Comments by "Diana Pennepacker" (@dianapennepacker6854) on "Ziroth" channel.

Like someone else commented. Hydrogen is the way to go. Not helium. Helium is basically a finite resource. We should save it.
18
@quocdanang6586 The ISS panels don't have to deal with an atmosphere. Any solar panel in space is going to be way more efficient. Also cost really isn't an issue for a project like the ISS. Anyway this is one of the reasons why people literally think putting solar panels in space, and beaming energy down to earth is a good idea. It is possible, but the cost of sending material up is so vast, that it wouldn't make any sense. I can't believe people think it makes sense. Anyway focusing is a good idea if the cost of the lens can go down. Those multilayered panels are great, but super expensive. I always thought fresnel lens already captured light from all angles, and focused it to a point..I was misinformed!
14
Flywheels have been around since 6bc with Potters flywheels. Most likely even longer. A German inventor Presbytr recorded some of his machines using em. In the 1100s According to wiki. I am not familiar with him. Then of course you have windmills, grain mills, and sharpening wheels, and such also used the idea. Just not for electricity. Then of course James Watt use of them really took off with helping steam engines run smoothly. The E Dumpster is a giant dump truck for open mines that doesn't need to be recharged ever at the mine it is at. It goes up hill to collect ore. Then since it goes back down hill loaded. It gets all the energy back from regenerative breaking to repeat the process. It gets the energy essentially from the heavy ore. It is cool. It shows how rocks on top of hills or higher elevations have a lot of potential energy, and I doubt most people think about things at higher elevations having potential energy that can be tapped. Anyway just pointing it out! That is cool work. Too bad we didn't embrace batteries back then. We would have crazy electric motors, batteries, and flywheels I think by now. Can't wait to see what it looks like 40 years.
12
I wouldn't hold my breath. The anti EV crowd does not listen to reason, and make up reasons to not like them. Act like charging at home while you're sleeping to get 350 miles isn't convenient for all but a tiny portion of the population. They won't like them no matter how much better performance they have. They use statistics from 10 years ago, make crap up, or don't understand how much better batteries are getting year in and out. They also don't understand we only produce enough power as necessary. So they say the grid will never be able to handle the 25-30% increase in demand if we switch. Thing is... If there is demand. Supply will come. Capitalism will do its thing. Unless you're Texas, than you'll just suffer with outages. I swear they don't like it since their vehicles don't make toddler noises with "vroom vroom."
4
It isn't even just how hard it is to handle. The corrosion, and leaks are definitely a big part why it is stupid. It is the volumetric density that is the issue. Unless we want massive vehicles with that is all fuel tank. Hydrogens volumetric density is the issue! You can have the most efficent fuel cell you want. The problem is even 500 BAR tanks don't hold a whole lot. Those high pressure tanks are heavy and expensive for saftey reasons so it isn't like you can just go bigger like a rocket. You don't want to skimp on the quality of the construction either since that will kill people randomly. When you factor in the fact that battery tech developing as fast as it is? It makes no sense to try to build everything for hydrogen when EVs can out perform them in every metric. Look at Toyotas offerings. Their cars don't get more range really than an EV. They are heavier than a Model 3, less space inside the vehicle since it is dedicated to holding fuel, costlier, and there is almost zero infrastructure to support it all! Let us not even forget hydrogen cars don't even get the insane HP. They are relatively slow in comparison to a pure EV. I don't know why, because they still use electric motors. Maybe fuel cells just can't unload their stored power like banks of batteries can, I guess. It does blow my mind that a liter of water holds more hydrogen atoms than a liter of PURE LIQUID hydrogen! By a significant amount! Maybe one day we can create some futuristic nano sponge that somehow packs hydrogen atoms into a smaller area, and that takes little energy to release. But until then I just don't see hydrogen being used for anything except niche uses. It is great for space shenanigans.
2
@q.e.d.9112 Yeah it definitely looks like it is supposed to point towards the main direction of the wind. Yet how they going to manage that when ocean wind is so chaotic? I get the appeal. Cheaper, even if it isn't even ideal design. The great thing about green energy is that the sun and earth over produce! Effiency doesn't really matter if you can make a ton more.
