How Many Batteries Could Power The World? (ft. MinutePhysics)
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2017
- Win $2000 dollars with Anker: bit.ly/2hsMh6H
Check out MinutePhysic's video: • Will Batteries Power T...
Listen to our new podcast at:
Showmakers CZcams channel at: goo.gl/Ks1WMp
Itunes: itun.es/us/YGA_ib.c
RSS and Libsyn Audio is available on our site: www.showmakers.fm/
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: store.dftba.com/collections/r...
Anker Powerbank: amzn.to/2fpfEqg
Editing Laptop: amzn.to/2tipgoI
Camera: amzn.to/2ucfWEa
Microphone: amzn.to/2uCF8pS
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ fiosracht
Website:
www.RealEngineering.net
My Patreon Expense Report:
goo.gl/ZB7kvK
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Zoltan Gramantik, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea, Mershal Alshammari, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric
Once again thank you to Maeson for his amazing music. Check out his soundcloud here: / tracks - Věda a technologie
Hey, nice video!
Lol trying to get noticed, no one cares, stop self advertising
They made a very similar video
minutephysics Yo i'm subscribed to both of ya!
minutephysics they pourposly did that
minutephysics this is like the cyber version of patting yourself on the back and saying you did a good job
I think it's unfair to take nuclear off the table when it comes to potential future energy sources
nuclear is not renewable, though. And produces waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years.
Then solar and geothermal are not renewable either, because they are essentially nuclear and they will run out of fuel eventually.
Karl Kastor
I think it's quite inaccurate to say that nuclear isn't renewable since everything runs out eventually, so basically nothing is 100% renewable. As the technology advances, we can expect nuclear reactors to run tens of thousands of years, I would categorize that as "renewable".
think fusion, not fission
Problem simply is the nuclear waste and no true means of savely depositing them.
Isn't it also a problem to mine enough rare earth elements? Are there even enough accessible?
Jens Hans
Hopefully, this will be resolved through initiatives to mine rare earths outside if China, and efforts to find alternative elements or minerals that can be used instead.
Also, it's my understanding that rare earths aren't actually all that rare. The name is a bit misleading, like supermoon, supertaster, or megafauna.
Lithium is one of the most common metals, so no big problem.
Stef Morojna
Lithium isn't a rare earth, though.
But Lithium is the metal used in Lithium ion batteries
Current mining of rare earths requires (in the US at least) the Thorium to be discarded as a nuclear waste product. If we used the Thorium in LFTR (Thorium salt reactors) then we'd get the rare earths we need for motors etc, we'd get the Thorium we need for power and we'd get to use up 98% of our current nuclear waste making walk away safe, cheap clean energy.
At least 3 aa batteries could power the world
but it has a 9v battery slot
Michael on CZcams that doesn't matter
Pilfered Memes well.. he's not wrong...
Ok, but how long will it last?
9V* Volt is a capital V
And what about availability of lithium and other lithium battery components ? How about the possibility of extracting raw materials as fast as we can transform them ? The calculations are great but everyone knows that we will probably never manufacture as many batteries and it would have been great to explain why ;-)
Incroyables Expériences that exactly what I was going to say. Current lithium world production is 32,500 tonnes with proven world reserves of only 14,000,000 tones. With each car using 10kg. Then adding all the other areas that lithium is needed. I doubt the world has reserves to produce even 1/4 of your projections.
Angl0sax0nknight WRONG. why are people always just repeating what they picked up somewhere without doing real research? Its not that hard. The estimated reserves of lithium is ONLY for the ressource-rich places that are known YET. Like oil this will always extent but ALSO there are maaaaaany others ways to get your hand on lithium. They just need more energy but actually lithium is one of the most common elements on earth.
Also regarding your production amount: if there is a higher need for something then the production will ALWAYS adjust to that. Thats how communism works. Higher need will increase the investments and those will drive the ressource-refining costs down so that you can mine lithium in other ways too.
Fick Dich *that's how communism works* ......hol up. something seems wrong with that picture.....
lithium is everywhere..there is tonnes of lithium found in the refining process of oil that can meet all of our demands.. Canada has huge untapped reserves of Lithium there is absolutely no shortage of lithium.
You can always tell who doesn't know anything about lithium ion batteries because they start talking about potential lithium shortages. Not only is lithium one of the most abundant elements on earth, relatively little of it is used to make a lithium ion battery. Nickel and cobalt are the two elements that are used in current chemistry batteries that are most problematic/expensive to acquire. Even these metals are quite common and there is no true shortage.
Plus, of course, new chemistries are being invented literally every day. Better batteries may use something else entirely.
To be fair he said "not 10, not a 1000" so he was estimating in powers of 10.
2001Pieps yeah. If 100 is the right order of magnitude, then Musk was right on.
2001Pieps My thoughts exactly. He was estimating in orders of magnitude. So, his estimation is pretty close
Yep. Was about to make this exact comment.
You've made an excellent observation. This practice is also known as "Fermi Estimation."
+
Europe should adopt France's solution of Nuclear power, and also implement breeder reactors. No better storage needed, and no green house gasses. And no nuclear waste that can be turned into bombs.
Thorium is the best and cheapest way to go nuclear, as it is abundant. Present nuclear technology is extremely costly, and only serves the rod-industry. It is like we are burning GOLD in those fission-reactors.
I love the beginning scene of the elevated subway timelapse!
