Well this is definitely a long the same concepts that I've had.. I mean I would argue that almost all of the problems in the world are due to the centralization and control of the systems we rely on like money politics food energy.. becoming self-sufficient in these areas is quite literally the answer. I'll soon be building a dual wall vacuum insulated home to be the most efficient structure on the planet, using a giant Fresno lens to heat a molten salt tank to power my steam generator and provide all of my energy needs. A solar molten salt tank in conjunction with a steam engine seems like the easiest greenest and most viable solution to our energy needs. These systems are insanely simple and can be built in our garages and backyards! Keep up the great work everyone and let's get self-sufficient! I know Robert Greene is trying to sell his patents and licenses can't blame him to want to be profitable on this genius concept engine however I hope he comes to his senses and open sources these plans for the benefit of all of humanity!
Nuclear reactors were taught in high school....for those of us over 40....it is simple. For those that weren't paying attention use the search feature.
I've built several different types of micro turbines and piston steam engines, the turbine is more turn-key and my latest combination turbine does a decent efficient job on a small amount of wood, I think I called my video, "off grid wood to electricity co-generation system.", so yeah, I have a whole system running like the gentleman in this video is talking about here in this video. Nice for me to see others working on such things, also nice to see an unknown like me, local ideas NPO, has more views than TED on a similar subject. Gooday eh
So long as the trees are being replaced I have no problem with this on a small scale. It's not going to supply energy for London, Paris or New York but that's not what you're to do.
@@Ronan1692 You hit nail on the head, it could work with remote areas, but its terrible idea for cities, then there is greenhouse gasses and increasing co2 levels. I think he aprouched problem from wrong end.
A steam engine can run off any fuel because it's an external combustion engine and as long as you can make steam, you can make the engine run. I bet it would be relatively easy to make a boiler that can burn many different types of fuel.
@@Barskor1 problem with vacuums is that they're just asking to be punctured. they already have low pressure, if not negative, in them. adding extra force or pressure from outside, especially if in a fulcrum just makes it so easy. imagine a rusty pipe accidentally kicked and it's vacuum, just waiting for a leak inside. then what, re-vacuum. pay pay pay. then you'll do it again and again. in a large scale industrial environment, this'll be a headache. ever wondered y we don't use vacuum walls even though they're the best insulators? it all boils down to the $$$.
@@poknatinpokkers5289 Rust prevention and inhibitors have come a long way if you are not maintaining your equipment as a business you are asking to be put out of business. Creating vacuum on an industrial scale is actually quite cheap you just need a 50 ft tall water tower and a partially open tank 35 ft tall at the base that can hold as much water as the tower. You use the regular water pump to fill the tower close the pump valve open the tank valve and let the water fall leaving the upper tower empty and a hard vacuum present in it then it is just a matter of more valves and piping to direct the vacuum as needed. It is better to have an implosive from an accident than an explosion. What happens if you were running a standard steam system and Bob kicked a pipe? Bob may be dead or maimed and so could many people around him boiling steam spewing and blistering hot water all over the floor to boil those who fall. Aerogels combined with mylar outer sheets make for resilient vacuum insulation. You may think aerogels are expensive but there is a way to make them from paper pulp you slow freeze the pannels so lots of ice crystals form then you freeze dry them removing the water.
@@Barskor1 i don't know much about this stuff, but i'm guessing you're saying the low pressure will make the water turn into a gas...but what will make the gas *move* ?
Decentralization is something the big power companies and fossil fuel industry as well as the rest of the centralized players hate. They knock it out every time. So watch out Robert. The accident rate for real innovators is too high. Big money doesn't like small scale alternatives, threatens their money trees.
@@BrunoSantosN I doubt it, when electrical lines are broken electricity doesn't leak out into the air, public safety will be a concern, as digging up a high pressure steam pipe and poking a hole in by accident would really ruin your day, also all your neighbors on the same line would be affected.
I've lived in areas where a lot of people burned wood or coal for cooking and heating. It puts a lot of irritating particulates in the air. I don't know if there is any way to filter out the smoke.
Ther is actualy ways to filter the particels out of fire from coal and wood for example old steam trains neded to have such a filter so the particals wouldent set fire on the trees nerby the rails
Three major problems . 1 a home system like this will cost tens of thousands of dollars if not a hundred thousand or more . 2. People won't have the basic abilities to maintain and keep the system running , they won't accept a higher maintenance system because reliability will be a big factor . 3. Resource availability from renewable energy . Natural gas is still the way to go .
Yeah, the source of the fuel is the problem. But, here in the cold North (Finland), firewood is widely used for heating houses, so I think steam could be made if you have to heat anyways.
@none sorry to say it man but you are wrong on this, molten salt thorium reactors don't put out pollution like regular uranium and plutonium reactors and they fail to passive states. The only reason they aren't being put forth in the EU or America is due to lack of legislation in place to regulate them.
@none Look at LFTR or Molten Salt Reactors. The solid fuel thorium that India is experimenting with never was a practical solution. Please go look at some of the hour long videos on the technology, your lack of knowledge is showing.
As hard as it is to get electricity to everyone it a lot easier than piping gas. That's why so many houses have gas tanks outside. Also a polyphase motor is 97 to 99% efficient the best I've ever heard on a stream engine is less than 50%. Remember an engine is a user of energy be it petrol diesel or gas in an internal combustion engine or heat in a steam or sterling engine. Electricity is made by coupling a generater to an engine. PV's not withstanding. But if I start writing about PV we shall be here all day.
Cold steam for electricity generation. water boils in a vacuum at room temperature have two vacuum chambers with your steam engine or turbine in between one side hot the other cold larger than the hot side with a condenser coil recirculate with one-way valves and use distilled water.
No. Creating vacuum takes energy. Maintaining atmospheric pressure takes nothing. It's BS with too many moving parts. When you generate steam you lose vacuum or you need to remove the heat. They know why they use cooling towers - they need pressure differential. A closed loop can only work if heat is removed at some point. It creates pressure to counter your vacuum. His closed system may actually work in combination with a Stirling engine but he has the comments turned off so there's no way to ask him. Not to mention the flexing rod. Any flexing material has to generate heat and also give up at some point. I dont see it any better than other steam engines. Too many moving parts. does it run at lower pressure while still turning the generator? The efficiency should be easy to measure. His patents are still available so people figured it out I guess. Another hour lost and still no nice little cheap steam generator to charge a car battery
@@trollmcclure1884 Fighting against atmospheric pressure wastes engery, you have to spend more in heat to make steam and you lose energy overcoming the atmosphere in order to move the steam. If you are operating my system the cooling needed is just a few degrees aka not energy-intensive as for moving parts once evacuated you are done with the most complicated part as it is a closed-loop the steams condensation maintains the vacuum.
