. Cost engineering is very very important because we are polluting 4 its lack hello! Why systemic pollution has increased because of the wrath of solar electricity because of the use of uranium to produce electricity instead of do the work of liquefying nitrogen.

Kasper777777777777 I'm just wondering if you have or had a sticky Number 7 switch /pad on your keyboard at sometime in the past ?

Yes Nicholas Tesla invented an electric motor for a car that did 150kmh and got the energy from air alone, people DID NOT Understand the significance then..maybe people will always want to be mindlessly serving the satanic tyranny instead and while earth/nature is getting dead, people are just going to be thinking about Mars as THE new hope! (learned nothing..) Bothering to learn AND Understand, will NEVER become what US, mindless most people, the brainwashed/indoctrinated mass hysterical puppets of social politics as the ignorant lazy naive SHIT of selfish fascistic bigots and pigs of monstrous bottomless stupidity race, will ever want to do, unfortunately.. :-/ Energy is everywhere in everything, the electro-magnetic field spins, not just twists, all energy spins, the air is loaded with energy..science got compromised a looooooong time ago, Albert Einstein knew better to begin with, but then he became just another entrepreneur.. Stirling engine could have been improved since it was invented around 1816..there was REALLY never any need to drill for a single drop of oil..! Thorium nuclear reactor is harmless (no dangerous radiation) and can not explode..but they shut it down because it JUST WORKED!!!

We need to dramatically reduce CONSUMPTION (of almost everything) if humanity wishes to survive. There. Fixed that for you.

@@TheGhungFu You have not fixed anything, liberal capitalism is madness and will always require maximum use of resources for the mechanics(workers) to keep on turning that wheel..in order to serve the tyrants/shadow government..this system is not made by the people, it was made by the satanic tyrants, i know so, do not believe it, and i know the difference..i played on both sides..i know what i have witnessed..it is darker then words..right know we are under a plandemic because what is really going on is a global population reduction, the tyrants do not want to loose dominance..and we can easy become 25 billion here and more with 1900's technology alone. Kill the tyrants and the perversion ends like hitting 2 flies in one smack..if only ALL people could wake the fuck up..but why not is because of "monolin" from birth, again thanks to the satanic tyrants..unity of the greater good can fix things, the key is obviously equilibrium, Marx, Lenin..Socialist society, NOT Stalin who ruined communism with his monstrosity or Hitler..Humans have not seen real democracy for at least 3000 years..so i think you will have to do more then write 2 sentences to fix my NEVER TO LONG writings.. :-D

no, it's just making more gas. We don't need more gas

@M. Otto Making more gas?? Please explain?

CO2 is very small percentage of the atmosphere we call air. In fact, according to current atmospheric science, CO2 make up .04 percent of it. It will not be practical to try to separate such small percentage of gas from our air. Besides, CO2 is a good thing. Only we dumb humans think its bad and use it as a weapon to dumb us down even further. By the way, carbon sequestration technology already exist that works amazingly well. Its call plants. Just plant more trees, flowers and crops and we have the most efficient carbon sequestration systems on earth working non stop for us.

@@richardgardner4252 I understand that CO2 is a tiny fraction of our atmosphere, but this is exactly what makes separating it from air and sequestering the carbon so effective. If it were a higher percentage, we would have much less hope of reducing the amount of carbon that's in the air with techniques like this. Your point about plants, though, is very well taken. They do provide a very fairly effective and highly scalable method of sequestration. Since, as the video explains, these liquid air battery facilities already remove CO2 from air before liquefying it, maybe there's a way to release this CO2 in places where it will be more likely to be absorbed by plants. Maybe forests, jungles, and greenhouses. Clearly, I'm not a scientist. I'm just thinking out loud, possibly foolishly.

It's called the gas of life. So, who cares! Why does anyone worry about THAT, when we have multiple sites, dumping nuclear waste into running rivers, DAILY, since before you were born?!?!

@@thediplomasta5891 You sound like someone who might have a plan, but you didn't mention what it was.

@@JeffClough how about, not wasting my time or energy, arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. The only way out, is to crash the system. We have faceless corporations making these decisions. There's nobody to fire. We created a ghost, and then made it our master. But keep an eye out. Not long to wait.

I'm pretty sure they have a levelized cost of storage (LCOS) of $140/MWh. Which puts them around about the same as the cheapest lithium batteries, dispute being only 60% efficient.

@@MrGonzonator Hmm. That's not terribly impressive, then. Li-ion prices are coming down, but air liquification is mature tech, not likely to get much cheaper.

@@incognitotorpedo42 I think both could work at the same time. The nice thing here is that it doesn't use any of the same materials as batteries, which seem to be in short supply given the problems some legacy auto manufacturers seem to be having sourcing them. Their price estimate is for their current size system, but scaling up the storage element (more tanks) would be only half the price, compared to batteries where its basically all of the cost.