Real Engineering and MinutePhysics? best day ever!
6:30 the kawaii project?
Ye, he kept saying kawaii lmao, just his accent
He mentioned Kaua'i island in the Hawaiian islands chain. Northwest part of the State of Hawai'i
:3
Kaua'i project*
What about earth's lithium deposit? Do we have enough?
Asteroid mining?
A big ass number of kg in acessible deposits.
Okay, I changed it then.
Wikipedia sais about 14 *10^9 kg lithium in mines , at 100Wh/kg [edit: and li mass percentage of ~ 0.0027 | greet.es.anl.gov/files/lib-lca | page 21] (current Li-ion storage, again wikipedia) thats~ 50GWh , if 07:25 is accurate with 4000 GWh, thats not even close, so good luck with Li-Ion to store worlds demand on electricity, also assuming you use 100% of lithium for batteries, and demands don't go up
From the little bit of research I have done for that future video. The Bolivian salt flats has enough lithium by itself, they are huge. The problem is the manufacturing process has a huge lead time.
Wendover and real engineering AND showmakers? Best Day Ever.
Bunzy 2226 AND minute physics
Eat, Sleep, Swim we're all nerds
Joe D nerds don't have rabies....
There's actually a really cool molten salt nuclear reactor battery design that can essentially provide a year's worth of energy for buildings and so forth with no moving parts (it's natural convection-based), and can be "recharged" by swapping out the fuel/fluid inside, which is pretty simple to do. If you're wanting energy on demand in fairly large quantities, you can't do better than fission!
Nice calculations, but several key points are not considered:
1. Batteries break down, and eventually need to be replaced. Even a conservative 1-2% loss ratio / year would mean dozens of GWhs woth of batteries.
2. Dead cells need to be managed as hazardous waste. This is a huge cost and a major unsolved problem on a grand scale.
3. The production of lithium cells itself uses tremendous amount of energy.
4. It is not clear whether we can mine enough lithium in the first place. Prices are already booming, and real production have not even started yet.
5. Not only cars and the grid is needing cells, everything else, too.
Ultimately, it is infeasible to even think about powering the world on batteries. It is just not going to happen, we have a basic math problem here...
"Ultimately, it is infeasible to even think about powering the world on batteries." This is blatantly false.
You should show the numbers on screen when you say them, it has much more impact
Answer : A Fattery
A car fapery.
French Toad *What*
I love everything about your videos, please don't stop making these!
I'm disappointed that nuclear wasn't included in the clean energy mix, especially since it's capacity factor in the US exceeds anything else, including geothermal (in fact, plants have run continuously at peak power output for more than a year continuously, resulting in 100% capacity factor). Add to fantastic capacity factors the high power output, extremely low environmental impact, and the fact that it adds grid stability through turbine rotational energy (a huge difficulty with adopting "100% wind and solar"), and the difficulty of all clean power is quite a bit simpler.
Plus, nuclear is renewable in a greater sense than any other renewable, as it can create more fuel than it consumes--something that no other power source can do. I understand that wasn't the point of the video, but it would have been nice if this powerful, clean solution had at least been mentioned.
Nuclear is highly subsidized and very polluting. We have a hole in the ground that they've been working on since it's start in 1987 to take the nuclear waste. It's projected cost is over $90 billion dollars. Still isn't built. The US taxpayer foots the bill for $1 billion per year to compensate the nuclear generator operators for lack of disposal facilities. Not cheap and not environmentally viable. Spent rods are stored locally in pools at the generator site. Very expensive and the pollution will be around for 1000's of years. Batteries can be cheaply re-purposed or recycled. Nukes, not so much.
helicopterdriver unfortunately, you present only some of the facts, and do not provide context. Misrepresented this way, yes, nuclear sounds like a bad deal. However, when you add some context, the image changes dramatically.
The pollution you speak of contains hundreds of millions of dollars of useful products, including medical isotopes that save millions of lives a year and are used to replace expensive instruments used in oil and gas, metalworking, and computer science. However, a policy decision was made that the used fuel could not be processed and now the industry is forced to throw away life-saving product.
Its also valuable to note that the dangerous parts (what could be called pollutants) are mainly the isotopes with short half lives, because they put out enough energy to be harmful. Those that stick around for milenia, if not chemically toxic (which most aren't) don't pose much of a threat to health or environment. Yes, they take a long time to fully decay away, but we have a lot of the same things naturally occurring, and they pose little to no risk to life. And the longer stuff can be harvested as re-use as fuel in reactors. In fact, right around chernobyl has become a wildlife preserve due to the nuclear disaster, with the environment flourishing like never before.
By way of context also, the volume of waste generated by nuclear is by far the lowest for any form of generation except possibly hydro. We can't deny that we need power, and so it is reasonable that we'd want the form that produces the least problems. Nuclear goes in solid, and leaves solid. Almost everything else produces significant liquid or gaseous waste, which is difficult to contain. And most just release it to the environment!
Nuclear isn't without its difficulties, but it creates ir edible amounts of reliable, dependable energy with less waste generation that anything else. It produces fuel while running and generates tons of valuable products. It's a policy reason that we waste this valuable resource for now.
