Hearted Youtube comments on Ziroth (@ZirothTech) channel.

  1. 7800
  2. 2700
  3. 1800
  4. 1700
  5. 1100
  6. 895
  7. 793
  8. 792
  9. 774
  10. 762
  11. 711
  12. 667
  13. 655
  14. 608
  15. 580
  16. 576
  17. 547
  18. 512
  19. 510
  20. 488
  21. 472
  22. 462
  23. 450
  24. 393
  25. 390
  26. 389
  27. This is the first I have heard of Rondo Energy, so thank you for the introduction. However, I would like to hear more technical details about their heat storage battery. Pros: 1) off the shelf technologies 2) simple, long life materials 3) high output temperatures (compared to other heat storage technologies). I love this part of the solution. Cons: 1) I am very skeptical of the stated 98% storage efficiency mentioned at the start of the video. Usually, when talking about storage technology, people quote the "round trip efficiency", meaning, what percent of the input energy comes out durring discharge as usable energy. However, I suspect you are quoting the charging efficiency, meaning how much of the input energy is stored in the battery, ignoring how much energy is lost durring the extraction process. If you really do mean "round trip efficiency", then this statistic is so outlandish, it really is "too good to be true", and begs for justification and a heavy dose of skepticism. This would be astounding, and much higher than any of the other heat storage technologies. Lithium ion itself is typically stated to have 90% round trip storage effeciency, which is higher than any other heat energy storage technology that I am aware of. 2) There is no explanation of how the heat (ie, hot air?) used after it leaves the battery. I can imagine a few uses, but some solid real world examples would have been nice. 3) There is no talk about the ideal storage charge/discharge cycle time. Is this technology better suited to be used for short term (4 hour) medium term (8 to 12 hour) or long term (days/weeks) storage?
    387
  28. 366
  29. 351
  30. 343
  31. 330
  32. 314
  33. 309
  34. 304
  35. 281
  36. 278
  37. 254
  38. 254
  39. 246
  40. 219
  41. 201
  42. 199
  43. 194
  44. 194
  45. 192
  46. 181
  47. 181
  48. 162
  49. 160
  50. 154
  51. 152
  52. 148
  53. 142
  54. 137
  55. 133
  56. 131
  57. 126
  58. 126
  59. 118
  60. 116
  61. 115
  62. 113
  63. 104
  64. 104
  65. 102
  66. 100
  67. 100
  68. 98
  69. 96
  70. 95
  71. 91
  72. 90
  73. 87
  74. 86
  75. 86
  76. 82
  77. 81
  78. 79
  79. 71
  80. 71
  81. 69
  82. 67
  83. 64
  84. 64
  85. 62
  86. 61
  87. 60
  88. 59
  89. 56
  90. 51
  91. 49
  92. 48
  93. 47
  94. 46
  95. 43
  96. 41
  97. I was tempted to “pre-empt” your video, but decided instead to listen right through. You are absolutely correct about the lithium breeding issue. It is an area that has had too little “investment” of technology and effort because the current strand of research is focused on - 1. getting stabilised plasmas 2. Establishing a “burning” plasma with all of the potential additional stability issues associated with a burning plasma versus a non-burning plasma. 3. Getting the required gain in thermal efficiency - I.e. more nett power out and than power used to establish the maintain the burning plasma 4. Running the plasma for long enough to be a viable producer of energy. All of which problems are still yet to be resolved. And until they can be, the next phase of a “production prototype” will not be financed by anybody. It is during the “production prototype” phase that the breeding issue will need to be resolved- alongside many very serious metallurgical problems that many scientists do not yet realise they are going to face. (or maybe, some do, but are deliberately keeping quite about these so as not to throw a spanner in the works of the development efforts). My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that these issues will hold up the introduction of fusion reactors for a longer period of time than that taken by the physicists and engineers to establish a burning plasma. But many in the industry think that taking the energy from a fusion reactor will be as straight forward as doing so from a conventional nuclear fission reactor. Technology which is well established. Again, my personal opinion is that you are comparing chalk with cheese. But, on the bright side, I think the problem is a “nut that can be cracked” if there is enough investment in the research. ITER may provide a number of answers - but to be honest, I think that ITER is now as much a costly white elephant which is diverting money that could be better used elsewhere - as far as fusion research is concerned. Again, my opinion, is that nuclear fusion will be solved and developed by private initiative - not through a project such as ITER. There is much evidence that this is happening already.