Fantastic idea, increased maintainence costs, massivly increased need for capacity, and lower effecenty. Very heavy on optimism, very low on practacality.
Yes, it’s lower on efficiency, but if its fuel can be regenerated as quickly if not faster than it burns it, then the real factor to be measured would make it infinitely better than a more efficient engine that runs on fuel that doesn’t regenerate.
You seem to think steam technology hasn't developed in the last 100 years... A closed steam system with condensers and if you must a drip line. You could easily run a steam engine for 100 years 24 hours a day with proper lubrication and cleaning. Cleaning as in a routine blowout and even the lubrication delivery that can be automated. Some factories in England used steam energy until the 70s and the steam engines that are still in tact still work to this day.
They said this design in REVOLUTIONARY - nothing revolutionary at all about it. His schematic is a very standard steam design with Dc battery and generator. It's been around for years already. This video is nothing more than a Sales Pitch ! He has not invented anything new - just regurgitated 150 year old technology which was replaced in the 1940's by oil/petrol. Replaced for all the same problems we know of with steam; - Lubrication issues, explosive boiler, coal burning fuel, and low efficiency, slow start up time; etc. These alternative ideas were around in the late 1970's and people killed those inventors who tried to undermine the big oil companies. Just look at Stanley Meyer's water car. He was poisoned at a restaurant in the 1990's to shut him down and he had patents on his water technology as well. Yull Brown's water-fuel technology from the mid 1970's which some 50 years later it's still not on the market. You can make a simple Petrol Generator run off gas from Propane, Brown's hydrogen gas from water, or even Methane from bio-fuels 9if you want to do so. Many TH-cam videos on all this. The other problem is - many local councils won't allow you to use engines if the noise is too high, nor make your own fuel at home, nor even let you install a wind generator because of their size and low frequency noise factor. I can't see this technology working in a multi-storey set of housing units. No room to fit the engine and boiler chest, plus unit owners are often single mothers who would not have a clue of servicing the machine and most people would blow themselves up if left to their own devices. You need a pressure vessel license to run steam. That's why the current electrical system has been in use for nearly 100 years and not likely to ever get superseded. This guy is dreaming and has not thought the problems it through.
No, Robert Green is not a crackpot. His claims about the wastage in power-station/grid systems are in, in general, true. Sadly, too cheap fossil fuels and high profits for the rich killed off local alternatives. His claims for small scale local steam power and the use of relatively low-energy waste heat are also generally true. What is unclear is whether HIS engine design is optimal. It is unusual. I've read concerns that the design will not wear well. We are in an environmental crisis created mostly by rampant burning of fossil fuels. Thankfully some visionaries recognise the problem and are trying to do something about it. True, a steam engine still has to burn something. But local power, and eliminating the large percentage that fizzes off the grid into the air as heat may reduce fuel usage. Also true, you have to get the fuel to the engine. But - and now you'll call me a crackpot - you can make methane form human manure - is a called biogas and has been a viable technology for 50 years or more (look it up). What if your septic tank was your local power station? You can also make steam directly with a solar concentrator. Green's design may not be the fix, but thank Robert for adding his intelligence and expertise to address the problem(s).
He's an old guy like I am headed towards. I'm not going to make fun of him. I've had a rough life. I had an idea for a proton exchange membrane for a PEM fuel cell. I decided not to patent it because of the way the law was written and the poor support afforded to individuals with little funds. But, dude can't you just show me a video of your product working? All that happens here is this guy tossing you softballs and then there is you going "yup, yup, yup this can do it".
Yeah, I felt that way too. I assume he is looking for funding. The company I work for is developing a system similar to what he is talking about but we don't want to unveil it publicly until the entire system is fully functional and has been installed in a couple of homes. My house will be the first one to use it once it's ready.
@@Bearthedancingman There is a lot of blubber but no meat, a lot of blabber but nothing neat. I suspect this fellow thimpfks he has some REAL product, but he is only talking around it. I too have products I would like to get funding for, but I would never tell a person an iota about it with out first getting a written non-disclosure agreement. If this fellow was a better speaker, I would be mofre willing to believe him. I know all about steam and all types of steam engines, fuels, efficiencies and all that. What many people, those who want to pick your pocket with the wool over hyour eyes, often don't talk about is TOTAL efficiency of a system. For instance, the ICE (internal combustion engines) have a liquid fuel that is misted into the burn area. Fine, but how does it get to be a liquide? It is pumpt out of the ground as petroleum, then piped to refineries where some of the petroleum is used to refine the rest. This is SYSTEM inefficiency. The fuels we get for our ICEs already has a carbon cost before we even get it at the pump. If we calculate THAT cost in with the carbon cost of the vehicle using the fuel, you will understand that ICEs actually have lower efficencies than we belieave. It is NECESSARY to calculate that carbon cost when comparing to the carbon cost of steam and other effieciencies. Anyway, this fellow is like someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge that has a perpetual motion device implanted in the piers which cures the snake oil dripping from the tops of the piers.
He's not completly correct when he says right in the very beginning that electric transmission wastest energy by resistance. A large part is also wasted by electric flied generated. But the truth is, about 1/3 of the energy produced is wasted by transmission. And that is the really bad news for a very long time now. Decentralized energy production, closer to the consumer in each place would do much better.
Actually the Idea od using steam engines isn't too bad after all. At the time steam engines mostly disapeared from the market they were not very efficient compared to combustion engines. But at that time material research was far from were it is today. Sadly there is little effort put into design of modern steam engine systems using modern materials. Perhaps he is right, if there would be a change in terms of research into steam engines working at greater efficiency. But the little engine that was shown on the stage is definatly not a highly efficient device. That is too obvious. We'll see what time will make up in this field...
Transmission losses, yes all of them start to finish average less than 7%. These numbers are easy enough to find yet people pushing their own particular barrows always exaggerate the losses. While I'm in favour of more local production of electricity starting your case with a blatant untruth removes all credibility to whatever comes later in the talk.
Mark Harmon > Unfortunately, you'll have to look it up and do the math, and even then, you'll only know the theory behind it. You'll never actually know, that generator X has an efficiency Y but then as it's operated it's slightly less or that most of the time the energy it produces is just dumped because of poor planning or the freak weather. But you can know that in theory, power grid transformers have efficiencies approaching 97% or sth. that steam turbines can reach 42% etc. and so on.. (by the way these are arbitrary numbers). You do the math and you come up with some figure and you pray it comes close enough to reality. And you trust that the people in charge of these affairs do actually know what they're doing, most of the time (i.e. they use the same theory you've just dug up but actually know it and know how to apply it a lot better).