The costs for nuclear are in the billions. We just spent 9 billion dollars for 2 reactors that will never operate and expect to spend 5 billion more to mothball them. The costs for existing reactor shutdown and future site maintenance is in the billions as well. 20% of my electric bill goes towards that failed fiasco. Not cheap and not environmentally friendly. We have millions of tons of radioactive waste in South Carolina. Will be here forever. We have radon in the soil here. It's not too good if you ingest it. It's natural element but deadly to your DNA. Entire water filtration systems to deal just with that. It's natural but not very environmentally friendly.
We make Nuclear Fuel rods a few miles from my house. The site is polluted and will remain that way for a long long time. It's only just above the Congaree National Park... swampland. Not a big deal. (insert sarcasm) They have a wastewater discharge into the Congaree River as well. We have lost thousands of lives for nuclear disposal efforts here as well. Savannah River is full but we keep piling it up, nobody else will take it. It's not as rosy as you would like it to seem. Would you want a reactor in your back yard? It's all about greed not about cheap and safe renewable energy.
Context is there if you do some research. Is our government focusing billions on renewables? Hardly. Most of that is private sector. It's our money in the end and we need a source that is renewable and safe. Same local utility fought solar to the point where you can only grid tie your system if you have a million dollar insurance policy to cover your tie in. Of course they are also guaranteed 10.5% profit for their efforts as a monopoly. Solar is increasing but mostly on Co-Op Electrical Systems or Vendors.
We have a lot of sun here. We had the first Nuclear Power Plant here and we had the first Nuclear Powered Ship. Nuclear was a big deal, it's past it's prime and proved highly expensive and environmentally unfriendly. Boiling water is easily done and doesn't require Billions of dollars in specialized, forever radioactively contaminated equipment, to do it.
How many lifetimes of income is a billion dollars? For boiling water?
wallstats.com states it will take 769 lifetimes of income for a female to make 1 billion dollars. 279 lifetimes of income if you have a phd. We are spending $90 billion dollars just for a stainless steel lined hole to store the nuclear waste. That come to 25,110 lifetimes of income for the phd crowd and 69,210 lifetimes of income for a female today... for a hole in the ground... for the cheap energy we got... to boil water. It's not magic and it's not sustainable.
A Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is currently under construction at SRS, which is slated to cost at least $5 billion. Operation of the MFFF will require weapons plutonium feedstock that has been converted from metallic to oxide form. This in turn will require construction of a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), currently estimated to cost $2 billion. The over runs from this are expected to cost $12 billion more than estimated. That is supposed to help repurpose the weapons grade and waste rods to usable fuel again. Maybe... We take spent rods from Germany and other countries across the globe. Tons of it.
Why don't they keep it if it's so "..... valuable?"
+helicopterdriver Again, you need to look in at the full lifecycle costs, and put things in context. Energy is expensive--you must consider both pros and cons for all generation types, and look at it comparing it to other options. Any generation type, looked at alone, seems pretty terrible. Let's talk cost and pollution, then.
Renewables (wind and solar) have cost over $160 billion so far, and barely make up single digit percents of our energy mix (that's purely the amount the US government has spend on them, and doesn't account for the development, construction, or disposal costs you mention from private industry, though most of that was government subsidized--I can provide you the report if you want). By contrast, the US government has spent less than $80 billion to subsidize nuclear, which makes up a full 20% of our energy mix, and over 60% of our green energy mix. Current costs for renewables are on the way down thanks to technological advances, while policy changes (not technical issues) have driven the cost of nuclear up by hundreds of percents. Nuclear has other technical solutions with simplier safety at the same high standards of today's industry, fuel recycling, and other innovations that are projected to cost less than half to build and operate, However, the nuclear regulatory commission will not license them because they don't understand how to think about anything other than water-cooled, slow-neutron reactors. So renewables are allowed to impliment their innovations, while nuclear has had to hold their innovations for over 40 years. Not really a level playing field--you can't compare apples to apples, here.
Wind farms are licensed for 7 years, and most are expected to run maybe 20 before needing to basically be rebuilt (the strain on gear boxes, blades, and electrical equipment are the main culprits). Solar rapidly deteriorates (over about 5 years) to producing significantly less power (in some cases, about 60% of when they were first built), but then stabilize for a decade or so. This is also a materials/electronics issue that cannot be solved, as everything will age and degrade over time. Again, they can be expected to last up to 20 years before needing to be replaced. Nuclear plants, on the other hand, have run for 60 years, and most plants are expected to be able to run for 80. Naturally, they are also replacing components for materials reasons, but that's true of any baseload, and is a very small added cost (you don't rebuild the entire plant). That whole time, they produce 0 emission, stable, baseload power. Renewables are great for fluxuating power needs, but cannot provide baseload.
The waste generated producing the raw materials for renewables is significant, including a huge toxic lake by Baogang, China where they process the rare earth materials (like Neodymium) for wind and solar. Look it up--it's rather terrifying, and in my mind is WAY worse than anything that nuclear has caused (for reference, I've read the reports about the ecosystem around Chernobyl both right after the accident and now). Renewables also have no disposal plan--you can google solar panel graveyards, where tons of solar panels lie in open pits for disposal, for an example. There is no end game planned for used solar panels. For nuclear, we have more than a dozen ways to recycle the used fuel, from harvesting valuable and useful isotopes to putting the used fuel in a reactor as its fuel (which uses the long-lived isotopes, leaving something that's radioactive for only a few hundred years, beating the amount of time fossil fuel's waste will be around, not to mention that toxic lake). But they aren't allowed to for political reasons, not technical ones. Look up the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) at Argonne West (now the Idaho National Lab). It ran 30 years on purely recycled fuel. Oh, and nuclear can also produce more fuel than they consume--did you know that? No other power generation type can do that. But again, they aren't allowed to for political reasons.