    40
  98. 40
  99. 39
  100. 39
  101. 38
  102. 38
  103. 36
  104. 36
  105. 35
  106. 34
  107. 33
  108. 31
  109. 31
  110. 29
  111. 28
  112. 27
  113. 27
  114. 26
  115. 26
  116. 25
  117. 25
  118. 24
  119. 24
  120. 23
  121. 23
  122. 23
  123. 23
  124. 23
  125. 22
  126. 22
  127. 22
  128. 21
  129. 21
  130. 21
  131. 21
  132. 21
  133. 20
  134. 20
  135. 19
  136. 19
  137. 19
  138. 19
  139. 19
  140. 19
  141. 19
  142. 19
  143. 18
  144. 18
  145. 18
  146. 18
  147. 18
  148. 18
  149. 17
  150. 17
  151. 17
  152. 17
  153. 17
  154. 16
  155. 16
  156. 15
  157. 15
  158. 15
  159. 15
  160. 15
  161. 14
  162. 14
  163. 14
  164. 14
  165. 14
  166. 14
  167. 13
  168. 13
  169. 13
  170. 13
  171. 12
  172. 12
  173. 12
  174. 12
  175. 12
  176. 12
  177. 12
  178. 12
  179. 11
  180. 11
  181. 11
  182. 11
  183. 11
  184. 10
  185. 10
  186. 10
  187. 10
  188. 10
  189. 10
  190. 9
  191. 9
  192. 9
  193. 9
  194. 9
  195. 9
  196. 9
  197. 9
  198. 9
  199. 9
  200. 8
  201. 8
  202. 8
  203. 8
  204. 8
  205. 8
  206. 8
  207. 8
  208. 8
  209. 8
  210. 8
  211. 8
  212. 8
  213. 8
  214. 7
  215. 7
  216. 7
  217. 7
  218. 7
  219. 7
  220. 7
  221. 7
  222. 7
  223. 7
  224. 7
  225. 7
  226. 7
  227. 7
  228. 7
  229. 7
  230. 7
  231. 7
  232. 7
  233. 7
  234. 7
  235. 7
  236. 6
  237. 6
  238. 6
  239. 6
  240. 6
  241. 6
  242. 6
  243. 6
  244. 6
  245. 6
  246. 6
  247. 6
  248. 6
  249. 6
  250. 6
  251. 6
  252. 6
  253. 6
  254. 6
  255. 6
  256. 6
  257. 5
  258. 5
  259. 5
  260. 5
  261. 5
  262. 5
  263. 5
  264. 5
  265. 5
  266. 5
  267. 5
  268. 5
  269. 5
  270. 5
  271. 5
  272. 5
  273. 5
  274. 5
  275. 5
  276. 5
  277. 5
  278. 5
  279. 5
  280. 4
  281. 4
  282. 4
  283. 4
  284. 4
  285. 4
  286. 4
  287. 4
  288. 4
  289. 4
  290. 4
  291. 4
  292. 4
  293. 4
  294. 4
  295. 4
  296. 4
  297. 4
  298. 4
  299. 4
  300. 4
  301. 4
  302. 4
  303. 4
  304. 4
  305. 4
  306. 4
  307. 4
  308. 4
  309. 4
  310. 4
  311. 4
  312. 4
  313. 4
  314. 4
  315. 4
  316. 4
  317. 4
  318. 4
  319. 4
  320. 4
  321. 4
  322. 4
  323. 4
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. 3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377. 3
  378. 3
  379. 3
  380. 3
  381. 3
  382. 3
  383. 3
  384. 3
  385. 3
  386. 3
  387. 3
  388. 3
  389. 3
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. A wonderful SCIENTIFIC achievement — Optical Breakeven — from LLNL/NIF but not a very useful result from the TECHNICAL perspective of the topic. Using Nd:Glass lasers with so low conversion efficiencies for electrical energy into optical laser beam energy means you need a thermonuclear output enegy several hundred times higher. There is no other laser types with the suitable frequencies and power stability; the hope we had in the mid 1990s for Semiconductor very high power lasers has never realized. Besides there are a huge number of other overwhelming optical, material, electrical, thermal, even mechanical* engineering issues that have to be solved to get a practical, affordable and profitable Inertial Fusion reactor. There are not enough brainpower employed in these problem anywhere, and ICF funding is mostly provided by the military budget of the DoE, so the predominantly foreign (~2/3) High Energy Density Physics graduating from UoRochester, UCDavis, UCSD, UNevada-Reno are usually excluded from ICF R&D. In the USA, ICF is predominantly a military-oriented program — to research, test, homologate, validate R&D for Thermonuclear and Directed Enegy Weapons — so to avoid traditional Nuclear Testing. Profitable Energy generation is not a priority — results like this ignition are predominantly budgetary PR and PC propaganda for DoE's Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs. The bad thing about all this brouhaha is that material, financial and BRAINPOWER resources are diverted from better latter Generation (7th? — it was 5th in the mid 2000s) Nuclear FISSION Reactor Technology (including Thorium-232 one) to pursue this Rube Goldberg-like nonsense. * My last job at ICF in UCSD, after getting a Ph.D. in HED Physics at UoR. I got into HED/ICF/Plasmas because I wanted to build Fusion/Plasma propelled Interplanetary Spaceships and retire in Tethys (a moon of Saturn) ...
