Do you think the CO2 battery will catch on for utility scale energy storage? Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/undecided and enter promo code UNDECIDED for 83% off and 3 extra months for free! If you liked this video, check out How Graphene Could Solve Our Concrete Problem kzread.info/dash/bejne/hZmrwZSqgNSboaw.html

@MattyEngland

Жыл бұрын

Makes sense, that's more than can be said for all the global warming hysteria. Remember when Al Gore said NYC would be under water by 2012?

@CUBETechie

Жыл бұрын

I think in combination with regular thermal power stations it might be a very interesting idea you have the Carbon Capture technology added with this system and added Solar panels on the area and the good thing is if you use decommissioned powerplants blocks you have the necessary infrastructure like turbines generators and the entire power generation infrastructure

@peterjohn8625

Жыл бұрын

Can you please say " Am I not Turtley enough for the Turtle Club. "

@carlmartel8510

Жыл бұрын

LOL....LOL....So they charge the system with MANUFACTURED Co2....well that will fix everything !!!...(sarcasm)....why are you linking climate change with this?

@Zextranet

Жыл бұрын

Great video but put the sponsor at the end to the video wont get interrupted and I would still pay attention

I think it's extremely noteworthy that using this for grid storage opposed to batteries has the advantage of freeing up more batteries for things like vehicles.

@simongchadwick

Жыл бұрын

My future electric truck won't need batteries, as the energy will come from CO2 evaporation, with the storage bladder towed behind in a huge trailer.

@divat10

Жыл бұрын

lol no

@shoyrushoyru

Жыл бұрын

You can’t forget your rooftop wind turbines to charge your co2 bladder

Every type of energy storage that doesn't degrade over time is a big plus in my mind. That means that it's not a question of if the system is profitable, but when

@willvanderhorst9072

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean if profitable????? If it's not no one would ever build It ffs

@MasterBlaster3545

Жыл бұрын

@@willvanderhorst9072 most young people do not have the ability to think. Some do but most do not.

@dtacto

Жыл бұрын

It's an attractive idea, but EVERYTHING degrades. The membranes, turbines, concrete, etc. in these are likely amortized over about 25 years as with similar construction. Making it last longer faces diminishing returns in the face of present value discounting and further would likely be superseded by much more efficient new technology at that time.

@LazyLifeIFreak

Жыл бұрын

@@dtacto We need solutions NOW, not in 25 years.

@stbuchok

Жыл бұрын

@@MasterBlaster3545 Define young? I constantly hear negative things about Gen Z and young people, yet I know too many people that are 50+ years old that barely know how to Google something or how to research a topic. Why do people need to perpetuate the us vs them, the older vs the younger? I understand what the person is basically saying above, even if it wasn't written accurately. They are basically just saying that long term storage systems are easier to become profitable over short(er) term storage systems. Stop thinking you're better than someone because of your age. We all have short comings and we all have strong suites. Stop putting each other down.

I think the big difficulty that many people have is understanding that renewable energy does not just have a single solution. It will be a mix of generation including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal etc. It will also be a mix of storage including pumped hydro, lithium ion, flow batteries, hydrogen batteries and others. No solution is perfect for every context but together they offer a flexible way to generate and store the energy for the future.

@float32

Жыл бұрын

And, lots and lots of nuclear.

@fr2ncm9

Жыл бұрын

@@float32 Nuclear is the best option to get to net zero. There are many new designs out there that are far safer than traditional reactors.

@MaxxMcGeePrivate

Жыл бұрын

@@fr2ncm9 Problem with it is, that it takes a lot of time to get it up. And you need cooling, which is getting more and more an issue with rising temperatures and low level rivers. New tech is there, but until they are up and running we could invest in renewable and storage in the meantime and it would be far better.

@6Sparx9

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if there could ever be a situation that too many solar panels are reflecting or absorbing sunlight to the point we damage the environments we hope to preserve through changed local weather or localized average temperatures. Desertification around solar farms? I wonder how much landmass that would require to be covered for such a thing to arise?

@KRYMauL

Жыл бұрын

@@fr2ncm9 I'm pretty sure this is going to be a big thing in the coming years.

This technology seems like one of the most promising ones you have presented. Energy storage is one of the largest obstacles when adapting large scale solar and wind generation.

@6Sparx9

Жыл бұрын

what do you need large scale solar and wind generation for if you can use the primary emissions from burning fossil fuels into a further energy source?

@Aro666pl

Жыл бұрын

Yea, I wonder how it compares to flywheels

@6Sparx9

Жыл бұрын

because the Co2 is a gimmick in this case and its not being scrubbed from atmosphere anyway, it performs WAY worse than refrigerant does especially at higher ambient temps such as where the company proposes to build such plants. Still I get the idea, make 'batteries' that do not use Lithium ion because it totally undermines the argument of the saving the local and foreign environments and still allows the renewable dream to persist. Would like to see the efficacy of this plant.

@RjWolf3000

Жыл бұрын

@@6Sparx9 It also seems like the "Stores heat to reuse on expanding the gas" is a bit of hand waving. holding high heat in a large enough container for extended periods seems like it wouldn't be easy as a square on a flow chart. and if it was that easy why not just store heat from the sun and use heat pump to intensify it and boil some water when you need it.

@Deblobinater

Жыл бұрын

@@6Sparx9 You misunderstand how it works. This energy storage doesn't need a constant supply of co2, it uses the same volume of co2 over and over again. Fossil fuel use releases way to much co2, we produce enough co2 in a day to fill up millions of these batteries which don't need to be refilled barring leaks/malfunctions Excess electricity from the grid compress the mass of co2 which is later released to produce electricity, this is repeated and the cow is never used up, if the effeciency is right this is a really good technology because all the parts are already used in industry at scale

One possible benefit of using CO2 is that it's somewhat safer than other gases. Small scale leakage would not cause significant damage. Large scale leakage might cause some suffocation risk, but no long lasting hazard once it dilutes in air.

@6Sparx9

Жыл бұрын

look up what a 1000PSI exploding in a catastrophic failure of the containment medium will do.

@maniagokm3186

Жыл бұрын

@@6Sparx9 Uh...maybe youre unfamiliar with scuba, but we carry 3000+psi tanks on our backs. All the time. To depths, not just on the surface. Besides, theyre compressing it into liquid. It doesnt require much pressure to keep it in liquid form. Tanker trucks carry liquid gas all the time on the same road you use.

@custos3249

Жыл бұрын

@@maniagokm3186 In all fairness, he's not entirely talking out his ass. Those tanks become missiles when ruptured, and people have been killed by simple 100-150lbs compressor tanks rupturing. Even some vehicle tires can be deadly when punctured. And you just know some jackass in the States will end up shooting one of these things.