As far as radioactive hazards, my graduate research is on uses of radiation. Did you know that the Canadian Nuclear Lab irradiates mice, and that the irradiated mice live longer than the non-irradiated ones? Did you know that the longer something's half life (the longer it's around), the less hazardous it is? To the point that we build military armor out of uranium (which is radioactive) because it decays so slowly there is no risk posed to soldiers who sit inside these vehicles for hundreds of hours (not to mention the soldiers who spend months at a time bunking by the nuclear reactor on ships, to no detriment to their health)? Radiation is scary--but not actually very dangerous in low to moderate doses. Your cells have dozens of DNA repair mechanisms that fix damage (most of which is from the sun, by the way), and studies indicate that low doses of radiation is not only safe, but healthy for us. But I digress.
As far as whether I'd want a nuclear reactor in my backyard--heck yeah! I'd love it! And I can give you several reasons why! I actually looked into a small nuclear plant that you can put in your basement for home heating and electricity generation, and I'd love to put it in my home! I have spent years studying energy generation, distribution, and implications. Nuclear, by every metric I have yet seen (with the exception of economic, which again is mostly due to political and not technical reasons), is better than any other form of generation. I can provide reports for safety, emissions, and waste generation for different industries, if you are interested.
I feel it's important to note that I believe what I do precisely because I've "done the research". All generation types have their place, but all come with problems as well. Solar is fantastic for local, peak demand, such as on stores or businesses to help cover air conditioning or heating costs during the day when in use. Large-scale solar makes very little economic or grid sense due to difficulties tying it in to the grid, the requirement to have piquing plants (mostly natural gas right now) for cloudy days, the requirement to somehow store excess generation (and batteries have all kinds of technical problems we can get into if you want), and the need to completely replace the plant every 20 years or so. They are huge investments (wind and solar would cost between $1 and 5 trillion to fully power the grid--again, I can provide some reports if you want), but they are awesome in places where they make sense. The point is, we need a mix, and we can't get to our emissions targets or steady power generation without nuclear.
For the way our world works and will continue to work for the foreseeable future, we need baseload generation. Hydro, geothermal, and nuclear are the best of these, but we've tapped out our hydro (which came with and continues to have its own set of problems), geothermal is location-specific, and nuclear has political baggage. I can talk more about that, if you want, because there are some neat things that require us to have baseload that I didn't know, but really makes a big difference in my thinking. But this is already WAY too long--sorry about that!
[EDIT: I forgot to include your handle!]
"This video was sponsored by anker"
Come on man, how difficult was it to say that?
2:35 - that's the same clip Wendover Productions used in his video on the $5,000 chicken sandwich.
Now if we can make nuclear fusion reliable that number of batteries goes down astronomically.
In 2070 maybe... but by then we will be really screwed. Nah mate, fission is the way to go, not fusion.
I agree but fission is fine. LFTR fit the bill nicely. Then rare earth mining is more profitable (cheaper awesome magnets for motors etc) as we get the Thorium for the ultra safe reactors as a by product (which we currently throw out) of rare earth mining. Oh and LFTRs can use up the vast majority of our current nuclear "waste" while they're at it. It's all wins.
If I owned some suitable nuclear waste depository land, I'd be more than happy to get paid to take what will be a valuable product when China and other forward thinking countries get LFTRs going commercially.
Absolutely right. It's surprising how little efforts are made towards nuclear fusion.
2:43 “I’m not entirely convinced that a battery powered truck is feasible at this point...”
“Boy were they wrong” - TheOddOnesOut
+Eat, Sleep, Swim the fact Tesla didn't share how much the vehicle weighs is incredibly telling. I wouldn't be so sure
Don't ever stop making these videos
They're top notch quality
I kinda forgot this video existed. It’s not very good. I should revisit this
Nothing can match the energy density of nuclear.
Reactor Grade Thorium: 79,420,000 MJ/kg
Reactor-grade Uranium: 3,456,000 MJ/kg
Lithium-air battery: 43.2 MJ/kg
Uranium is actually a bit higher than the figure you quoted, at 80,620,000 MJ/kg. The D-He3 reaction is even better, at 384,000,000 MJ/kg.
Unfortunately, those figures do not take into account balance of plant, which currently makes nuclear highly unfavorable for anything even remotely resembling portability.
1.21 GW Great Scott
Man... this is your masterpiece so far! Good work! Well researched, well presented
Stable sources don't mean that they don't need storage. Supply has to meet demand, and demand is variable. You need "dispatchable" supply, neither constant nor intermittent is good.
I know this is a bit crazy but is was wondering if you could do a futurist series. For example "The Launch Loop/ Lofstrom Loop" I know how it works in concept, but I have never seen anyone talk about the math behind the concept and why it works.
Ever heard of Isaac Arthur? All he ever does is futurism, and he's also covered launch structures.