2
I see these as an amazing solution for. 1) Military. 2) Survival/Remote places. 3) Emeregency workers after a disaster. Being able to produce energy for cheaper in some remote location seems great. Lots of barren places on earth with free sky above! For infrastructure purposes? I sort of doubt it unless these get incredibly big, or fly higher. I mean the whole advantage is to take advantage of high altitude winds right? Yet none of em seem to do it. Nor do generators of any sort seem to be able to handle those high turbulent winds! So even if they could get higher. Could they actually take advantage of it? Dunno. Tidal also has a long way to go. The issue there is simply the cost of installing then more importantly maintaining. The ocean is brutal on equipment. Now that pervoskites and batteries are coming online. Going to be tough for some of the other technologies to get cheap enough to compete. I do hope millimeter wave drilling takes off along with those enclosed loop systems so we aren't spreading toxic shyte already in the ground into the water table.
2
@darthnihilus511 lol, have you been living under a rock since 2000? Work for the oil industry? I don't think you know what you're talking about. Clearly you are ignorant on the subject. Wind is the cheapest form of new energy production now, and only getting cheaper. The percentage of total wind will rise significantly. There are literal swathes of areas running off of offshore or land based wind across the world. Any failures happen due to operator error or poorly designed grids. Like in Texas - but wind didn't just fail. Their gas plants also failed. Practical Engineering has a break down on what happened. Stop getting your information off tiktok or Fox News.
2
When 3d printing becomes better then definitely for smaller blades. For grid? Right now cost is everything... It just wouldn't make sense when you can purchase much larger designs of a less efficent design for the same price. Afterall the bigger/taller the blade the more power you get by a big factor. It is why we've constantly pushed for bigger standard designs. For example the world's biggest design is coming out at 140m. Just making the blades 10m bigger of the previous record holder netted you 2 more megawatts. Once we hit the limit where going bigger is no longer feasible or wanted then definitely. When that happens I have no idea. China will launch a turbine with some truly monstrous blades at 140m and over 50 tons a piece. Generating like I said 18 megawatts total. Soon we will have ones that are skyscraper tall at 150m plus! Wild.
2
Why didn't you go to the Navies of the world? Feel like they would have been able to over look the difficulties in manufacturing.
1
@WolfeSaber EVs after 30k miles are better for the enviroment. On top they also last 100k more miles. With newer models with the newest batteries being suspected of double that. We shall see. (Although EVs aren't as reliable. ) One of the reasons why lithium seems so dirty is look who is mining it. China and Chille don't care about what they dump. So it can easily be cleaner with regulations although that would add some cost. Newer technologies are already being prepped for better mining practices. Especially in the US who keeps finding huge deposits. We have the single largest deposit of lithium in Mount McDermett or whatever. To produce the lithium needed for a 64 kWh battery pack, for example, Fichtner stated that about 3840 liters of water are evaporated according to usual calculation methods. This is roughly comparable to the production of 250 grams of beef, 30 cups of coffee, or half a pair of jeans, according to the researcher. So EVs are much better than ICE. Even if they use cobalt which many try not to these days.
1
@WolfeSaber Cyber Truck with the exception of towing blows nearly all other ICE trucks out of the water. What you smoking? Perfect surburban truck. Batteries didn't have enough juice for Semi. Now they could with 500 kw/kg. When batteries hit 800 kw/kg? We can have regional electric planes. Power grid? We only make enough power at any time for demand. We will need to make 25% more energy if EVERY person switched to EVs tomorrow. Capitalism will supply the demand like it always has. New technologies on the grid part are rapidly getting cheaper. Like energy storage price has dropped like a rock year after year. With renewables themselves getting cheaper. Pervoskite solar is on the horizon which will be significantly cheaper, and gain more power per square meter. I never said EVs are the end all be all yet or for everything. As of now they are good enough for 90% of drivers. Yet batteries are improving in every metric so fast with constant lab break throughs. We've only scratched the surface. The best therotical batteries have 50 times the max potential of batteries today. Lithium air has a therotical max of 12,000 wh/kg. Tesla batteries are around just 250 wh/kg. Biggest issue right now is lack of super chargers.