@@Stelios.Posantzis transformers are really efficient as you said 97% as are 3 phase ( poly phase ) motors. Grid losses are very low because of the high voltages again as you say less than 10%. Almost most 40 years as an electrician and still learning
For encouraging people to pollute MORE than petroleum does? Or did you mean for building an old and simple engine in his shed like tens of thousands of other people have done?
Fine, not so simple as described but a viable direction. On the implementation note though, first you have to put this in a well insulated (no heat loss) closed loop system and second, substitute your patented engine with a Tesla Turbine. A 6 inch disk diameter (26 disks 1/16 inch think disk, 1/32 inter-disk space, 78/32 inch total disk thickness) Tesla Turbine (done in 2 stages, 2nd stage 3x the disks of the first) , has 2.5 times the power of what you are showing as a model, an (approximately) 5 times smaller space requirements. In addition it is easier to manufacture and Tesla patent is in the public domain, for more then 90 years now, so technically any well maintained and experienced machine shop should be able to build it with common days high quality steel materials.
Aren't the rpms of the Tesla a problem to gear down for? I'd love to see the motor as Tesla originally planned it, not like GE engineers built it to his dismay, not following his instructions.
Excellent video. Thank you. A Stirling engine would be a lot more efficient, quite, and much easier to maintain., in such a system. Steam engines especially small ones are highly inefficient, noisy, and have lubrication issues.
All coal is biomass. All petroleum is biomass. Coal and petroleum have the highest energy density of all fuels, so if you're using other sources of biomass to run turbines then you're creating MORE CO2 than coal plants, not less.
@@plaguedoct0r not true! biomass is the Co2 that is already circulation on the earth surface ( in form of wood then transforming in to co2 when burn but again will be consumed by plants). but when u extract petroleum once was stored deep inside the earth you are releasing stored co2 to the atmosphere.
I have yet to use one of his steam engines, but I believe he is correct in being able to replace, or significantly supplant, hydrocarbon-based energy production with steam. I have a patent for a concentrated solar thermal device that I plan to employ, hopefully using one of his engines to drive a generator to produce current.
It would still burn hydrocarbons and bio mass at the end of the day just on an individual level vs municipal. People would buying up used motor/gear oils for fuel instead of sending them the recyclers, used cooking oils, and all sorts of other waste. Not sure how good that would be for “clean” air and global warming (if it exists). Only real benefit is making a more complete use of the burnt fuel. It would use residual heat in the home instead of wasting that energy in cooling towers.
@@meyaht The only video I have is on here - "solar steam" Distilled Energy. I can't seem to garner the interest/investment I need in order to fully develop it. The crude prototype produced >60 psi for 8 hours.
Why is this better than a gas powered internal combustion engine. The last place I worked at had CHP that ran on natural gas but could run just as well on bio-gas.
Sir you are remarkably my name bob i would like to talk with some others put tougher a team put one TOP OFF GRID HOMES FARMERS AND INDEPENDENT THAT THEY CAN THEY ONLY NEED WATER TO LIVE HIGH STANDERS HOME LIFE
Problem with wind and solar is local regulation, planning commission, and the batteries and such are the easiest thing to deal with. I live where there is more than enough wind to power my home from small wind turbines.... However where I live I am not legally allowed to install them, and the same for putting them on the roof of my home. I have to get permission from the city in install them on my house roof. I would have enough solar and wind to be fully independent for electric and heating if I did not need to get permission for everything.
@@watchthe1369 government is definitely a problem and you can supply your own power with these, but the problem is they don't scale due to lack of storage tech that is decades away from necessary capacity
The problem isn't really petroleum, it's how much of it we're using. You can't replace petroleum with wood or other biomass because DUH, THAT POLLUTES MORE TO GET THE SAME ENERGY!!! You'll make things WORSE not better!!! That's why people are focusing on nuclear, solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy!
Even Tedx talks can't help but follow the money. I have designed a great reliable wind mill, a solar collector years ahead of the competition, an electric bike far ahead of it'e time in 2003, a 100 mpg car, a wood/steam/electricity/heat system, Direct Participatory Democracy and much more only to realize I am predestined to die broke and unknown because I am not part of the monetary system monopolizing weapons dealing war profiteering clan. Would be nice if I was wrong.
I meant for transportation, you hardly see steam trains or cars in use today. But it is true that most of the world's power is generated by some sort of steam turbine.
you'd have to insulate the pipes so heat loss would be minimal. extra expense. then a leak, total great way to bonk your head with a new rock. so pipes vs power cables? i go for cables.
Steam would be more applicable vehicles to automobiles, trucks, and modern steam trains rather than homes and buildings. Much cleaner running on renewable fuels and much less complex, more reliable and much less expensive than electric and hybrid vehicles. Steam is also a proven technology for vehicles.
He talks as though the fuel source is a trivial issue. It's not. It's the main issue. Steam engines have been around for a long time. Nothing to see here.
It is great to see people thinking to get around problems and developing a workaround, however this is not a viable option, perhaps for someone living off the grit it could be a fallback for wind and solar. On a big scale mechanical devices are not a good option to get around power loss in cables. Efforts to get around this problem would be more profitable to work on the production of graphene.
Seems like a cool guy but he is selling the same old piston generator in his own patent, meaning that you not only take on the cost of the entire system but also the long term maintenance which is significant, and most importantly you need to feed your boiler with fuel every day all day or it stops working.
ALL you did was say, they are bad, they are very bad. Oh this, this is good! What does this do? Well it does good things! I learned nothing, except what your opinions are.
urgh. show me a practicle independent system setup then I might be interested. the internet is awash with these things, swash plate, wobble engines. they have been around since the 1930s.
oystla, that is not given since utility power wastes more heat. Local production allows you to utilize a lot more of the waste heat, thus pushing up the efficiency numbers.
@@erikengheim1106 Well, there is a lot of misinformation and worse in this video. This is an inventor that think he has something New. But it's not. There are many small scale combined heat and power systems out there, and no one are able to compete with utility electrical power and when cheap heat is needed you install any kind of heat systems made specifically for heat. Small scale CHP is more expensive and required maintenance. The cheapest electrical energy is and will always be large utility scale production. Utility transfer lines is not a problem as he claims. But many places globally also residental solar energy is now cost effective. The "problem" he is claiming of utility transformers is really not a problem. They Loose only a few percent of the energy.