Northern climates would need 10 times more batteries. I calculated that 33% of electrical generation alone would go to heating buildings. Similar to the amount of power used to cool them in very hot climates. In extreme climate(where it drops well below freezing or soars well above 100) you need more power to regulate the temperature in a building. Currently natural gas is used to heat buildings. This came after heating oil and that was after wood heating. Gas furnaces have got more and more efficient since but electric heat has not taken the same path. It's usually just a electric heat element and a fan. I will always stand by natural gas, unless I see electric heat in a building that costs the same(or less). What I do know is the 4 digit electrical Bills people get during the winter heating with electric. Particularly in Ontario where they are getting rid of oil and wood furnaces and not having gas hooked up, forcing rural areas to use electrical heating. People who live in a "mild climate" just don't understand. When it's 120 degrees the power bill is insane. When it's 30 below the power bill is insane if you uses electric, in cold climates gas heating has been cheap and efficient for decades. Sorry Musk! But you still have a long way to go to have a place in a Canadian Home.
One of the best videos I've seen in a while, good job!!
Two of my favorite science channels making videos together. What a time to be alive.
One question regarding vehicle demand: are there any stats on electric car lifespan? There are less moving parts and therefore less to break so one could assume it would last longer. That could reduce demand over time, yes.
Current battery tech limits the useful lifespan of the battery at around 10 years. Then, it either needs a new battery, or, more likely, will be at scrap value.
I agree. Also we should see an increase in shared use and less private vehicle use with self driving vehicles and Uber type options becoming more common.
Kevin Lyda These videos assume that humanity tries to go on as in the past. Economy of growth, every person owning a car etc. however for more sustainability humanity will have to change a lot of its habits. This will be the really hard part, because it can't be solved by engineering.
Kevin Lyda you have to take in to account rust
Electric vehicles tend to have a lower life span. That said, most vehicles today don't make it to their end of life before people stop using them.
moral of the video: we use too much energy for classical renewable sources, and we can't store it with just Li-ion batteries. My advice: we should look into Thorium molten salt reactors and also into inertia wheels as means of storing energy.
Inerita wheels?
Robin Gilliver They use a low friction massive wheel to store energy as kinetic rotational energy, which could then be used to run an electric engine or generator.
@@robinhyperlord9053 Also known as super flywheels.
Compared to chemical storage like Li-batteries, there isn't much energy stored in mechanical storage devices like flywheels and compressed air. Mechanical storage is more suited to satisfying peak load than providing continuous energy
Loved the crossover. Keep the great work!
Love the collaboration! Keep it up g
you didn't calculate how much the demand for energy would grow/decrease in the coming years
1:38 The distance between the moon and earth is variable.
You are one of the best youtuber ever! You deserve so much more! I can't even describe in words how good your channels is!!
YAAAY a collaboration by two of my fav youtube teachers! On a subject that is vital to the immediate future of humanity.
Can we all please agree that nuclear should remain on the table for a clean, sustainable future!
yes
Nuclear as it is and has been has failed; it has suffered massive cost overruns and decade long delays. The utilities will contract for the best (cheapest) form of power, and nuclear cannot compete. There is no excuse why a new NPP should cost tens of Billions of dollars and take more than a dozen years to bring online. Vogtle & VC Summer in the US, Flamanville in France, Okiluoto in Finland and another in the UK have all had this problem. The tree huggers and others didn't do this! Nuclear did it to itself. Don't play the blame game!
@@acmefixer1 he said in the video that building the necessary batteries infrastructure to transition to renewable would cost trillions of dollars I doubt nuclear would be that expensive.
no,go fk yourself on the beach at fukashima..
Wow, Anker lobbying on youtube was bit strong today. 3 of my channels suddenly talks about batteries...
At 2:30 you stated that the gigafactory outputs 35GWh/yr, although this is merely it's current output - once done it is projected to be at a stable output of 150GWh/yr taking the required number of gigafactories down to a mere 32 such factories.
Just thought I'd mention 🙂
One thing not mention in the video and most taking about this issue is energy consumption growth at even 3% a year in 33 years youll need 2.65X the amount of battery, also if relying on 50%+ solar you'd need a lot more then 1 night worth of storage in case the sky gets cloudy for a week or more.
First time visitor to your channel. Came from minute physics. Great video. Just wanted to give some feedback. You are taking about lots of numbers in this video. They don't make any impact on passive viewers. Try showing some comparison like graphs, pie charts etc for all numbers shown. Human brains see numbers logarithmicaly. Difference between 1 and 2 is not same as between 100 and 101. So some bug number wont make any sense unless you have something to compare it with. Please consider this a positive criticism to improve yourself.
Yeah it was a concern of mine before uploading. This video just ended up being full of numbers, not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly not entertaining. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Yeah, even as a lover of numbers I found this to be just past my limit for following what they meant. By the end I found myself tuning out the numbers you were putting out and waiting for you to sum it up (like "that means we need X gigafactories"). I would say that it would be ok to leave out some of the intermediary steps and include them in the description or a separate more numbers heavy video. I'm not an expert, just wanted to add to the constructive feedback. Glad to see that you listen to it and respond kindly
I've often found Elon Musk to vastly over or underestimate the actual numbers concerned in questions.
That’s exactly what he’s answering only in orders of magnitude.
Could you do a video on the pyramids, and how they were constructed?
Enunciate your th sounds mate
The new way they (wendover prod., minute phys, etc) do product placement makes the whole video feel like its just ramping you up to sell you something at the end. I feel cheated when that happens like when it seems like a TV show only to find its just an infomercial. Just my $0.02 The way Linus tech tips or PBS space time does it is a good balance of product placement.