1
Nothing is truly green. The fact they blow ICE out of the water performance wise, with the exception of top speeds that are basically lap car only. What is funny is even after everything you listed. Report after report says EVs are greener. Cobalt is being phased out, and isn't used in many EVs. Chemicals? Yeah, because drilling and refining oil is SOOO clean? To produce the lithium needed for a 64 kWh battery pack, for example, Fichtner stated that about 3840 liters of water are evaporated according to usual calculation methods. This is roughly comparable to the production of 250 grams of beef, 30 cups of coffee, or half a pair of jeans, according to the researcher. Mining is getting better too. One of the issues specifically with lithium was WHO was mining it. China and Chille don't really have or follow regulations, and didn't care. Now that countries who do care about their backyards are going to be mining for these materials. Expect the cost environmentally to drop. Especially with so many researchers getting funding from both private and governments for better, and more efficient practices. Let us not mention EVs already last 100k more miles. Some say the EVs made today can double that before the battery isn't practical. Mind you these metals can also be recycled. You cannot recycle burnt gas! EVs are the future. In five to ten years even semis will be using them. Oh let us not forget the geopolitical and security nenefits of decoupling from gas countries like Russia and the Middle East.
1
@carmichaelmoritz8662 That is the dumbest thing I've heard. One all countries like China and US would have to be on it. Whomever unlocks a new battery technology that is superior has a leg up. Secondly any company to release such a break through would become filthy rich. We are talking about top 5 riches companies.
1
@KevinSmith-ys3mh Yeah it is great for niche uses. Some of the old mine tech is especially cool. Your post reminds me of some gravity batteries. Those companies like Gravity Vault are a scam. Like it works. Just the energy stored for cost is just pitiful! I seen multiple people do the math, and it is just bad. The cost per KW is terrible compared to basically all the other energy storage methods. It is like hydrogen. Super niche.
1
This is why we need more thermophotovoltaic or TPV cell research. Think solar cellls, but for heat. There was just a break through on them where they get more effiency than a turbine at like 45% effiency. (45% effiency of what I dont know.) It is great as there are no moving parts. Just uses the heat radiation from the source. The issue with that was it only worked at like 2,000 celius. Which is still great since there are a lot of industrial infrastructure that produces that type of heat as a byproduct. So yeah we need to have those at tempatures at smaller scales.
1
Well England is where the industry is right? Makes sense. Electricty is a great export. Be proud!
1
What batteries? If double A? Duracell are my go to. Have never had them fail in anyway. Somehow they get lost before they fail. Have had the same 4 for years for my Xbox controller. Can't recommend them enough! I could find them pre covid for under 20$. A lot of times the charger with batteries is on sale, and cheaper than a pack of four. Been a while so I don't know if costs gone up.
1
@0005yuki Wasn't sure! But now you know! Definitely recommend Duracell rechargable double AAs.
1
Only morons think hydrogen is a fuel. It isn't. It is a storage system like a battery. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the fact hydrogen is such a scam outside niche industries, and I'm sick of them pushing it as a solution to everything. Hydrogens volumetric is garbage, and no known science that I know of can change that. Look at the Toyota Mirai. Thing weighs more than a Model 3, with poor horse power, AND much less space. It also costs 3 times more. So I don't see it happening.
1
I don't care if others don't have clean water. They could band together, and do it for themselves or others. Yet they won't. Their priorities are also selfish. You give them money? They won't spend it on it, but other things. I mean look at Mexico. If it wasn't so corrupt it would have clean water. Yet I've seen people blaming Coke since the average Mexican drinks some insane amount of soda per day. It is like four liters of soda. Thing is. Coke shouldn't be responsible for creating a sewage system. They should only be responsible for the products they make. Mexican corruption is to blame for that. As for building for war? You do realize every civilization that didn't build for war is no longer independent. If it exists at all.