@@oystla > This is an inventor that think he has something New. I never assumed he did, but I assume that he has some kind of innovation in how he does this otherwise he would not have filed patents. I see this basically as dealing with the question of whether Apple invented the Smart Phone or not. Of course they didn't. Plenty already existed. But usually making a break through is about improving enough on an existing idea to make it big. Nobody would deny that Apple made Smart Phones big. Not saying this guy is the Steve Jobs of CHP though ;-) > There are many small scale combined heat and power systems out there, and no one are able to compete with utility electrical power and when cheap heat is needed you install any kind of heat systems made specifically for heat. That is not due to technology alone but also due to existing inertia. Why did landlines beat cell phones for years? Because the lines had already been paid for long time ago. Contrast that with Africa where landlines had not been built. Cell phones got a clear advantage and landlines never got built. Our houses and societies in the west have already been built around the existence of large utilities. It is sunk cost. That makes it cheaper than a lot of alternatives that may have existed had we started from scratch. These CHP systems have to be retrofitted, which gives them a disadvantage. They are produced in tiny volumes which gives another huge disadvantage. It may not end up that way in other parts of the world. Solar cells e.g. scales down very well, which means it is not impossible that poorer countries will end up skipping the building of large grids and instead build more local power production. CHP systems may fit in more naturally in such circumstances. > The cheapest electrical energy is and will always be large utility scale production. With solar it often isn't. The main problem for solar today is that while it can give cheap power, it needs storage. Batteries are still expensive enough to make utilities win. That may not be the case in the future. In countries with unreliable grids, people will likely prefer local energy production. And ultimately it is about how you organize society. It is not impossible to imagine future neighborhoods or apartment complexes being built with a large steam engine for generating hot water and electricity for a neighborhood. That may increase efficiency in reduce the problem of maintenance since the cost can be split between several families.
The electrical grid is actually the best system to transport electricity. High voltage lines more efficient than anything in conveying energy. Also, aks yourself, how have we been powering the worlds economy for the last hundred years? We can never replace the electric grid with something better.
DUME85, you must be thinking of a specific kind of biofuel. Biofuels in general are plentiful. I don't know about where you live, but at least in my native Norway it is pretty common for people to buy wooden logs to heat their houses in winter. Wooden logs are biofuel. Pellets are getting more popular although I have no idea how hard/easy they are to obtain.
@@erikengheim1106 yes you can burn wood, but there is a reason we started burning coal for energy instead. Now would also be a good time to point out that trees aren't a sustainable fuel because they take too long to grow back. I'm not sure if you have seen any of the talks about how large solar farms would have to be to get a good amount of electricity from them but farms for biofuel would have to be at least 3 times larger as they absorb far less energy from the sun. There are also good reasons to believe that a steam engine that small would be less efficient than just running energy through a grid. Don't believe everything you see on ted. They let sam hide give a talk about the future. Probably the best ted talk of all time but still.
@@dume85 I think the problem with your objections and that of many others is that you tend to see all these systems in isolation. The real value here is in the combined usage. Back when we used coal, that was almost exclusively the only source of energy for industrial use. Biofuels do not need to replace all coal. Why should it? The main point is to replace most power production with wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. The purpose of biofuels IMHO is to deal with the variation in energy production from renewable energy sources. The point is not for say wood to beat coal. The point is for say solar + wood to beat coal. That is an entirely different challenge. > Now would also be a good time to point out that trees aren't a sustainable fuel because they take too long to grow back. That is patently false, as you have not laid out any assumption for this assertion. How much wood do you assume we need to consume, and how did you arrive at that number? We already consume a lot of wood in the world, and outside of the rainforest there tends to be a net growth of forrest. In my native Norway e.g. we use wood for almost everything. Most of our houses are built in wood. Wood is far more popular for heating than coal. In fact I can't remember ever hearing about anybody using coal for heating their home in Norway. We have a lot of paper production. Still the net growth of forrest today is twice the amount of what it was in the 1920s. The total forrest area in Norway is has been growing for almost 100 years despite consuming a lot of wood and exporting it. In the US, there are large areas that have become covered by forrest which had none a 100 years ago. But forrest is just ONE way of obtaining biofuels. Algae e.g. produce biological material a lot faster. You produce biomass with algae or say cyntobacteria at a tiny fraction of the area required for traditional crops. These could be used for making biogas, biodiesel etc. It is a matter of tradeoffs. Algae requires much less land but is more capital intensive as you need to build facilities. Forrests need little capital investments but requires more land. > There are also good reasons to believe that a steam engine that small would be less efficient than just running energy through a grid. As I've said you are not looking at the whole picture. You are missing the central point Robert is making, which is that a small scale steam engine can be utilized for more than electricity or mechanical energy production. With a large "efficient" grid engine, all the heat goes to waste. A small scale steam engine with 10% efficiency in generating electricity, but where all the remaining heat is used in the home for heating, cooking, distilling etc will have a better total energy efficiency than a grid style steam engine with 20% efficiency, since all the remaining heat energy goes to waste. > Don't believe everything you see on ted. They let sam hide give a talk about the future. Probably the best ted talk of all time but still. This isn't just a TED thing. I did in fact NOT find Robert due to his TED talk. I found him because I already knew localized energy production made sense because you can utilize the heat. There are other ways of doing this. I was simply interested in surveying the different approaches. Instead of steam e.g. you could use a pressured air system. You could use e.g. solar cells or wind power to pressurize air locally. The heat from pressurization could be used for heating water for cooking, shovers etc. Releasing air causes cooling which could be used for refrigeration. The primary reason a lot of alternative systems for a multitude of things don't exist today, isn't because they don't make sense but due to inertia. Once society goes down one technological path, it tends to increase the barriers for other systems. E.g. the PC was never a very good computer architecture, but once it reached a certain volume, competing standards had not chance, even if they were better. Same with EVs. To my knowledge they are cheaper than ICE cars at the same production volume. Hence ICEs win today mainly due to much higher existing volume of production. Our energy systems are largely the same. They are a product of an intricate history. It is not going to change by itself. I will require political action. And in some cases it doesn't because history is entirely different. E.g. in Africa they jumped over landlines and straight to cell phones. They may do the same with the electric grid. Building a grid is expensive and time consuming. Grids in many African countries are notoriously unreliable. Diesel generators are wide spread. Local energy production would make a lot more sense in many cases. You can setup solar cells, windmills etc in a local village and avoid having to connect it to the grid. A steam engine could be used to provide energy when the sun doesn't shine or the wind does not blow. Alternatively they use the sun to create steam directly. Carl Bielenberg of Village Industrial Power is already doing this kind of stuff in Africa.
@@erikengheim1106 i think we actually agree on just about everything than. It just sounded to me like he was saying the whole electric grid could be replaced by just steam engines and just biofuels which is absurd. "will have a better total energy efficiency than a grid style steam engine with 20% efficiency, since all the remaining heat energy goes to waste." That's mostly true however i just though i should point out that for say combustion plants the steam can be used in heat exchangers for various reasons. You also likely will have to let some of the heat from a home steam engine go to waste. Of course it wont be as much as say a plant which is producing far more thermal energy in the first place.