Dave B Linus did do that "budget" pc build guide which was a complete sell out where they built a terrible PC because they were sponsored by an expensive tower.
RIP real life lore's upload :(
I think you also need to factor in the lithium xxx battery charge/discharge cycle limits. Battery storage will need to be constantly replaced, which adds to the overall production load.
We got the same backpack. That's pretty cool, I've been pushing anker since they came out. Worth buying for sure.
A one Gigawatt battery would contain the explosive power of 860 tons of TNT.
Let's hope the new tech is more reliable than Lithium batteries are right now. :D
I think the nuclear option is probably safer.
It does look quite reliable and safe to me: electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/
your another fk wit,,found 25 so far..ever wtch the news.or just blind dumb & stupid..ingorance is bliss...
Am I missing something or you didn't account for the batteries degradation ... your batteries are useless after 10 years.
33 years is basically 3 generations of batteries
Awesome video! Would be very interested if could tackle the problem of rare materials scarcity regarding batteries and also recycling!!
Have you considered that we might run into supply issues for Lithium battery raw materials? Have you included the battery life/number of charge cycles?
Nuclear fixes it all witout total rebiuld of the power grid!
No need for total rebuld of the power grid. Just graft some lithium storage banks to it.
nuclear shure as hell fixed fukashima,chernobyl & japan...dick..
Or we could do the faster and more practical thing and use nuclear.
you dig a 5 mile hole,5 miles wide,fill is walls/floor with 4 ft of lead,build the plant,in the middle of a desert,,top it with concrete & lead roof,6 ft thick.then yes,,nuclear is safe & clean,,till it goes bang..history repeats..
Love your videos
3:05 the answer is easy: change all the trucks for maglevs and build tracks everywhere
1:37 The last time I checked the Tesla model-S 100D need some kinda of solid surface to drive on, and just checked out ma window and there ain't any road going to the moon, so I have no idea how you could drive there, also if it was possible to drive to the moon in a car the moon landing/s would be slightly less impressive, that said, just joking around.
A great video, but I think your assumptions on the need for storage are off.
You've significantly underestimated the potential of wind energy (particularly in Europe) and not accounted for increased efficiency in vehicles & devices. We're moving toward a future where people won't need to own a car, they'll just request a self driving one from a pool, with a similar story for freight. These will likely be predominantly self powered as well as self driving. Every building new building will have its own solar & wind generation. Car batteries plugged into the grid for charging will also become the storage battery for the home, evening out demand (there are already companies doing this).
Basically, your calculations are largely based on the way we have consumed energy in the past, rather than how we'll use it in the future. (But still a great video!)
Using a car battery to even out demand means that it might not be fully charged when you wake up in the morning. And that means if you use most of the battery while driving around during the day, that you won't have any energy storage for your home when you get home in the evening.
So IMO this scenario of using EV car batteries as home battery storage is a fantasy. Particularly if you want to believe your self driving car pool scenario where even fewer people would own cars (which sounds disgusting unless they have hourly cleanliness inspections, and even then it would be pushing it in everywhere except Japan).
Hi Dom, I love the fact that you are aware that the era of private car ownership is probably coming to an end as robot-taxis take over because they'll be so cheap!
Nice MotionGraphics work!
Thanks for the video )))
The things that you are missing.
¹Car fleet will reduce in the next 20 years.
²Cars will be part of the grid.
Also massively missing the other technologies, like flow batteries for stationery storage.
Who needs batteries when you can power everything with *NUCLEAR POWER*
Or nuclear fusion... Harness the power of the sun!
BTW, new innovative nuclear power designs can have over 80% efficiency, which is good. :D
When saying _efficiency_ I mean the amount of material that can be turned into energy and not just waste.
Please Make a video on Vector Analysis(From the physics point of view)
Great Scott ! ! ! ! ! So many Jigawatts of energy! ! ! ! !
Why not just go nuclear?
동동동 Cuz a lot of the public is still sketchy over it given the recent nuclear disasters...
90% of public is illiterate about its safety.
So you're saying it's feasible, then again feasible in my mind includes Dyson Spheres.
great video I love your channel
Great collab Project!
Les mathématiques de la physique sont le cauchemar des écolos qui voudraient nous faire croire qu'on peut vivre avec seulement des énergies renouvelables et des batteries.
*BAGUETTE XD*
Speak English. This is america.In America you speak English.
If you don't speak English fuck you.
ScrubLord OverLord wtf? This is the internet not the US
ScrubLord OverLord report that comment as a harassment, if you like.
14ona CZcams is based in America. Suck it
Perhaps we would need less energy by 2050 since electronics are becoming far more efficient
Awesome video! I really wonder how much you could save on storage if you invest more in wind power than solar and how these savings would compare to the lower energy output.
Kinda want you to do a video on graphene and its possible applications. Awesome channel keep it up!