    2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. Do the figures you quote for LCOS only cover the storage or do they include the generation costs of the power that is input into the system? Either way, this all seems like pretty expensive power, to me. $300/MW.h is more than I pay retail. As to the output, it’s horses for courses. At the discharge rate of 0.8C the lipo battery pack will discharge in about an hour and a quarter while, at their lower C ratings, the other two will last for two and a half, and five hours, respectively. So lipo for grid balancing and the others for top up when renewables aren’t producing, perhaps. It would be good, also, to see figures for the carbon cost of energy. What is the carbon footprint per lifetime MW.h of these systems? Concrete is not exactly the most environmentally friendly material to produce. I suspect that a concrete reservoir can hold an order of magnitude or two more water than the mass of the concrete required to build it. All of these technologies are worthy of investigation and will probably be included to greater or lesser degree in the future. To a very large extent, the future of renewables will depend on the development of storage solutions. IMO, distributed storage using mass produced (economies of scale) batteries along the lines of Tesla’s Powerwall is likely to provide the best answer. It will be able to extend the life of EV batteries beyond their suitability for transportation. It will increase the robustness of the grid, reduce the amount of high capacity transmission needed in the system and give individual users protection from grid outages. If I was younger I’d be thinking about setting up a business to repurpose EV batteries for storage. Another few years, and second-hand ones will be flooding the market. Even at only 70% of its original capacity the Tesla Model 3 battery can store over 50 kW.h. This is about 3 winter days worth for me in my small, totally electric house.
    2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. In the middle of the video, I pause it, exit the fullscreen mode and I see how much subscribers you have! Ryan, this is a new channel with quality content and the topic - the new Era in Energy production and zero-carbon future is so vast that need much more publicity like yours! The whole Energy sector worldwide is for Trillions of dollars every year and I seriously think - how we can find financing support for a really information Quality platform, a web site with videos and news all related to the topic. A project like this will be so useful for college and university students, young entrepreneur, environmentalists, engineers, local green communities all around the world and even can be inspiration for some engineers that can invent or improve something in the sector. An online resource like this, curated, without any bias that can offer really clear point of view no matter the technology and achievements are from US, Russia, China or Sudan. We live in so important times and actually, we decided the future of the Civilisation and the Planet right now and more awareness and information that come to everyone is more chance to prevent the point of no return with the Eart climate and the Global warming. Some $10k per month can provide and cover expenses for few people working on the topic and produced Really quality content and these $10k are just Nothing in comparison with the Trillions of the whole industry and consumption. These ideas and achievements, all these news need to reach as many people as possible for the good of society! Think in this direction Ryan and not something like a monetization from ads and Patreon, but on some financial program on a national or even global level, because the topic is important for everyone. If you need technical help for web development write me back and I wish you success! :)
    1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1