@@dume85 > It just sounded to me like he was saying the whole electric grid could be replaced by just steam engines and just biofuels which is absurd. If he indeed thought that, I would agree with you too ;-) I can agree that the guy was not that great at promotion and communications. On his page it said he was looking for somebody to take over the business. I almost got tempted, thinking about what could have been achieved with better marketing, communications and presentation. Still I am of the opinion that solving environmental issues purely as a consumer issue doesn't work. One would need some form of collective action promoting the usage of CHP units (combined heat and power). Our houses and infrastructure is currently not well designed for local power production. I think one should explore e.g. having standards for low voltage DC currents in houses. So much equipment: LED lights, computers, flatscreens etc work fine with low voltage DC, exactly what say solar cell outputs. What is most optimal for a steam engine to output I don't know. Just looking at my apartment, there is not easy way to put in a CHP unit. That would require a number of adjustments and retrofitting. I think we really need some sort of established standard which house builders and makers of CHP, solars cells and a host of other things can follow.
Insufficient detail on how polluting waste products are dealt with and what combustible form waste from landfill would take to be able to put into the engine. Where wood is burned non-combustible complex carbon chains pollute the biosphere.
Most of the energy is lost making steam. A truthful analysis would show an efficiency number trail from past to present, with projections into the future with numbers for each component of the system. Losses are additive.
So make steam in a vacuum have it escape to another vacuum chamber and have a turbine between returning the water with a one-way valve that takes advantage of any remaining pressure or thermal expansion of the heat source.
Toby, in this system the heat from the steam engine ISN'T LOST as it is used in the home for: heating water (shower, cooking) and heating the home in cold periods. The MAJOR point about this whole presentation was that central power stations are inefficient because waste heat cannot be utilized. Local power stations like this one can potentially get very high efficiency since the waste heat can be utilized.
There are many ways of storing energy that doesn’t involve batteries. Can be as simple as pumping water up to a raised reservoir. When power is needed the water powers a hydro generation turbine on its way back down to the lower reservoir. Voila stored energy with no battery.
you can also store hot water in a thermally insulated reservoir, or in phase-change materials, or as hot mineral oil, you don't have to store the energy as electricity in order to be able to utilize it.
Great Idea for cooler climate places, Thorium molten salt reactors for warmer places.... I have a friend keen on building one of these units for power in Kenya ....
@@gladwingeorge2606 they actually built a working reactor when they built the first Uranium power reactors . the technology is known and safe, it wasn't made popular for political reasons (Nixon Presidency ...) There are people designing newer and smaller reactors as the fuel is cheaper and safer ....
@@vandanams6052 Agreed, but most poles are treated to prevent rot, and release chemicals when burned that are not suitable for humans to inhale. Infact, it is Illegal where I live to burn treated wood; it can only be dumped in a landfill. With that said, each system has it's trade offs. I'm a fan of renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro) if it means that our air stays clean.
Whoa - The pictures shown are from a long time ago and/or places that have no well designed or safety regulated power grids. This is not truth. All the reasons goven for trouble, except for transformers or true as far as causes of failure are concerned. Considering the number and siz of transformers there are not many that cause problems. They are also 98% efficient. They are the least problem as far as distribution losses are concerned. Here is this one guy against 100 years of research and develpment of the electric system. The incentive for power generators and local distributors is efficiency. The make more profit with efficient systems. SO while you are calling out the bad points inherent in any system. they artive to imporve and upgrade. More efficient boilers - you don't mention that. Larger generators which work better on higher pressure steam. You don't mention that. You talk about apes that climbed power poles without understanding the consequences and drunk people who stupidly climp poles because they are drunk. These are NOT common. The snow bound wires do not exist today. Those were likely early telephone or telegraph wires NOT power lines. You are not present truth. You are using outdated and exaggerated information for your proof of the possibility that your system in contrast to the existing systems which have worked qquite well. ALL systems will fail. Every transport or distribution system of any kind fails. SO build a better pipe than the present pipelines. Built better cars and all other wheeled vehicled than presently exist. But don't base your assumptions on outdated and archaic equipment and means of use.
Backup power in micro grids, not a new idea! Elon has spoken about this also but using his batteries. This guy is just trying to sell his steam engine to make electricity. I'd like to know the efficiency of his engine by the way no generator on stage. Biogas is not Green if made from trees. So many things wrong with this setup.
This guy really has no idea about how the power grid works. Transformers are pretty efficient. Yes outages can happen, but that's why reclosers exist. The power grid is much more advanced than he gives credit.
There is nothing new about these wobble plate engines. His engine seams to a low pressure low expansion design making his clams unreal. A steam turbine is able to produce power over a wide range at fairly constant efficiency. The design is to simplistic to address all the problems. Water has desolved solids that cause many problem in steam systems. Scale build up etc. Steam produces high torque the engine shown here would not be able handle driving a generator that could power most homes today. The concept is doable. But I doubt that engine is the soloition.
Yep, but steam turbine in small scale is not more efficient. There are lots of more advanced, yet simple piston steam engine designs. One of the great advantages about piston one is that it works fine over a wide range of loads and can adjust itself to keep up with load
For example, if you put load on a turbine-powered generator, it just slows down and your light in a house would dim. When the same would be with piston-powered one, it will adjust the valves or throttle to keep up the same RPM and give you as much power as required
Four minutes into it and is really very childish. "Electricity is not suited for long-distance transmission" ?? why gosh, it's the biggest form of energy we transport, even more than oil, and much safer than that in the transportation
If you research our current grid system, you find that Nikola Tesla had a better idea than did Edison. This my or may not be debatable ! Part of the debate seams to go back to the money or profits, and bankers willing to invest for a high and continuous return. I’ve heard it said, that if Edison were to come back from the dead, he would see very little change to the system he invented. A continuous, monthly electric bill, all in the name of convenience $$. Mr Green pointed out the reason the electric grid is a poor system, the expensive transformers! Much like todays cable/internet system work. In order to keep strong signals through miles of cable, they need to place a “booster” every so often in order to deliver the fast speeds promised. The point here is, having your own power source. He was nervous and did a poor job explaining his ideas. I see a steam engine as only one piece. I would have liked him talk more about the steam generator. Electricity is the largest transported source of energy as you stated, but only because no one wants to invest in a better way. Solar and wind are not it. In the eyes of Big government and business, god forbid consumers having their own power source.
About the engine: Well, it uses a cam instead a crank. ok. Why none wide commercialized engine use this? There is not innovation on it. All the problenms he throw about current distribution is widelly know. Produces your own energy is very good, but many tecnologies allow renovable fuels. No innovations at all.