@polishfuze1934

Жыл бұрын

@@maniagokm3186 CO2 Does indeed need really high pressure to be kept as a liquid at room temperature (~50 times the atmospheric pressure). Tanker trucks do indeed transport liquid gas but gas as in gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas, not CO2. At the same time I agree that while storing such high pressures might seem difficult, with proper safety precautions it won't cause many problems

@jeffreywj7773

Жыл бұрын

This was going to be my question. In the event of a dome rupture or some catastrophe failure of the pressure containers, what would the CO2 do. If it goes straight up in the atmosphere, then probably no big deal. But if it spreads out along ground level, there could be a significant risk of it pushing away breathable air for some distance around the facility. Not poo-pooing this technology, just want to be certain of any risks involved.

Clever setup using already standard parts, enhancing the ability to build fast. I like it and hope they are successful!!

@mobaumeister2732

Жыл бұрын

They won’t, because nothing this guy reports on ever actually gets built. This channel produces more hot air than all CO2 and methane in the atmosphere combined.

@sammadison1172

Жыл бұрын

Seems cool, wish he would have delved in to why C02 was chosen more.. is it really the most efficient gas possible for this application? I assume it is, but I can't help but be cynical that it may have been chosen purely as a hook for investment and brand. Is Nitrogen really worse? Why?

@701983

Жыл бұрын

@@sammadison1172 I suppose, you would need extremely high pressure to get liquid nitrogen at room temperature. Wouldn't work with this concept.

@TheLosamatic

Жыл бұрын

@@sammadison1172 you don’t make sense at all. If anything it’s an in your face deterrent to use CO2 as most people would think that’s dangerous! Do think about how available it is it’s put in the soda pop you dimwits drink all the time, used in pubs to keep keg bear fresh. Availability dude, cheap!

@BEHEMOTH20

Жыл бұрын

@@sammadison1172 If I had to guess I'd say it's low toxicity and its very cheap

The only real downside as I see it is the amount of land the CO2 bladder takes up. While that isn't all that much of a downside, I imagine that solar panels could be placed on the top and/or sides of the bladder. Alternatively, they could dig a huge hole, put the bladder in the hole, cover it up and then install the solar energy or wind farm on top. Basically that would allow nearly all the land available for the installation to be used to generate power. I suppose the only problem with building it like that is it would be harder to perform maintenance on the bladder but I don't know how much maintenance would be required.

@aone9050

Жыл бұрын

there is quite a lot of unused space in any wind farm for instance, and with how unreliable they are, you could use the extra capacity lmao.

@magnumopus1628

Жыл бұрын

I had the same thoughts, especially regarding maintenance, but they could simply build an arc structure on top of the "dome" leaving enough space between the solar panel structure and the dome itself. P.S. Ironically enough, here in Italy it might actually be more difficult to use this in large scale because we don't have that much uninhabited flat-surface spaces, but there are places both in Europe (Germany, France and Poland or any other European country other than Italy and Switzerland) and outside europe, especially in Asia, in the Middle East and North&South America where space isn't really that much of a problem if the intention is to use them in large scale.

@maniagokm3186

Жыл бұрын

@@magnumopus1628 The thing is, this looks like it could be scaled down to household size and be just as useful. Multiply that by each house hold that has a "balloon battery" and link them to the grid and you've got lots of capacity....one house at a time.

@barracuda861

Жыл бұрын

@@maniagokm3186 good idea

@theBabyDead

Жыл бұрын

@@maniagokm3186 that'd require too much maintenance. Probably better to put a central 'battery' on every block or so.

First of all, congratulations to my Italian cousins for being first off the block with a significant product of this type! It is sure to find a significantly big niche for any energy storage cycle that follows the day-night latency. I would caution, in connection with Sion's observation below, that this sort of practical thermodynamic cycle only works well (i.e., near its peak efficiency) near some such cycle time, as it depends critically on the use of a so-called heat regenerator to recover the energy used in the compression phase. Not an insignificant part of the energy stored is locked up in the regenerators, and any attempt to rush or prolong the storage time means going off-cycle to accomodate, or loss of that heat, respectively. Anyway, any good tech has its optimum operational constraints. Nice report Matt...thank you. Domenico Barillari

@alw6589

Жыл бұрын

What would be the best use case for this technology? Does it just need a window daily to recharge?

@johndoh5182

Жыл бұрын

There's another company, ESS in the US that developed the iron redux flow battery. Either is effective, I don't know which would be cheaper or take up more space, and neither uses elements that are under high demand for other use cases, other than iron, but that's the most common element so no big deal. Actually after watching the process and efficiency the ESS system is more effective and I'm sure it takes up less space.

@Blox117

Жыл бұрын

its a lie, everything on this channel is bs

@DavidHalko

Жыл бұрын

@@alw6589 - “best use case” If it were me, I would use all renewable to compress CO2, send extra renewable to the grid, and increase CO2 power generation when renewable drops. Imagine it as a big capacitor used on a pulsed DC power supply, which fills in the gaps, but on a massive scale.

@BrettCooper4702

Жыл бұрын

This system would work well with geothermal generation as it's 24/7. The off peak power could be stored and geothermal plants have a lot of waste heat that could be used in the liquid to gas phase.

I really hope that this, or something like this works. A stable source of energy is the backbone of a modern economy, and there won’t be much support for renewables unless they can be made actually reliable with storage.

@aone9050

Жыл бұрын

yet even this, for a semi reliable surplus of energy, would be 150$/MW/h due to you needing 3x the storage of actual average capacity so you can deal with slumps and sudden surges in demand. and even then, that just removes a majority of the issue, you would still need instantaneous energy generation, probably in the form of gas, for eternity, unless you remove the stigma of blackouts and energy rationing from a society...

@danielvilliers612

Жыл бұрын

@@aone9050 This would work with a battery solution to ease those surges. Do you think firering those peaker plants take seconds.

@John...44...

Жыл бұрын

Whether renewable have support they are charging ahead anyway... renewable and carbon neutral energy sources make up good chucks of the western grid

@southcoastinventors6583

Жыл бұрын

@@danielvilliers612 Lithium batteries are to dirty and loose efficiency over time. You need a cheaper battery that easier to produce.

@twerkingfish4029

Жыл бұрын

@@aone9050 “remove the stigma” like you’d ever get people on board with energy rationing.

Regarding the space requirement of the storage bladder, yes, that uses up quite a bit of surface area as shown here, but that doesn't have to be a problem. See this is a just pilot plant. Once the maximum extent of inflation of the dome is established, one could simply design a solid structure to be built around the dome, which can then be fitted with photovoltaic panels, thereby "reclaiming" some of the surface area for energy production on top of energy storage.

