Hearted Youtube comments on Ziroth (@ZirothTech) channel.
-
7800
-
2700
-
1800
-
1700
-
1100
-
Recently, I had an enlightening experience while using a small electric motor on my boat. I want to share this because it illustrates the significant impact that underwater noises, like those from propellers, can have on marine life.
While I was out on the water, something remarkable happened. I switched the motor into reverse, and to my surprise, a seal popped its head up out of the water. Intrigued, I stopped the motor, and the seal submerged. But when I hit reverse again, the seal resurfaced. This wasn't a one-time occurrence. Each time I alternated between forward and reverse, even from a distance, the seal would respond by appearing while the engine was in reverse.
This was particularly striking because the motor I was using was very small and relatively quiet – an electric model. Yet, the seal's reaction was immediate and consistent. This interaction, as amazing as it was to witness, really drove home a crucial point for me.
It made me realize the profound effect that underwater noise – from things like propellers and even sonar – can have on aquatic creatures. The fact that even a small, 'silent' motor could elicit such a clear response from the seal underscores the sensitivity of marine life to our human-made sounds in their environment. It's an important consideration for all of us who spend time on the water and a reminder of the broader environmental impact of our activities.
895
-
793
-
792
-
774
-
762
-
711
-
667
-
655
-
608
-
580
-
576
-
547
-
512
-
510
-
488
-
472
-
462
-
450
-
393
-
as someone who has spent most of the last 18 years on oil rigs, as a geologist, and later an engineer, I can say that the process to drill deep geothermal wells is not really any different to conventional oil and gas drilling. We have the technology to drill very deeply already, we don't need this new plasma method that will use an incredible amount of electricity. Just because some technology exists, doesnt mean it's going to be affordable, or applicable.
Geodynamics, a company in Australia already built a proof of concept for enhanced geothermal, or hot dry rock geothermal (look for Geodynamics Habanero project). They drilled multiple wells to only 4-5km deep, and circulated water between wells, generating steam, and electricity. One major economic hurdle was affordable corrosion control, not the technology to drill the wells.
Conceptually, it's awesome, no need to burn fossil fuels, etc, but the reality is that there is no point building an amazing system if you cannot maintain the equipment and sell the end product at an affordable price.
390
-
389
-
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
-
366
-
351
-
343
-
330
-
314
-
309
-
304
-
281
-
278
-
254
-
254
-
246
-
219
-
201
-
199
-
194
-
194
-
192
-
181
-
181
-
162
-
160
-
154
-
152
-
148
-
142
-
137
-
133
-
131
-
126
-
126
-
118
-
116
-
115
-
113
-
104
-
104
-
102
-
100
-
100
-
98
-
96
-
95
-
91
-
90
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
82
-
81
-
79
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
67
-
64
-
64
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
56
-
51
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
43
-
41
-
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
-
40
-
Rock at this temperatures and pressures (at 10 km or below, provided the right spot is chosen) is not like the rock here on the surface. It's actually getting softer and even partly melts, a bit like thick, highly viscous magma with solid parts in it, having quite different thermal conductivity. And there are saline fluids which also can transport heat. Of course there is a limit, but with the right amount of water pumped in, there will be little issues with keeping it hot.
But there are other issues. In case a non water-permeable layer of clay is penetrated, and water spreads into formerly dry layers below (e.g., into Anhydrite), those may swell, raising the land above quite a bit. This already happened, and it literally ruined villages. Such issues are hard to predict, because of the actually unknown structure details and porosity of the rock below. Another issue is liberating toxic substances from under ground that were kept there before, e.g. heavy metals or radioactive material. And in case of a movement of the (softer) rock below, the pipes may easily get crushed, posing another issue.
We actually don't know very much detail about the earth's mantle, as it is hard to just go and have a look. Thus it is difficult to chose the right spot to drill.
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"If we want people to go electric, we need electric vehicles which travel further per charge."
Wrong. People in the UK don't want range.
If we want people to go electric, we need two things:
. cheap EVs such as BYD Dolphin and Seagull, hopefully cheaper in the future by using sodium-ion battery
. reliable charging infrastructure, something we lack in the UK, where instead of range anxiety, we have charger anxiety.
I also say, let's get people onto trains. For America, where trains and transit don't work, and neither does cycling? Well, it's because America is built totally wrong; read Strong Towns to know what I mean. A little density is more than good for you, and when I say a little density, I don't mean Asian levels of crowding, but something more akin to the Netherlands, Paris, or London.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
it reminds me of the transistor industry, how gates are becoming only a few atoms across. we have so thoroughly pushed technology we are reaching the mindbogglingly tiny scales, that short of making our own subatomic machinery, might as well certify us as masters of the universe, at least in a single field. like superconductors, sure, we don't have room temp ones, but the fact literally 0 resistance is even possible is something i thought would be godlike material. in scmaglev trains, they literally dump moving current into them and it just keeps going, practically forever. seriously, like plugging a powerboard into itself. are we not gods yet? it doesn't feel like it, but the materials we use sure are godlike
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1