Any heat engine must work between two temperatures which are wide apart for maximum efficiency. If the exhaust side of the engine needs to cool down and this is done only through the heat exchanger, then the hot water side in the boiler must not reach a high value otherwise the engine exhasut would have to be vented to the air. It is possible theoretically , but in practice there will be difficulties.
You need to also Google up Steam Condenser. A system like this would condense the steam, and pump the water back into the boiler. Still does not change the fact that wobble plate designs are bad, and there are a host of other problems.
sigh... If all you do is dedicate tons and tons of time to fearmongering rather than the product at hand... ... you discredit yourself(and your product is forgotten too), in a big way....
Fear mongering about what? He was just talking about making a more complete use of the energy from combustion. Instead of wasting heat energy in cooling towers following electrical generation to use it to heat a structure and have hot water. This is already done at business, institutions and work camps that generate their electricity in house, they don’t waste the heat from burning their fuel they heat buildings and make hot water from the excess heat.
Your house has a boiler already I hope? Those would blow up without a bleed valve you know.. This is a low pressure steam system not a high pressure, so less boom.
All nuclear does is to convert heat in to motion. Big price to pay. The internal combustion engine does the same thing despite the pollution. For a mechanical process, steam generation can be a very viable process. Our expectation of electricity is so 20th century as to be embarrassing. Tesla had a vision that was corrupted by big business, same as it ever was........
Water boils at room temperature in a vacuum you just need another low-pressure area vacuum chamber for it to go to and a turbine in between with a condenser and a one-way valve and piping to return the water to the hot side. So you can run a steam turbine with very low energy inputs.
What Robert says is true, unfortunately his communication skills need much improvement. He is a concept developer and struggles to verbalize his thoughts.
Not really boring, the man is just a little elderly and unable to stream at a speed and comprehensivess as I'm sure he would have in earlier years. It was good of the moderator fellow to help him along in expressing his knowledge. We will all one day be aged as well; it won't mean we're boring....
Well this is definitely a long the same concepts that I've had.. I mean I would argue that almost all of the problems in the world are due to the centralization and control of the systems we rely on like money politics food energy.. becoming self-sufficient in these areas is quite literally the answer. I'll soon be building a dual wall vacuum insulated home to be the most efficient structure on the planet, using a giant Fresno lens to heat a molten salt tank to power my steam generator and provide all of my energy needs. A solar molten salt tank in conjunction with a steam engine seems like the easiest greenest and most viable solution to our energy needs. These systems are insanely simple and can be built in our garages and backyards! Keep up the great work everyone and let's get self-sufficient! I know Robert Greene is trying to sell his patents and licenses can't blame him to want to be profitable on this genius concept engine however I hope he comes to his senses and open sources these plans for the benefit of all of humanity!
He's actually not saying anything about how it works and it's physical properties. Gosh this is soo frustrating
Its steam do you really not know how this works?
Nuclear reactors were taught in high school....for those of us over 40....it is simple. For those that weren't paying attention use the search feature.
@none it lies as bad as msnbc....Watch neither.
Bleated like a true NPC.....
It’s because he sells the info on his website.
I've built several different types of micro turbines and piston steam engines, the turbine is more turn-key and my latest combination turbine does a decent efficient job on a small amount of wood, I think I called my video, "off grid wood to electricity co-generation system.", so yeah, I have a whole system running like the gentleman in this video is talking about here in this video. Nice for me to see others working on such things, also nice to see an unknown like me, local ideas NPO, has more views than TED on a similar subject. Gooday eh
Wisco Kidd
Your email id please ? If I want to replicate in India ? a small model ?
Parameswer a t y ah oo do t k om
Awesome I will look for your vids
Wisco Kidd agreed mr. Kidd my wife and I have done the same it works excellent.
So long as the trees are being replaced I have no problem with this on a small scale. It's not going to supply energy for London, Paris or New York but that's not what you're to do.
@@Ronan1692 You hit nail on the head, it could work with remote areas, but its terrible idea for cities, then there is greenhouse gasses and increasing co2 levels. I think he aprouched problem from wrong end.
A steam engine can run off any fuel because it's an external combustion engine and as long as you can make steam, you can make the engine run. I bet it would be relatively easy to make a boiler that can burn many different types of fuel.
Cold steam from a closed-loop vacuum system is better.
don schmidtke
@@Barskor1 problem with vacuums is that they're just asking to be punctured. they already have low pressure, if not negative, in them. adding extra force or pressure from outside, especially if in a fulcrum just makes it so easy. imagine a rusty pipe accidentally kicked and it's vacuum, just waiting for a leak inside. then what, re-vacuum. pay pay pay. then you'll do it again and again. in a large scale industrial environment, this'll be a headache. ever wondered y we don't use vacuum walls even though they're the best insulators? it all boils down to the $$$.
@@poknatinpokkers5289 Rust prevention and inhibitors have come a long way if you are not maintaining your equipment as a business you are asking to be put out of business.
Creating vacuum on an industrial scale is actually quite cheap you just need a 50 ft tall water tower and a partially open tank 35 ft tall at the base that can hold as much water as the tower.
You use the regular water pump to fill the tower close the pump valve open the tank valve and let the water fall leaving the upper tower empty and a hard vacuum present in it then it is just a matter of more valves and piping to direct the vacuum as needed.
It is better to have an implosive from an accident than an explosion.
What happens if you were running a standard steam system and Bob kicked a pipe? Bob may be dead or maimed and so could many people around him boiling steam spewing and blistering hot water all over the floor to boil those who fall.
Aerogels combined with mylar outer sheets make for resilient vacuum insulation.
You may think aerogels are expensive but there is a way to make them from paper pulp you slow freeze the pannels so lots of ice crystals form then you freeze dry them removing the water.
@@Barskor1 i don't know much about this stuff, but i'm guessing you're saying the low pressure will make the water turn into a gas...but what will make the gas *move* ?
Decentralization is something the big power companies and fossil fuel industry as well as the rest of the centralized players hate. They knock it out every time. So watch out Robert. The accident rate for real innovators is too high. Big money doesn't like small scale alternatives, threatens their money trees.
Robert spoke of using gas lines. So, what is the difference between gas grids or electrical grids?
@@46bovine lower losses
@@BrunoSantosN I doubt it, when electrical lines are broken electricity doesn't leak out into the air, public safety will be a concern, as digging up a high pressure steam pipe and poking a hole in by accident would really ruin your day, also all your neighbors on the same line would be affected.
I've lived in areas where a lot of people burned wood or coal for cooking and heating. It puts a lot of irritating particulates in the air. I don't know if there is any way to filter out the smoke.
Ther is actualy ways to filter the particels out of fire from coal and wood for example old steam trains neded to have such a filter so the particals wouldent set fire on the trees nerby the rails
Three major problems . 1 a home system like this will cost tens of thousands of dollars if not a hundred thousand or more . 2. People won't have the basic abilities to maintain and keep the system running , they won't accept a higher maintenance system because reliability will be a big factor . 3. Resource availability from renewable energy . Natural gas is still the way to go .