@kedrednael

Жыл бұрын

Though the structure is round so that's quite akward to place solar panels on I imagine.

@Seraphus87

Жыл бұрын

@@kedrednael How so?

@kedrednael

Жыл бұрын

​@@Seraphus87 Just practically speaking it seems hard to me, to place solar panels on a large round structure. You'd need to use a crane or something? Or build a permanent stairs and walkway specifically for the panels? Regular solar power facilities are easy to build: just place panels on the ground, all in the same way. Or on roofs, where there is room to walk on too. Even then, the work of placing the panels is like 15% of the cost according to google.

@Seraphus87

Жыл бұрын

@@kedrednael It seems I misunderstood part of the video, the bladder is already inside a solid shell, probably for protection. Simply adding a framework on the outside of the shell, including walkways and hardpoints for mounting the panels, would work. Yes it would cost more than leaving the solid shell as shown here, but if space is an issue, this would provide more utility per square meter of the ground the bladder is built on.

@302big5

Жыл бұрын

@@kedrednael not really there are curved panels and panels that can be put on a sheet blanket like material. So there are implications to reclaim some energy of that space.

It's a clever way to think about long term energy storage. Helping monetize CO2 capture is a nice bonus. Also congrats on hitting 1 mil, Matt!

@southcoastinventors6583

Жыл бұрын

This doesn't do that in the least the CO2 storage even when fully built out is nothing compared to what we put up in the air. This is just a battery although it looks like a much cheaper one for grid storage which is good.

@miroconzelmann5027

Жыл бұрын

i thought that too and it would be really intersesting to plug in the numbers and see how it would play out. Like How much CO2 is Stored in One Cycle/Storage Plant and how much is that compared to global CO2 Output. It wont be much, but i'd be interested in the numbers

@josieriley9334

Жыл бұрын

@@miroconzelmann5027 ….he said “ 100 to 200 tons “ at the beginning of the video. Burning one gallon of gasoline, makes 20 pounds of CO2 (climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html) ……. so 20,000 gallons of gas to make 200 tons CO2…… sadly, in 2021, the USA burnt 369 million gallons per day…….still good technology though!

@miroconzelmann5027

Жыл бұрын

@@josieriley9334 ok so thats less than nothing 😅.... aaanyway

I'm wondering how far you can scale down: this will never be a household storage option, but it strikes me that a lot of farmers might find it intriguing: the parts are all standard, so there's no magic single source dependency. Wonder if you could retrofit a silo with a bladder.

@injunsun

Жыл бұрын

You've hit on something others have missed. These things don't have to all be above ground and made in this shape. Theres no reason they couldn't be made as tall as skyscrapers, with a tiny footprint, perhaps even topped with wind turbines, with solar panels all up their sides.

@mpoisot

Жыл бұрын

I think turbines, heat exchangers, heat storage, and lots of precision balanced moving parts don't scale super small easily. I think traditional batteries will be a better fit for small outfits like homes and farms. Of course a farmer could opt to plop a grid scale dome or two on his land, but then we're not really talking about scaling it down.

@NotOneToFly

Жыл бұрын

@@mpoisot You're neglecting the bottleneck in raw lithium production. If ranchers (who are already leasing their land for wind production) are going to get in on energy storage, the demand for batteries will become prohibitive. The battery industry is already in a lithium crunch; making storage with off the shelf components where the only specialty piece you'll need is the custom bladder to fit your old silo is a massive, massive win when we need rapid adoption of storage to halt climate change. Bear in mind, these silos might be smaller than the demonstration dome, but not by an order of magnitude. Maybe 1/2 or 1/3 the size. You only need a few of them and a rancher whose land has desertified and you have a plant almost ready to go. Brilliant idea Ross Reedstrom!

@janami-dharmam

Жыл бұрын

@@mpoisot This is not heat storage; this is energy stored as PV (pressure-volume) which can be theoretically converted into electricity with 100% efficiency.

@mpoisot

Жыл бұрын

@@NotOneToFly It's true there are lithium supply crunches today, but if we just go off the price per MWH quoted in the video then it assumes batteries as a family won't always be in a dire supply crunch. Otherwise we should revise the price per MWH of batteries to be much higher and essentially rule them out of the toolbox of storage options. Going back to the original comment, I can't imagine this stuff scaling down super small. Think of the careful maintenance that happens at power plants and refineries. Those turbines are incredibly expensive and any rotational imbalance or other mechanical issues can mean huge expenses, down time, and expert help needed to bring things back online. I think there's a reason we don't all have micro turbine co-generation units at home supplying both electrical and heat energy to businesses and residences. Those complicated machines and heat driven processes doesn't scale small efficiently. On that topic, I think the heat exchange and heat storage component of pressurized gas storage needs a minimum size to be cost effective. If that processes isn't done right it takes a big dent out of the round trip efficiency and probably limits the power output (the max speed you can convert stored gas into electricity). The bigger the heat system gets, the more efficient it can be, especially for longer term storage like days instead of hours. Matt kind of glossed over how the heat storage works in this system, and I bet that's because they're still actively figuring out how to improve that system and whatever they come up with will be their "secret sauce".

HVAC tech here, I’ve seen a few CO2 systems and this idea looks really promising, a leak would suck though.

@lylenighswonger3511

Жыл бұрын

Actually a leak would really blow !

I've been talking about energy storage as the killer technology we need since the 80s. If (and it's a big if) they can get half of what they say then this really could be the killer technology we've needed. I still think we should be building dozens of modern nuclear plants to get us the energy needed now to get us clean water and get us to a time when solar/wind can fill the CO2 batteries.

@drachenfels6782

Жыл бұрын

Nuclear energy has one killer feature not a lot of people mention, 1% of Uranium is useful for energy production, 99% needs to be dumped somewhere and there is not a single (yet) landfill we can store some dangerous stuff for 10k years (or more). It would be a good transition technology 50 years ago but is not a good one today. cost of dealing with the mess of spent fuel or indeed 99% of uranium ore that cannot be used is just too expensive. (Thorium, slow wave reactors and etc probably would make sense 30 years ago with solid founding, but not today with no founding and being 20 years away).

@Scoots1994

Жыл бұрын

@@drachenfels6782 modern reactors are far more efficient and nuclear waste is tens of thousands of times less volume than coal power. We should have been building more for 50 years we'd be in much better shape

@beyondfossil

Жыл бұрын

@@Scoots1994 I agree *if* we were building that many nuclear power plants we'd be in a different world. But nuclear has been a disappointment for growth. The first production-ready nuclear power plant was started in 1951 but yet, 72 years later, nuclear only provides 10% of the world's power. Nuclear power was like the promising college grad with all the honors, degrees, extra-curriculars, and praise from all his professors. But, ultimately, he never left his parent's basement nor had a real job and is well past middle age. There's a lot of reasons why this is the way it is.