1
Well people don't get along. If they did, and stopped wasting it. They wouldn't have water shortages. Many wars will be caused by water shortage, and you best have a bigger stick when they come running! Also I'm not out of water. You want to pay some corrupt officials you go right on ahead, because corruption is mainly the problem. Those in those areas who are drought stricten have people running their pockets with money that should be going to infrastructure. Look no further than Mexico! You have people blaming Coke for the four plus liters of soda they drink on average per day. Like Coke is responsible for their drinking and sewage systems. Coke is only responsible for their own products. Have officials lining their pockets with the taxes, and then blaming companies for using the water they purchased as per agreement. So no I don't feel sorry. A lot of people in these third world countries have messed up priorities. 😢
1
Glycerin flows better than water, and is heavier than water. Add some dense ass dense particles to that. I wonder if that will work. I was trying to find what liquid can move downhill faster than water, and is more dense. I kept getting mercury. I also tried looking up what liquid has the most potential energy while going down hill. Google is giving liquid Helium... Which uhhh... Is a super fluid, and can float or go uphill no? Cant be right either way. Surely less vicious with more fluidity chemicals move faster might be better than water with added particles. No?
1
I honestly don't think we will ever see hydrogen for many things due to the volumetric density. Even at 700 BAR the Mirai gets the same as other EVs as far as range goes at around 420. While weighing 1k pounds more than a Model 3 with less volume. So what type of power density with total weight of the system? So I wish they gave us better numbers honestly. I am not holding my breath outside of niche uses.
1
Yeah let us not be dumping that crap in the atmosphere haha. For a second I was like how is this different then regular fuel - I wasn't thinking. You are correct flights are calculated by the amount of fuel and then average the fuel spent during travel. It is always a catch .22 in terms of design - people are like why don't they just carry more fuel! Well because you weigh more at take off so you're using fuel to carry fuel. Hence drop tanks versus conformal tanks in fighters. Both have their benefits and why aerial refueling is such a game changer for the military. Edit ( Or why rockets use stages even if they could have an efficient magical rocket throughout the flight envelope.)
1
Agreed. Nature is very constrained based on the animal something descended from. Mammals are limited to generally four limbs, and a tail outside of what... An elephant? Just one example. I don't see anything can be better than a rotating blade for a big boats. Whether it is a water jet or a standard propeller. Spinning a rotor is very effienct these days, and simple.
1
You and the guys in the video are making complicated entire systems. Your idea works for large infrastructure. Not individual homes. In fact why do any of that or this. When you can just insulate your very well. Then get ever cheaper solar plus batteries, and just deal with the loses without all the headache? I don't see how bringing specialized people to make customized solutions is the future. Unless made from.the ground up to be like that. So to me. I'd be like screw all that. I will just insulate my home, and build it well,, and get an extra solar panel. It might not super duper efficient, but it works for the sake of it. Yet it would work just the same. I really like newer passive heating and cooling, with the combination of renewables, and batteries. It would be so much cheaper and easier than this one day.
1
@Critical-Thinker895 Nooo man Helium shouldn't be used for balloons if it can be helped. It is finite, and high tech equipment needs it. Like MRI machines, or anything that uses super cooled magnets. Lasers! Fusion! Hydrogen is fine. We can make it safe. This application doesn't involve passengers! Maybe if we started producing more nuclear. I hear it is a byproduct of at least some reactors. Fusion definitely can. They say we only have enough helium for 200 years max. Some say 10!
1
Hydrogen is garbage for things like EVs, and I don't think it is a main energy storage solution either. For things like lifting? Absolutely! I would even fly in a modern hydrogen airship. Hindenburg wasn't even the worse airship crash. The Akron was with 73 deaths. Then the R 101. The Akron was a Helium filled airship too, but has double the deaths. Huh. Anyway I can understand others not wanting to be in a hydrogen airship. Yet this is a turbine with no people ever going into it. Hydrogen would be fine.
1