@@MrGonzonator Have a look at Sadoway's liquid metal batteries - using only fairly abundant materials: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hpmDpqyvoah7kok.html

MIKE - Tesla MEGAPACK cost less to Operate. Megapack can be deployed in less than 100 days. TESLA Autobidder software can BUY/SELL Energy at the BEST Price way faster than ANY Human can.

60%, At Best! I think we can do better!

@@robinholmes785 How?

60% vs solar PVs 17~21%

@@g4egk that's not a fair comparison. PV's are electric power generating devices and we're talking about energy storage here. Pumped hydro has an efficiency of 70 to 85 %. Batteries have more like 99% I think. Hydrogen is much lower if I remember correctly. And maybe with scaling up and technological improvements the 60% can become 70% someday.

At the end of the day it comes down to a trade off. 60% efficiency is pretty good and there are no contaminants or toxins involved in any way. Sounds good to me.

When I was in power stations, 1962 - 1972, base load stations ran at just over 30% efficiency. 60% is like a dream come true. Exciting times ahead and the jolly old UK is again in the mix. Regards

@Peter Mortensen 30% typical, Japan claims 40% as super clean. You see, they do have a sense of humour!

I agree that 60% verified efficiency is a game changer. When the raw supply is endless and demand vs supply times are the only major challenge, we can ignore efficiency to some extent when the environment is not threatened. I also have great hopes for ammonia economy if the byproducts can be avoided or mitigated. Air batteries for fixed energy storage, ammonia for mobile. Might save us a war or two.

LAES is Bullshit, it still REQUIES burning of Fossil Fuels to power the Plant. Tesla MEGAPACK has no Moving Parts and uses Renewable Energy.

Stroporez the air battery has the advantage of using the oxygen in the air not carrying it in the electrode reducing weight.

@@Dana5775 this is not a thing.

I wondered about this, but it requires joined-up thinking and cooperation between the different industries, something which (at least in the UK) is sadly lacking. If the liquid air storage people could work with the incinerator designers, industrial gas suppliers, district heating operators, cold-store users and so on it would be brilliant.

My boyfriend called me an airhead last week, well now I gunna tell him Im not, Im actually pretty dense, so there !

Literally energy from thick air. The video title was just clickbait.

The energy that drives the turbines comes from the heat contained in the ambient air that is used to evaporate the liquid air.

Hence, liquid-air...

It's starts of as thin as a morning breath..

There is friction in liquids and all the pumping machinery,and waste temperature flows, so almost fifty percent of your energy is lost, try and use what you can with load shifting, you know like domestic hot water tanks, and aircons ice storage etc. Extend grid East West so solar contribution is maximised. Storage is always last resort, although having said that, this is promising.

Their efficiency is from generation to grid. So 60% of the energy stored makes it into the grid.

"leading to no net energy production". Yes, you are correct. There is no net energy production. This is not a system that produces electrical energy, in fact it loses 40% of electrical energy from elsewhere that's fed into it. It's only a storage for energy that's made elsewhere (called a "battery" as a generic term). It's for storing energy that isn't needed but would be a shame to turn it off (like wind mills) so then it can be used later when it is needed (except the 40% that got lost/wasted). I'm not keen on Mister Think's little title quips always but I like his sense of humour and the rest of us (except only you) know instantly what he means.

If batteries released more energy than was fed into them we wouldn't need anything else lol

@@grindupBaker I understand...thanks for clearing it up!

60% efficiency is not low dude.

Remember the low eco-impact as well.

It's definitely not low?..

@@zarinawillows2347 I think lithium-ion in like the 80% range.

Probably released into the atmosphere, where they came from originally. Adding carbon capture capability, is a distraction, here, so stay away from mission creep (salesmen). Keep it simple. This is almost as simple as pumped hydro, without the geographical restrictions, and is scale-able, both up and down. The components already exist. The turbines will have an easier time since they're not running at high temperatures. Around room temperature if designed correctly. Minimize adding secondary cycles, since the added complexity, to squeeze out efficiency, will be a determent to reliability. If you get the energy generation cost down, you can sacrifice efficiency. Rule of KISS (Keep it simple, stupid !)

Great answer, Michael! Thank you. :-)

Question is how feasible is this for home set up?

@@buliameenoladayo3074 Nya, home setup is not so much within the scope for this technology. From what I've read i.a. the company themselves say, 50 MW upwards is where it becomes economically interesting. For applications below that (= you want private storage at home), Li-ion or similar batteries will probably remain the technology of choice.

Hi Chris. That's pretty much exactly what is currently being built out all across continental Europe today. It is the Distributed Smart Grid of the future.

Is there enough going on for a video? If there is, may we have one please?