@amitgupta25121993

Жыл бұрын

@@beyondfossil nuclear growth stalled because of Chernobyl disaster.

@beyondfossil

Жыл бұрын

​@@amitgupta25121993 Sure, the Chernobyl was a huge disaster. We also have more recent major incidents like Fukushima Dai-ichi, Japan (2011) which costed between $1.2B to $2.1B. Then before Chernobyl was Three Mile Island, USA (1979) which costed $2.4B to clean up. But consider every other year, there are minor incidents at nuclear power plants all over the world. Some leaked radioactive material into the local waterways too. They resulted in millions of dollar spent for repairs and clean up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country Another factor is the nuclear is an expensive form of energy. Lazard lists the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of nuclear between $131 to $205 per MWh. Similar LCEO for solar farms is between $30 to $41 per MWh and wind farm is $26 to $50 per MWh. Nuclear construction also has a consistently bad track record of being billions over-budget and years over-schedule. Its laughably bad and has become an inside joke in the energy industry.

Output should be called Bagawatts. Nice cover!

Tesla switched over to LFP batteries for their Megapacks which use neither nickel nor cobalt. Also, IIRC LAES stores the liquified air at 15 Bar(218 psi) at room temperature.

hopefully this catches on . seems good and it is simple in design. if the CO2 they required could be captured on site then it is even better.

This is probably one of the best electricity storage solutions I've seen so far, which seems to actually work, rather than 'it might work' in the future. However, Thorcon nuclear is promising to generate electricity cheaper than this can store electricity. Nuscale says it will be starting to generate at about 7c kWh, getting down to about 5 c kWh over time which is the same cost as this solution only stores power. I believe the 'silver bullet' you mentioned, is actually 4th gen nuclear.

@jamesashurst

Жыл бұрын

Talk is good but where are the reactors. We need solutions now, not promises that seem to perpetually fade into the future.

@Jetfast619

Жыл бұрын

They were talking about thorium reactors at my university 10 years ago and there still aren't viable solutions

@wadebrewer7212

Жыл бұрын

A marriage between the two technologies. Storage can prevent the requirement for over building a reactor to support the peak demand. If the reactor is stable at over production of say 10% for 70% of its production time and only falls short for 30%....the energy could be stored for later use and supplement times of peak demand. Think of it like peak shaving your home with the use of solar amd batteries, but on a much larger scale. We do the same thing with air compressors in manufacturing. Don't install a giant electric gobling air compressor for leak loads on the system. Install two smaller units, the second unit will supplement the system for peak demand but when you are steady state...you have a much smaller, more efficient unit running.

@paul1979uk2000

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesashurst I have to agree, we need solutions now or just around the corner and not promises of what might work in a decade or two. Many companies talk a good deal but it takes forever for them to deliver and in a lot of cases, they don't deliver. It's why the tech that interest me the most is near future tech over the next 5 years and not the promise of tech over decades.

@SeeNickView

Жыл бұрын

What's the timeline for building such a plant? What's that timeline if you include all of the funding, bureaucratic red tape, public awareness campaigns to turnover opinions on nuclear, and sheer construction lead times? Solar, wind, and storage are ready to go NOW. Although, I do have to give it to nuclear that the supply chains and waste streams are more defined for that tech compared to solar, wind, and storage. Those issues will burden the renewables sector in the next decade, if they haven't already. I don't think Thorium is that silver bullet you're looking for, but I definitely think nuclear is part of the silver buckshot of sustainability. All depends on how fast we can get stuff out so that we can transition from fossils to renewables

You could also put solar panels on the dome itself to get the most energy out of the space used.

This Energydome is a brilliant idea, it works in a similar way to the old gasometer tanks that rise and fall in a frame - instead a huge "bladder". Thank you, Matt, for another great video.

@jedibusiness789

Жыл бұрын

Take away co2 from the plants….the horror.

I definitely think Physical Batteries like this will be revolutionary for our future. It’ll be interesting to see which one eventually wins out. In the meantime though, I’m all for embracing the intermittency of renewables along with a solid backbone of nuclear and geothermal energy. That’s plenty of clean energy for our very immediate goals so no reason not to build them like crazy!

@UndecidedMF

Жыл бұрын

I agree. We have the knowledge and technology already available to hit our immediate goals. We just have to do it.

@keatoncampbell820

Жыл бұрын

@@UndecidedMF nuclear is the main solution to greenhouse neutral on-demand power that provides the grid stability solution that renewables' intermittency requires... The main issue in my mind is stigma around nuclear power and it's safety. People know a whole lot more about nuclear disasters than nuclear power, and it informs public discourse in an unfortunately negative way :(

@Triforian

Жыл бұрын

I would challenge that this "solid backbone" is necessary. Renewables rather need flexibility. Nuclear is especially bad in this regard, as it's a hassle to power down. Geothermal is just not viable in many places. In an environmentally friendly way at least, not causing earthquakes or similar problems. Smart grid and sustainable storage should be the main focus right now, not building new nuclear or risky geothermal projects.

@3ducs

Жыл бұрын

@@Triforian Just build nuclear power plants and run them consistently, not intermittently. People are afraid of nuclear in the same way they are afraid if snakes and spiders, irrationally.

@SaveMoneySavethePlanet

Жыл бұрын

@@Triforian You may be overestimating the amount that I mean when I say “backbone”. I’m still editing the video where I fully describe this, but the high level is this: I’m looking for about 10-15% nuclear energy and 2-5% geothermal energy globally. We really don’t need that much in order to keep critical systems running and those seem to be the numbers that experts have coalesced around.

I love how this system uses the same principles than cryo storage, but side stepping most of the hurdles but choosing the right fluids.

@StefanvanderFange

Жыл бұрын

It's look more like a standard air-sourced-heat-pump. Compressor, vaporizer. You can get those too with CO2 as the 'coldgas', these days.

With the size the system takes it sounds like it would be a good fit for places like the United States that have a lot of land that they could use to store these batteries.

@TheAnnoyingBoss

Жыл бұрын

We're going to run out of room for people to be able to do cool things if we build things too big bro.

I consider myself pretty good informed about what is happening in science and equipped with a good general knowledge about science. But your videos leave me standing open-mouthed time and again! Keep up the excellent work! 💐

The land use issue could possibly be solved by using smaller dome groups that are hidden under the solar cells themselves. This would also have the advantage of you being able to do maintenance on the dome assemblies without taking the entire system down, simply by using isolation valves. Manufacturing and deployment times may also be quicker as you would have smaller structures to build.