Yeah, the source of the fuel is the problem. But, here in the cold North (Finland), firewood is widely used for heating houses, so I think steam could be made if you have to heat anyways.
We must go thorium reactors. Small and many of them, Decentralize our power.
@none sorry to say it man but you are wrong on this, molten salt thorium reactors don't put out pollution like regular uranium and plutonium reactors and they fail to passive states.
The only reason they aren't being put forth in the EU or America is due to lack of legislation in place to regulate them.
@none Look at LFTR or Molten Salt Reactors. The solid fuel thorium that India is experimenting with never was a practical solution. Please go look at some of the hour long videos on the technology, your lack of knowledge is showing.
Now in 2022 due war in Ukraine we have a big electric problems. I feel that is great solution for stay with electric in any disaster.
There was one of these in London Built years ago and it was called Battersea Power Station, it was so good it closed down.
As hard as it is to get electricity to everyone it a lot easier than piping gas. That's why so many houses have gas tanks outside. Also a polyphase motor is 97 to 99% efficient the best I've ever heard on a stream engine is less than 50%. Remember an engine is a user of energy be it petrol diesel or gas in an internal combustion engine or heat in a steam or sterling engine. Electricity is made by coupling a generater to an engine. PV's not withstanding. But if I start writing about PV we shall be here all day.
Cold steam for electricity generation. water boils in a vacuum at room temperature have two vacuum chambers with your steam engine or turbine in between one side hot the other cold larger than the hot side with a condenser coil recirculate with one-way valves and use distilled water.
No. Creating vacuum takes energy. Maintaining atmospheric pressure takes nothing. It's BS with too many moving parts. When you generate steam you lose vacuum or you need to remove the heat. They know why they use cooling towers - they need pressure differential. A closed loop can only work if heat is removed at some point. It creates pressure to counter your vacuum. His closed system may actually work in combination with a Stirling engine but he has the comments turned off so there's no way to ask him. Not to mention the flexing rod. Any flexing material has to generate heat and also give up at some point. I dont see it any better than other steam engines. Too many moving parts. does it run at lower pressure while still turning the generator? The efficiency should be easy to measure. His patents are still available so people figured it out I guess. Another hour lost and still no nice little cheap steam generator to charge a car battery
@@trollmcclure1884 Fighting against atmospheric pressure wastes engery, you have to spend more in heat to make steam and you lose energy overcoming the atmosphere in order to move the steam.
If you are operating my system the cooling needed is just a few degrees aka not energy-intensive as for moving parts once evacuated you are done with the most complicated part as it is a closed-loop the steams condensation maintains the vacuum.
@@trollmcclure1884-- Remember this date. Because this is when I said "Hold my beer"...
Fantastic idea, increased maintainence costs, massivly increased need for capacity, and lower effecenty. Very heavy on optimism, very low on practacality.
Yes, it’s lower on efficiency, but if its fuel can be regenerated as quickly if not faster than it burns it, then the real factor to be measured would make it infinitely better than a more efficient engine that runs on fuel that doesn’t regenerate.
You seem to think steam technology hasn't developed in the last 100 years...
A closed steam system with condensers and if you must a drip line. You could easily run a steam engine for 100 years 24 hours a day with proper lubrication and cleaning. Cleaning as in a routine blowout and even the lubrication delivery that can be automated. Some factories in England used steam energy until the 70s and the steam engines that are still in tact still work to this day.
They said this design in REVOLUTIONARY - nothing revolutionary at all about it. His schematic is a very standard steam design with Dc battery and generator. It's been around for years already. This video is nothing more than a Sales Pitch ! He has not invented anything new - just regurgitated 150 year old technology which was replaced in the 1940's by oil/petrol. Replaced for all the same problems we know of with steam; - Lubrication issues, explosive boiler, coal burning fuel, and low efficiency, slow start up time; etc.
These alternative ideas were around in the late 1970's and people killed those inventors who tried to undermine the big oil companies. Just look at Stanley Meyer's water car. He was poisoned at a restaurant in the 1990's to shut him down and he had patents on his water technology as well. Yull Brown's water-fuel technology from the mid 1970's which some 50 years later it's still not on the market.
You can make a simple Petrol Generator run off gas from Propane, Brown's hydrogen gas from water, or even Methane from bio-fuels 9if you want to do so. Many TH-cam videos on all this. The other problem is - many local councils won't allow you to use engines if the noise is too high, nor make your own fuel at home, nor even let you install a wind generator because of their size and low frequency noise factor.
I can't see this technology working in a multi-storey set of housing units. No room to fit the engine and boiler chest, plus unit owners are often single mothers who would not have a clue of servicing the machine and most people would blow themselves up if left to their own devices. You need a pressure vessel license to run steam. That's why the current electrical system has been in use for nearly 100 years and not likely to ever get superseded. This guy is dreaming and has not thought the problems it through.
No, Robert Green is not a crackpot. His claims about the wastage in power-station/grid systems are in, in general, true. Sadly, too cheap fossil fuels and high profits for the rich killed off local alternatives. His claims for small scale local steam power and the use of relatively low-energy waste heat are also generally true. What is unclear is whether HIS engine design is optimal. It is unusual. I've read concerns that the design will not wear well. We are in an environmental crisis created mostly by rampant burning of fossil fuels. Thankfully some visionaries recognise the problem and are trying to do something about it. True, a steam engine still has to burn something. But local power, and eliminating the large percentage that fizzes off the grid into the air as heat may reduce fuel usage. Also true, you have to get the fuel to the engine. But - and now you'll call me a crackpot - you can make methane form human manure - is a called biogas and has been a viable technology for 50 years or more (look it up). What if your septic tank was your local power station? You can also make steam directly with a solar concentrator. Green's design may not be the fix, but thank Robert for adding his intelligence and expertise to address the problem(s).
That is an excellent explanation.
Play video @ 1.25x speed makes more sense
Lol
What is the cost of this unit ? How long has he been making these steam engines and how big can you get one ?
He's an old guy like I am headed towards. I'm not going to make fun of him. I've had a rough life. I had an idea for a proton exchange membrane for a PEM fuel cell. I decided not to patent it because of the way the law was written and the poor support afforded to individuals with little funds.
But, dude can't you just show me a video of your product working? All that happens here is this guy tossing you softballs and then there is you going "yup, yup, yup this can do it".
Yeah, I felt that way too. I assume he is looking for funding. The company I work for is developing a system similar to what he is talking about but we don't want to unveil it publicly until the entire system is fully functional and has been installed in a couple of homes. My house will be the first one to use it once it's ready.