If you wanted a car that could run forever but be electric you would need tesla to make a car with an exposed battery that could be removed and replaced with a new fully recharged battery quickly. I think this is a very good idea for tesla to kick down another argument to not buy an electric car. What do you guys think? Comment below
Or you have some sort of charging/power supply built into roads so that a lot of your journey is not from stored power in the car itself. The battery in the car could be smaller (less weight to drag around) and would be cycled less and last longer.
donpalmera that would be good but how do you get it there in the first place it would start mass traffic jams and would require trillions to do globaly. But as i said its a good idea but i dont thunk we have the technology to do so on a mass without causing widespread disruption
Baggie195 LGN_ Tesla already does the fast charging thing with Superchargers, and the hot swapabble thing they tried too but gave up from lack of demand
David Mark fast charging would destroy the battery quickly thats the problem with the removable one tou can take 1 battery pack out of service easily and put a new one in or an upgraded one compatible with the car e.g. A general charging mechanism found on every tesla car
Batteries need to have a breakthrough or electric cars will never go anywhere. Not to mention renewable energy is simply impossible space wise. it would take around the area of Spain to fulfill the worlds energy needs with solar panels... So I don't think we can go to renewable energy even if we wanted to.
This video assumes that an electrified fleet of cars would follow the same economy it has now; IE: a crazy capitalist market where people buy new cars after 10 years or less. That's not sustainable. In the new, electrified world, cars would be autonomous and you wouldn't have to own one to use it - you'd call for it with an app like getting a Lyft. These autonomous networks would be owned by the car manufacturer and the incentive to make them last as long as possible would be big. That's a much better way to do it. Parking lots would go away. Parking in streets would go away. Traffic would go away. Garages and driveways could be reclaimed. Roads could be reduced and the total number of cars necessary to get everyone where they need to go would go way, way down (think of it this way, most people's cars are idle 90+% of the day. Wouldn't it be better if they were driving someone else when you weren't using it?) :-)
glad to see I'm not the only one thinking this video and others miss the point too ! If it's just trying to fit the actual unsustainable numbers to the future, nothing will change, and there will obviously won't be enough batteries and factories to follow this insane and inefficient way of consuming. How about a smarter future ? I totally agree with you.
thats a good idea, atm in china, you can pick any bicycle(of certain companies) close to you, rent it, ride, park it anywhere, and someone else will rent it again
This idea is great of course, but this is pretty much only sustainable in urban environments. Living in a rural area where it takes 15 minutes by car to get to the nearest McDonalds and population density is about the same as the density of chin hairs on a prepubescent girl, I just don't see this model working. Sharing cars would either not be economically feasible, requiring either too many facilities to maintain a reasonable time between calling for a car and it actually arriving, and not having enough people to support each one, or too high a time between calling for a car and it arriving.
Eric W. Totally agree. Thankfully the start of something amazing doesn't have to immediately work for 100% of everyone. In fact, it never does. I mean, 100% of people now don't even have a car to begin with.
It also depends on your location.
Cities in Texas are so sprawled out that it's basically impossible to see widespread use with the current layout. In cities designed like London it's more feasible to remove inner city parking with car share spots. I live in San Antonio and the sprawl is so wide that you pretty much have to have a vehicle unless you live inside the downtown area (and work there) which is not a cheap prospect. Fact is our road infrastructure is designed around personally owned vehicles in America.
We really need to improve battery recycling. Most importantly, access to that recycling.
Hello real engineering, I was wondering if you would make a video on the sdkfz 234/2 puma's transmission and steering/suspension system. It seems very complex, and I would love to see that!
Cheers, happy sub
"Dependence on fossil fuel dwindles..."?? Haha haha. Really? Let's get real, please.
Yea... It hasn't changed much has it,
I don't like batteries. Batteries, especially lithium-ion are not at all good when it comes to the manufacturing process. Like lithium mining and processing is one if the dirtiest industries in the world. And, lithium is not an huge source and it would harm nature by all that mining.
So no, batteries are probably not the *only* answer even if we *could.*
Best would be like hydrogen and alcohol storage, compressed air storage systems for smaller energy producers, molten salt like you said in the video and much more. The technology grows by every day, and to have it in a nearer future we should invest more in that kind of technology.
I'm still very optimistic about our future.
Any proof that Lithium mining is a dirty industry? Most of the lithium is soluted in brine, pumped to the surface, evaporated and then extracted. Compared to other Industries it uses few machinery or chemical compunds.
Well, unless you are looking at India where the poor will harvest lithium from broken tech to sell, the process of obtaining lithium isn't dirty.
Sheepy007
Here's one: www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-12-16-How-Green-is-Lithium.html?sitetype=fullsite
The others aren't in English, but there has been research about these industries and to manufacture a battery (for electric cars) of around 100 kwh, it would generate 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is equal to a diesel or petrol car driving 150 000 km! And guess what, the lifetime of these batteries are definitely not more than 150 000 km.
This means that even before you have driven 1 meter in a electric car, it has already emitted equally much carbon dioxide like a diesel car that has been driven 150 000 km!
Another thing is that the industri it self is bad, like stated in the site above they use many toxins. Half of the lithium deposits in the world are comming from a lake in Bolivia, you can imagine the environment destruction.
If you're still not convinced, try searching it up yourself and you'll see.
LocalPulsar H. I have read the article concerning the paper you are trying to reference here (admittedly, I have not read the paper itself). It was full of unwarranted assumptions (like not considering the CO2 emissions from fuel production or the spare parts needed in a fuelled car that are not needed in an electric car) and flawed comparisons (comparing the Model S to the average produced car - that is definitely not a higher middle class sports car). The article was published by a site known for its frequent criticism towards electric cars, and ex Chief editor (who still has shares in the site, and thus presumably influence) works for Daimler.
DagarCoH ok, but I hope you read the rest I wrote. That is more important.
I could listen to this guy's voice for hours. The fact he's talking engineering and numbers is just a bonus. (Although, it took me a moment to realize the 'cares' he mentioned were in fact 'cars'. All the same.)