@SeeNickView

Жыл бұрын

Now this is an intriguing idea. Reminds me of how Dave with Just Have a Think on YT just this year did a video on distributed underwater hydrostorage bladders encased in concrete spheres that operate on the pressure differentials presented at the seafloor. With these membrane bladders for CO2 storage, you could raise the solar panels in the air like 2-4 meters or so and scatter the bladders sparsely to allow working clearance for maintenance and inspection. The only problem here is that these bladders might impede any convection cooling that might be gained from raising the panels, and so the entire solar fleet may run at a lower efficiency as a result. To an environmentalist, reduced efficiency but with greater storage capacity via distributed domes still sounds like a good deal. The problem arises when you consider economists and investors that want to see their ideal rates of return. There's different patterns you could do with this idea, though. You could stagger rows of bladders / solar arrays so that there would be corridors underneath the panels for improved convection cooling. PV plants could reconfigure like this, as well as CSP plants that use parabolic troughs and are already spaced out (although the spaces are there to allow for maintenance and removal of dust/sand that build up on the trough, but I digress). You'd have to calculate what the space savings for distributing the bladders + all of the additional piping, cabling, and equipment needed to operate the bladders (and the inherent losses therein) compared to lumping it all together. I have an idea the calc would have to depend on how much surface area is available, and that distributing the bladders may work better for larger and larger utility-scale farms. Awesome idea though!

@COREDYNAMICSLTDA

Жыл бұрын

More expensive tho

I recall that the city of Toronto was going to be experimenting with compressed air bladders anchored to the floor of Lake Ontario to use static water pressure to help increase the storage pressure of the bladders while maintaining a reasonably cool temp. The reasoning was that this way they could pump up the bladders during times of low public consumption (i.e. at night), and then use the stored compressed air to run compressors (and the electric motors that power them) in reverse, essentially turning them into a motor powering a generator. I haven't heard anything more of the plan, with the last I've heard of it being at least a year ago, maybe more at this point.

I have to say that I really enjoy your channel and content. It's nice to see positive presentation of the various options that are being presented. I wonder how well this might scale down? How much space would it consume to store power for a single household? The attic in my house is a large open void. Putting in bladders that could inflate to fill that space would be a great potential solution to localized storage. Powerwalls are interesting, but it's still a lot of metal with all of the negatives associated with it. I also wonder if this technology could help improve grid stability? I live in Ontario and honestly the most expensive part of my hydro bill has become the delivery charge, which is to cover the cost of the grid in Ontario. As capacity increases, the size and capacity of all of the redundant systems goes up as well. Could this be used at grid scale to help reduce demand on the grid in the event of an outage.

I think the biggest problem with this idea will be safety. It is good news that most renewables are best placed in areas that have low population density. But an accidental release of an industrial quantity of liquid CO2 would result in a ground-level CO2 cloud that would suffocate any animal unfortunate enough to be caught in it. As long as that risk is fully mitigated this seems like a good use of CO2. Goodness knows we have enough of the stuff!

@graham1034

Жыл бұрын

Would be interesting to hear what passive safety features they have in place to deal with catastrophic leaks. Any compressed gas stored at an industrial scale always makes me think about the Bhopal disaster back in the '80s. CO2 isn't THAT dangerous, but a sufficiently large quantity could be a risk. Perhaps having it far enough away from populated areas would be enough mitigation (other than for on-site workers). It would warm up and dissipate into the air fairly quickly.

@ilenastarbreeze4978

Жыл бұрын

Genuine question but would putting walls up around the tank storage force the co2 up and away from people? Or maybe enclosing it in a larger box that isnt air tight but slows the expansion of the co2 so less is released into the area at once? Yes anyone in there wouls be dead but it might stop a ton of people dieing

@701983

Жыл бұрын

@@graham1034 CO2-detectors, an alarm system and respiratory masks with a small air tank (for several minutes of breathing) would reduce the risk for on-site-workers almost completely.

Matt, I've watched a number of your videos and just want to say THANK YOU. Always interesting, concise and understandable. You have quite a grasp on how to share information. Your passion for new tech and answers to major problems in our society is enlightening. Major respect for you, and again, thanks for all you do.

This is and you are one of the very few people/channels who understands energy as a whole and don't pump up the hype with flashy words. Thanks you for the channel and amazing videos.

@MrSparkle404

Жыл бұрын

I think it is more his team that understands energy. That or they know how to read and repeat a press release.

Thank you for the new video! This sounds like a pretty neat idea for grid-scale electrical storage. It has some nice advantages: it's made from already existing technologies, and they store the CO2 at ambient pressure and temperature. The less you have to fight nature, the cheaper and easier the technology becomes. Also there's that 30 year lifetime. But considering how it's made from easily replaceable parts, you could probably keep the battery going for longer than 30 years.

I really want to see a micro version of this for home / small business use. This looks like a simple enough system that hyper-local energy storage could be more viable that the PowerWall solution.

@reservdel

Жыл бұрын

My thought exactly, erect one of those old water towers that farms have, get some used pressurized canisters to contain it while liquid, and if everything else is commercially available we have a off grid dream possible. Feels like a totally viable battery storage for anyone that might be a bit handy.

@jackmccarthy4047

Жыл бұрын

My guess is it's too big (as in takes up too much land) for small scale

@brsaweda

Жыл бұрын

There will be no micro version. Storing CO2 in liquid and gas form, storing heat, generating power - all of these work *much* better at larger scale.

@EddieGonzalez

Жыл бұрын

If it scales linearly, then eyeballing the bladder, the needed space is ~7cubic feet per kilowatt. If an average house is using 10Kw/day then you need around 70 cuft, or a 5'x5'x5' block of space. Double or triple that footprint for the other component and you have a small out-building less that the size of a guest house. Thats very doable in a lot of locations.

@theBabyDead

Жыл бұрын

@@EddieGonzalez you still need the pump to generate 70 bars of pressure and the power to do so, etc. Doing this at small scale would bring that entire system out of balance. You'd need the same power for a lot less storage. It won't get small until the pumps and everything get efficient enough to be smaller. But even then, big-scale will yield way more. As I've commented on the other 4930 comments saying this; It'd definitely be better to do this for an entire block or neighbourhood instead of per household.

Thanks Matt. The italian Job!. Efficeint and looks simple! One of the culprits that delayed setting wind and solar power was the main critique of land use and the 'change of scenery'. Nobody is nowadys talking about it anymore. Here in Morocco, most of the renewable energy units are set up in remote areas. In short this looks good. I have a question the cost estimate what does it include ? Would it chnage for bigger units?

@edeaglehouse2221

Жыл бұрын

Here in the US, people are still fighting the land uses that renewables would take. :-(

It's exciting that so many ideas are getting tried. It's far more likely to find a few that work well with many options to pick from, and even the ones that don't work teach us lessons.

If this energy storage solution is actually able to manage a LCOS of $50/MWh, we may have just found the quick and cheap route to solving the problems of intermittency (although nuclear power must be a part of the energy grid for now, unless the situation dramatically changes in the next 50 years and we succeed at making nuclear fusion power into a cost-effective and viable energy solution, thus launching humanity into its next stage of evolution as a species). This technology definitely appears HIGHLY promising. I'm cheering on its success fully and completely.

CO2 as a liquid is used in refrigeration systems. Seems to be an additional food industry opportunity here.

With all the various bulk energy storage technologies coming out these days, it will be interesting to see which ones end up winning in the market place. Overall complexity, total cost of ownership, best use and permitting issues are all factors.

@Trikkitt

Жыл бұрын

Yes. I suspect it'll be driven in part by geography. Solutions that are more space efficient favouring countries with greater land costs.

congrats on 1mil, love this channel !

We need this now! Especially in countries with a lot of wind, sun and space it can't be that hard. But I'm sure it won't happen that fast as we actually need it.

There is another plus for batteries not mentioned and that is speed. In microseconds, batteries can change their output/input to stabilize the grid. I also question the 75-80% efficiency, but if true, that is pretty good. Not sure why they chose CO2 over other gasses that compress into liquids at reasonable pressure/temps. This thing is sort of a backward air conditioner and as such, you could use any number of refrigerants used in the hvac industry. Perhaps CO2 is just a good choice based on price.

@varno

Жыл бұрын

Co2 is unique with its point being so easily accessible, also liquid is accessible at room temperature. Other gasses that behave like this like methane have far worse compression ratios and global warming potentials.

@apostolakisl

Жыл бұрын

@@varno Not really unique at all. Look at a list of all the hvac refrigerants that exist All of these compounds were specifically designed to have their gas/liquid transitions happen at reasonable pressures/temperatures and to do so with substantial heats of condensation/evaporation. My guess is that they use CO2 because it is cheap.

@luipaardprint

Жыл бұрын

And also its a great marketing ploy to say you store co2.

@varno

Жыл бұрын

@@apostolakisl there is actually a big move to use co2 as a refrigerant, as almost all other refrigerants have massive global warming potential. Further other refrigerants tend to be very expensive comparatively, which is a big negative for a storage system.

@lylenighswonger3511

Жыл бұрын

And safety, abundance, availability, ease of use.

I sure like the fact that no exotic materials are required, meaning that this solution seems to be future proof. At least for quite a while. The production of battery electrode minerals are not exactly environmentally friendly, as I understand it.

@luipaardprint

Жыл бұрын

They need less exotic materials though, not none. They still use electric engines and certain alloys in their system.

Love the simplicity of this storage method.

Great video, and balanced (mostly). I was really interested in round trip efficiency, so great to see they're getting such good rates. My one negative on your reporting is the focus on lithium ion cells and the dependence upon cobalt and references to the DRC. It seems most are switching to LFP cells removing the need for cobalt. Plus the DRC has a very poor track record, I believe there have been significant improvement in the child labour situation, which when combined with the shift in cell chemistry means batteries aren't as bad from that perspective. Plus LFP cells have more cycles available so last far longer. However this style of storage is really interesting. That it can easily sit idle with relatively low cost is great.

It's an insanely clever system! Thanks for sharing and I hope this company goes FAR with this!!

I love all the options presented on this channel. The future looks bright thanks to technology innovators & risk takers despite the claims of science deniers and those who want to return us to technology of the 1950's.

I'm a fan of these kinds of solutions. On the issue of storage space, I wonder if solutions like this could be adapted as offshore systems. It would also be interesting to see if the dome structure is strong enough to host lightweight renewables of its own. That could potentially provide some excess generation that makes up for the efficiency loss, which I'm assuming is in the form of fugitive heat in the thermal store.

@irrichman

Жыл бұрын

I would put this on shore probably, but the windmills offshore. Salt water is bad enough as it is.

Congrats to 1Mil. Thank you for your videos, they are so awesome.

I wonder if this technology could be used small scale? Even at the homeowner level?

@UndecidedMF

Жыл бұрын

It wouldn't be viable for home use.

So, if CO2 and its phase-change can yield this kind of performance, it would be interesting to see how ammonia, or maybe even a fluorocarbon, would do.

@tjmzm1154

Жыл бұрын

Ammonia would facilitate much longer storage period. Weeks and months not just a day or two. To me, that type of solution would truly make wind/solar viable

@jacobdeslattes3519

Жыл бұрын

Removing the fluorocarbons would be even better than co2 at reducing greenhouse gasses. They are responsible for like x4-x6 the amount of warming than co2, at just a fraction of the volume.

@davestagner

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking about ammonia, too. It’s a common refrigerant, so there is a lot of industrial-scale equipment for exactly this purpose already. It may not have the buzzword compliance of CO2, and be more of a problem in case of a leak or accident, but it may be more thermally efficient. I’m sure someone else is working on exactly that, though… this really does seem like an obvious approach.

@yolo_burrito

Жыл бұрын

The problem with anhydrous ammonia is material interactions. It degrades many alloys. CO2 is relatively inert and cheap. HFC are designed for very low pressure phase change for refrigeration. In this case the pressurization is what you want to run turbines.

@yolo_burrito

Жыл бұрын

@@davestagner you’re not looking for refrigeration in this case. You’re looking for pressure differential of phase change to drive turbines.

That's what I'm talking about. Using existing tech to whip up something that's a good addtiion to the many solutions for energy storage. It does sound a bit too good to be true, but the advantage this tech has over the other mineral batteries is that added cost of mining and social order. I also like the idea that there's no refirgeration needed for C02 to be compressed. Getting 30 years out of this isn't bad. Make it so! Great video explaining this, thanks Matt!

Pretty clever, hope there is a proven future update. Thank you Matt

Additionally, they can harvest BOTH Heat & Cold from the system (not at the same time). When the CO2 compresses, heat can be harvested, when un-compressing then cooling can be harvested.

@Let_the_nonsense_blaze.

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if this aspect was already calculated into energy storage efficiency or not? If not then this system combined with heating and cooling plants can reach even higher efficiency levels.

@whirled_peas

Жыл бұрын

The sun's heat would in theory increase the pressure too right?

@KimTiger777

Жыл бұрын

A Sterling generator would be ideal.

@johncochran8497

Жыл бұрын

NOPE NOPE NOPE! You seem to have ignored a major part of the system. When they compress the CO2, it gets hot, so they store that heat in a local Thermal Energy Storage System. They do not provide that heat for other system. They store it for their own future use. When energy is needed, they use that stored heat in order to convert the liquid CO2 into a gas that they can extract energy from. If they were harvesting heat and cooling, they would lose the energy they're storing.