Amazing Channel! Do you think you might be able to post more videos about cars?
Does anybody still believe that we need fossil fuel to drive a car or anything else?
hornetluca well kind of. He referenced "current prices" a lot when talking about tesla, but made no mention of the fact that Tesla is a highly subsidized company. The prices would be higher without government money
I don't see what's bad about fuels that can be extracted from plants or created by agricultural byproducts... Because they are pretty much renewable fossil fuels, that are eco-friendly and will lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands of well-payed jobs worldwide. Some countries do not have the solar or wind power-generating potential.
+Nastetobestful Once again, those products are only competitive (barely) because they are heavily subsidized. You want those fuels? Get ready to pay the big bucks.
In terms of jobs, consider this. The oil market would lose a ton a jobs, but not only that. If I own a trucking company (or any company that uses energy) and my energy bills go up, I have to fire people. Generally if you force businesses to do something that they otherwise wouldn't do, it is a net detriment to economic growth.
+Damon Hage, are you really saying that fossil fuel go without subsidising? Tax cuts, governments founds to decommission derelict oil rigs, healthcare for those who were unlucky to breath too much fine particles from diesel engines are what exactly? It's classic case of one subsidy being pushed by another, because company is too big to fail.
+Drachenfels Dj
I would love to debate you on this issue, but I can't seem to understand what point you are making. I don't say that as an insult or anything negative, I just really don't understand what your position is. Maybe you can clarify?
All these comments are so looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooog
you must be Canadian to find those comment so log.
They make total sense though.
TLDR
The Anker powerpacks ARE indeed incredibly good, I have the same one you showcased and it charges my Galaxy s8 about 7 times
What about resources? Is the supply of lithium or other materials a problem here at all?
Lol a lot of this is just wrong. First of all "I'm not convinced that a tesla truck is feasible with current batteries" Tesla is set to unveil their Semi truck next month. The model 3 isn't 65 kWh, it's 50, Etc, A lot of other stuff is wrong with this video too.
Also Gigafactory dedicates most of its production to powerwall. If a 1/4 of the 100 factories were for cars & semis, it could produce 300 GWH/year if upgraded to the max.
Tesla is absolutely not unveiling a semi truck next month, they are unveiling the Model Y which is an SUV. Check my maths if you want, but the maximum weight of vehicles in America is 40 tonnes. A 3000 kWh battery would weigh 20 tonnes, that's without the rest of the truck. Leaving very little weight left over for actual money making cargo.
The Model 3's batteries were revealed the day before I uploaded the video and are 50 kWh and 75 kWh. 65 kWh was right in the middle. Name some other stuff that was wrong.
Speculation. Current target production is 35 GWh and 50 GWh, as stated in the video. Tesla is currently trying to raise money with Junk Bonds just to get production high enough for Model 3 demand, despite having a larger market cap than Ford (while selling a fraction of the cars). If they can somehow magically find the funding to ramp up to more production I will be massively impressed.
The Model Y is NOT being unveiled next month. They are unveiling the Semi, as I said: electrek.co/2017/04/13/tesla-semi-all-electric-truck-september-elon-musk/. The Model Y is coming 2018 - 2019. This video is just wrong.
I disliked because even Elon Himself said they are unveiling a Semi next month: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/852580027178696704
YES the music is back!
But what about the ressources to manufacture all those batteries? And how long do the batteries last? It wouldn't be feasible if the average lifetime of such a battery is 20 years while the implementation needs more than 30 years.
The 35GWh in 2020 is an old projection. After making progress in construction and accelerating Model 3 production, Tesla now thinks it can tripple the volume in the same building. The new plan is to get to 35 GWh of cell production in the Gigafactory by 2018 (50 GWh of battery pack production with 15 GWh additionally purchased battery cells). And by 2020 they plan to get to 105 GWh of cell production and 150 GWh of battery pack production. When musk made the claim about the 100 Gigafactories, he was obviously referring to the updated production capacity.
I was hoping that the presentation would touch on the challenges of mining the material needed for this endeavor and the challenges of keeping the system renewed with new batteries as we go forward.
Is the daily energy usage profile on that island comparable to that of mainland energy usage? I don't expect there to be many factories for example. Usually, electricity usage is much higher during the day, so providing that extra energy is where solar shines (no pun intended).
Great video, nice to see some numbers put on the problem. Personally I think if the demand is there we'll build the factories that we need to supply that demand. A couple of hundred gigafactories sounds like a lot but compare that with the other infrastructure we've built (about 450 nuclear power plants for example) and it doesn't look that bad.
I’ve never been a huge fan of Tesla but the funny thing is in this video is that he says that they couldn’t get to making an electric truck (cab for pulling large loads), but they pulled it off.
Excellent video. One minor issue I see that was not addressed, is that batteries have a usable life time. if you put that at 5 years, then you need a 20% increase in battery production just to keep up with replacements(not demand growth). I suspect the number is different based on battery chemistry, temperature and usage rate.
I am from India. And i love this channel. Tqs man . You really a real engineer and making us to think like an engineer.
I'd be interested to know your opinions on hydroelectric storage: Using excess renewable energy to pump water into reservoirs. Eg. Spirit of Ireland. Or a video on other storage options! A monopoly of battery storage seems unlikely.
It's in our sights! Forward!!!