I know what would make a good battery. Using CO2 to create gasoline. I think that would store a lot of energy for a very long time and be pretty easy to handle and transport.

@janjager2906

Жыл бұрын

I think there are several problems you have to take in consideration: 1 - A very inefficient process. 2 - If you burn fuel you produce NOx (Catalytic converters only converts NO to NO2). 3 - Produce of ultra fine particles. It is just soot, even if it is invisible to the naked eye. And no, there is no safe limit. The only pro, unregarded the source, is ease of use.

@P8qzxnxfP85xZ2H3wDRV

Жыл бұрын

@@janjager2906 There are more pros. Existing infrastructure, highest energy density after hydrogen. And the ease of use advantage is a pretty big pro, because ease of storage and transportation also has an environmental impact.

@lylenighswonger3511

Жыл бұрын

Gasoline does not store very well for long periods. A year maybe without stabilizers. The co2 gets re-released when used.

The company I work for has been supplying evaporators, condensers and compressors on co2 for the supermarket cooling for over 10 years here in the Netherlands.

I like this system, its simple, and in future installations possibly half the dome could be covered with flexible solar panels, as the flexible panel technology improves and becomes cheaper

A little late. I developed this gas storage system over 20 years ago after a Taco Bell run.

@UndecidedMF

Жыл бұрын

😂

You know what would be even better energy produced using CO2 from the atmosphere? That would be some next-level concept.

@madat5843

Жыл бұрын

That's true it will make it a carbon cycle that would sustain itself. Almost like how Hydrogen is a good idea because of its abundance.

@afullerhokie

Жыл бұрын

@@madat5843 you've essentially hit the problem on the head. Anything self sustained means perpetual motion. Violates laws of thermodynamics

@ricardomarcelino8388

Жыл бұрын

That wouldn't sort anything, since the CO2 inside the bladder is basically the same for 30 years... So it wouldn't even pinch the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

@MasterBlaster3545

Жыл бұрын

@@ricardomarcelino8388 somebody with a brain 👍

If I understood correctly the 'dome' is just to store CO2 at normal temperature & pressure, which is then liquified and compressed and stored elsewhere holding the energy. Using the energy, returns the CO2 to normal temp. & pressure back in the dome. In the UK we have/had Gasometers, which were used to store Coal Gas then natural gas, could these work in this system?

One problem in the way of longer term storage is the financial model. If the price of energy varies according to supply and demand throughout the day, a short term storage results in several buy/sell transactions per day. If your cost per MWh is similar but you provide long term storage, you might get one transaction per week or month even, giving a far lower return. We need long term storage for energy security, so we have to find a way to provide a return for the security the service provides, not just the transaction. Of course as more storage solutions and flexible usage schemes, international grids and diversity of sustainable generation schemes come on-line the daily fluctuation in value will decrease. Schemes to guarantee returns for energy security, are being applied to the nuclear industry, but need to be extended to long term storage. It is similar to buying insurance.

Carbon capture, storage and batteries has been proven to be non cost efficient and thermodynamically non viable. I’m surprised how these investors can’t find a science consultant before burning their money away. 🥴

@rookandpawn

Жыл бұрын

batteries are awful. Phase change storage is the most green and perpetual form of storage without degredation. Energy Dome is amazingly legit. Supply chain, common products, traditional heat pump / refrigeration design. No degredation. If i was an investor id be in this.

@ignaszemleckas5028

Жыл бұрын

That's interesting! Do you have any sources I could look this up please?

@UndecidedMF

Жыл бұрын

Do you have sources for that? I'd like to check them out.

I’d like to see how day-to-day maintenance compares to other systems. And I’d like to see how the efficiency stacks up against gravity batteries. I prefer this over most other grid level battery systems. The system could last indefinitely with only minor replacements needed to sustain its continual use. That is a big advantage over the cost of recycling lithium ion batteries. I’m excited to see how the test plant performs.

Yes AC and refrigerator are closed loops, but still has leaks and can break down. It seems for "cost cutting" they would generate new co2 rather then extracting it.

You could perhaps make a combination with the HBr flow battery (2HBr + e Br2 + H2) off Elestor and Vopak . Both the energy dome and the HBr flow battery require gas storage in the form of a dome. It is interesting that the energy dome needs the atmospheric gas storage during discharge and the HBr flow battery during charging. Now both processes will most likely not work with a mixture of H2 and CO2 in the same gas storage. But maybe that will work with a separate dome apartment in the dome?

2:29 One question I was wondering about, during charging process, while the CO2 is removed from the dome, is there a gas that's being pumped into the dome to neutralize pressure, or is it being sucked into a vacuum? I find it a bit hard to believe that a dome that large can withstand being in vacuum repeatedly, if even once. Or alternatively, I imagine the pressure can be dropped down to just near to the dome's breaking point.

@701983

Жыл бұрын

Air flows in and out of the dome to compensate the bladder volume. Nothing else would make sense.

@701983

Жыл бұрын

But yes, this is an important flaw in the description, it should have been mentioned and shown in the animation.

Super Video Matt, ist schon geteilt! Great video, already shared in my community! It is important that innovative ideas are shared and implemented, even if some on the other side (west) of the pond seriously believe that there is no climate change and that we can continue as before. Weitermachen!!!

Of all storage batteries this channel has shown.... This one is surprisingly good and I wonder why this hasn't happened before.

this seems promising. I really dig the conceptual simplicity. I wonder if there are any gases that can store even more energy. I'm sure c02 is the best overall choice though.

Matt, I believe that peaker plants are one of the most pollution intense energy generating facilities in the US. If we could replace those plants with this solution it would go a long way in evening out the solar and wind intermittency and providing more continuous and reliable energy flow in communities around the states. Could a miniaturized version of the storage be built for homeowners. If all the components are widely available maybe miniaturization and mass distribution would be possible. Just a thought.

It is so funny! I've searched a way to store liquefied CO2, produced during winter, for a later time in order to sell it to the beverage industry and bumped into an energy storage solution that seems the best. No wonder it has the best roundtrip efficiency. Good video, Matt! Keep on the good work!

8:20 it will also need a lot of rubber for the big bladder, or whatever they use.

In areas where space is at a premium, the dome could be covered by flexible pv panels, or could be partially buried with a roof and panels above it.

You could get by the cryo-costs by using chalk-water. Heat releases the CO2 for S-CO2 and recombined for cold storage. Heatpumps run during sunlight hours, and wind as available and feedback from the system when they're not.

It seems like all these physical compressed/liquid batteries are worth trying and should be scaling just as fast as possible so we can quickly establish which ones work as well as we'd like them to.

Promising but massive in scale and it's uncertain how well it will work. So far we have the concept and it looks like they're building a prototype. That's helpful because one of the things that need to be determined is are the failure points. Based on the illustrations it looks like the storage is the size of several large warehouses, but inside that dome it looks like they plan to use some type of impermeable flexible membrane, basically a big balloon which will have to be assembled from a number of smaller sheets and bonded to each other to form the CO2 "bag". So what happens when the bag springs a leak? How easy will it be to locate the leak and repair it? Like I said, promising and I will be interested in seeing how it develops.

@Undecided, the question that was not asked is safety if storage loses integrity, is it like in the case of a volcano everyone in a radius of (say) 10km dies? Of course, I do not know the details, how much co2, is it going to mix up with air and be harmless, or if it makes a difference if the decompression of the chamber is explosive or if some valves just gave up. Questions I would ask tho.

@drachenfels6782

Жыл бұрын

I will add to my comment. I was watching an interview with one of the scientists involved in the prototype of a liquid air battery (about 14 years ago) he simply said, the 'only' problem is heat recovery and storage. And this is the topic that was only covered by one sentence 'they figured it out' (paraphrase). I wonder, really?

I think they should cover the dome with perovskite film to capture more energy. This is a great system!

Mr Ferrell, i learn a lot from your videos.....keep it going ....

This is fantastic, the biggest win for any of these projects is to use readily available off the shelf components, too many of these things we are hopeful for use tech that is still in development, the second big win for this is the storage isn't the cost intensive part thereby making it easily scalable, that will always be the downfall of battery tech. On the other hand I do wonder about the accuracy of their longevity, a bladder of that size inflating and deflating lasting for 30 years sounds optimistic while also wondering if the old gasometer style tanks could be another option, I also have to question if they've included all the ongoing (and increasing) maintenance costs for turbines, generators and pressure vessels in their calculations.

Neat idea which makes a lot of sense, particularly because the roll-out can be so quick and inexpensive to boot. Their biggest obstacles are likely to be vested interest (even mentally speaking) in some of the other systems.

Modification of the storage building, covering it with a solar collector medium, and paying attention to it's solar alignment when building, could minimize the negativity of its space requirements. I think.

The co2 option looks really good! Plus it can be put on land that's not useful for other things. So there seems to be really good flexibility in that regard!

Matt I do think the cost and ease to install will cause wide adoption for grid scale storage, coupled with the long discharge cycle I can see this getting coupled with renewables like wind and solar to fill the gaps in their delivery of power.

Can you please do update video on Hydrogen trucks and Electric trucks, Consider how much diesel prices has gone up. Thank you. Love your videos. Keep up the good work :)

Could this be scaled for smaller productions? What area would be sufficient for a household and what is the lowest energy requirements for such a process? Lot of questions but sounds like a great idea.

Nice another use for c02 , it is also a much better refrigerant than most

Leave it to the ancestors of Davinci to do it with off the shelf tech. Was back in the early 80’s when a friends US Navy ship snaps a main drive shaft in two. Told me they were all stoked for three to five weeks of liberty when the Italians in Napoli said they could fix it, the Americans did not believe it was possible but saw no harm in letting them try. Imagine how huge that drive shaft was. They welded it back together but who knows how they got it to be balanced? Friend said the moral on the boat was dead 5 days latter when they were all recalled and back out 6 or 7 days after being towed into port!

I wonder if this system is able to operate as a peaker plant? I'd also really like to know how the system scales in footprint as the capacity goes up. How big in sqft or sq meters would a 50mw plant be on its own? What about 100mw? 1gw? The video script with citations page is blank, so I don't know if the answers to my questions are there.

Even expanding the grid-scale energy storage only a liitle bit helps make renewables more viable. I recently read denmark - who have a lot of wind turbines and export a lit into the well-networked european neighbour nations, have to turn down or stop about 20% of their yearly yield due to situational overproduction. That potential electricity is simply lost right now, even if they could sell it only a day later at profit. Every single mw stored at competitive prices during that time would enhance their profitability. Great concept! Please do a revisit once their first commercial project is up and running.

That subtle 24 reference was topnotch

I gotta say, this is quite an attractive cycle from a mechanical perspective. It's a relatively benign process; not too corrosive, not toxic, not terribly hot or cold, readily available. I think they're vastly overestimating how easy it is to keep a large gaseous system closed over time, and the implication that they're not using customized components is unrealistic. Additionally, environmental planning will be tricky as they'll need to plan for what happens in the event that the whole system pumps liquid CO2 to atmosphere. (They'll likely need to avoid being up-wind and uphill of any inhabited area.) But those are all solvable problems that are much easier to solve than the problems inherent to other energy storage.

Love the research you and your team do to argue all sides of your presentations. GREAT work!

This sounds like an incredibly promising idea. Industrial scale liquid C02 storage is already a thing that exists, so the hardware (tanks and pipes) for that is probably already available at large scale/low prices, as is the compressor that you mentioned. I would somewhat expect the heat exchangers are readily available too. I think the only novel thing here is the dome. I think this idea has huge potential.

@thomasgraversen7389

Жыл бұрын

I also think these domes are readily available off the shelf. They are using them on bio gas generation plants in Denmark (gas generation from manure). But they seem to be fully inflated all the time. Don't know if they can sustain the repeated inflation and deflation cycles.

@edeaglehouse2221

Жыл бұрын

Nothing novel about the equipment. It's a beautiful concept that uses current, off-the-shelf technology. That makes it economical to build and maintain. Super idea!

I'd just like to know, have any projects you've discussed over the years actudlly went to market? And met claims? Or need their aims? No pun intended that's your job Matt.

Would be interesting to see the pilot scale mass and energy balance. I’d be curious to see the thermal energy numbers on what’s basically a giant refrigerator.

This would work well with geothermal that generates 24/7. The off peak power could be used to compress the co2 and geothermal plants have a lot of waste heat that could be used in the liquid to gas phase.

I’d be interested to know what the limiting factor is on life span. If the plumbing and storage tanks have a longer life, the compressors and turbines could be replaced and/or rebuilt.

If land for the co2 storage is an issue, put the storage tanks underground or the generating equipment above the tank.

I see the biggest problem the p[promised scalability. Since the entire system is based on pressure the losses will increase with capacity and building more will increase cost. Great video.

I hope this takes off. It sounds very safe since it isn't flammable, doesn't reach high temperatures, and even if the bubble bursts there is pretty much no harm done. Its efficiency is great and it also looks fairly easy to maintain and deploy all around the world. Maybe the dome could be build on top of a building that contains all of the other parts of the system. That could maybe reduce its footprint a bit. I am curious how the dome holds out in heavy weather. How well can it handle hurricane winds and potentially flying debris? Other than that it looks like a golden ticket