Steam Engines are pretty straight forward and proven during history. Today we can make those machines much more efficient and compact.
@@Bearthedancingman I am so keen on an alternate system than those gagging the populace. Please let me know how it goes....Best wishes.
@@Bearthedancingman There is a lot of blubber but no meat, a lot of blabber but nothing neat. I suspect this fellow thimpfks he has some REAL product, but he is only talking around it. I too have products I would like to get funding for, but I would never tell a person an iota about it with out first getting a written non-disclosure agreement. If this fellow was a better speaker, I would be mofre willing to believe him. I know all about steam and all types of steam engines, fuels, efficiencies and all that. What many people, those who want to pick your pocket with the wool over hyour eyes, often don't talk about is TOTAL efficiency of a system.
For instance, the ICE (internal combustion engines) have a liquid fuel that is misted into the burn area. Fine, but how does it get to be a liquide? It is pumpt out of the ground as petroleum, then piped to refineries where some of the petroleum is used to refine the rest. This is SYSTEM inefficiency. The fuels we get for our ICEs already has a carbon cost before we even get it at the pump. If we calculate THAT cost in with the carbon cost of the vehicle using the fuel, you will understand that ICEs actually have lower efficencies than we belieave. It is NECESSARY to calculate that carbon cost when comparing to the carbon cost of steam and other effieciencies.
Anyway, this fellow is like someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge that has a perpetual motion device implanted in the piers which cures the snake oil dripping from the tops of the piers.
He's not completly correct when he says right in the very beginning that electric transmission wastest energy by resistance. A large part is also wasted by electric flied generated. But the truth is, about 1/3 of the energy produced is wasted by transmission. And that is the really bad news for a very long time now. Decentralized energy production, closer to the consumer in each place would do much better.
Actually the Idea od using steam engines isn't too bad after all. At the time steam engines mostly disapeared from the market they were not very efficient compared to combustion engines. But at that time material research was far from were it is today. Sadly there is little effort put into design of modern steam engine systems using modern materials. Perhaps he is right, if there would be a change in terms of research into steam engines working at greater efficiency. But the little engine that was shown on the stage is definatly not a highly efficient device. That is too obvious.
We'll see what time will make up in this field...
Transmission losses, yes all of them start to finish average less than 7%. These numbers are easy enough to find yet people pushing their own particular barrows always exaggerate the losses. While I'm in favour of more local production of electricity starting your case with a blatant untruth removes all credibility to whatever comes later in the talk.
Dogphlap How can I confirm your point of view?
Mark Harmon > Unfortunately, you'll have to look it up and do the math, and even then, you'll only know the theory behind it. You'll never actually know, that generator X has an efficiency Y but then as it's operated it's slightly less or that most of the time the energy it produces is just dumped because of poor planning or the freak weather. But you can know that in theory, power grid transformers have efficiencies approaching 97% or sth. that steam turbines can reach 42% etc. and so on.. (by the way these are arbitrary numbers). You do the math and you come up with some figure and you pray it comes close enough to reality. And you trust that the people in charge of these affairs do actually know what they're doing, most of the time (i.e. they use the same theory you've just dug up but actually know it and know how to apply it a lot better).
@@Stelios.Posantzis transformers are really efficient as you said 97% as are 3 phase ( poly phase ) motors. Grid losses are very low because of the high voltages again as you say less than 10%. Almost most 40 years as an electrician and still learning
So, we won't need electrical grids but we would need a gas line grid? What is the difference?
Somebody give this guy a Nobel prize
For encouraging people to pollute MORE than petroleum does? Or did you mean for building an old and simple engine in his shed like tens of thousands of other people have done?
Fine, not so simple as described but a viable direction. On the implementation note though, first you have to put this in a well insulated (no heat loss) closed loop system and second, substitute your patented engine with a Tesla Turbine. A 6 inch disk diameter (26 disks 1/16 inch think disk, 1/32 inter-disk space, 78/32 inch total disk thickness) Tesla Turbine (done in 2 stages, 2nd stage 3x the disks of the first) , has 2.5 times the power of what you are showing as a model, an (approximately) 5 times smaller space requirements. In addition it is easier to manufacture and Tesla patent is in the public domain, for more then 90 years now, so technically any well maintained and experienced machine shop should be able to build it with common days high quality steel materials.
Aren't the rpms of the Tesla a problem to gear down for? I'd love to see the motor as Tesla originally planned it, not like GE engineers built it to his dismay, not following his instructions.
Excellent video. Thank you. A Stirling engine would be a lot more efficient, quite, and much easier to maintain., in such a system. Steam engines especially small ones are highly inefficient, noisy, and have lubrication issues.
Stirling works with closed cycle. The best efficiency of them occurs only while they are cold.
Build one.
Low torque and not scalable practically.
Stirling engine has no tougue and only produce one or two kw of power. It waste fuel. Steam has far more power.
largest thermal power station in UK burns biomass to drive steam turbine generators
they waste 60% of the heat
All coal is biomass. All petroleum is biomass. Coal and petroleum have the highest energy density of all fuels, so if you're using other sources of biomass to run turbines then you're creating MORE CO2 than coal plants, not less.
And they import the biomass (pellets of sawdust) from USA.
@@plaguedoct0r not true! biomass is the Co2 that is already circulation on the earth surface ( in form of wood then transforming in to co2 when burn but again will be consumed by plants). but when u extract petroleum once was stored deep inside the earth you are releasing stored co2 to the atmosphere.
Where can I see this engine?
Green steam ytu
I have yet to use one of his steam engines, but I believe he is correct in being able to replace, or significantly supplant, hydrocarbon-based energy production with steam. I have a patent for a concentrated solar thermal device that I plan to employ, hopefully using one of his engines to drive a generator to produce current.
joseph sowder I'd like to learn more about your project. Do you have a website, or any videos?
It would still burn hydrocarbons and bio mass at the end of the day just on an individual level vs municipal. People would buying up used motor/gear oils for fuel instead of sending them the recyclers, used cooking oils, and all sorts of other waste. Not sure how good that would be for “clean” air and global warming (if it exists).
Only real benefit is making a more complete use of the burnt fuel. It would use residual heat in the home instead of wasting that energy in cooling towers.
@@meyaht The only video I have is on here - "solar steam" Distilled Energy. I can't seem to garner the interest/investment I need in order to fully develop it. The crude prototype produced >60 psi for 8 hours.
@@josephsowder847 Crowd funding? Good luck.... don't stop!
Thank you veryyyyy muccchhhh for this video
Superconducting grids for higher efficiency of transport of electricity. Little to no resistance.
Why is this better than a gas powered internal combustion engine. The last place I worked at had CHP that ran on natural gas but could run just as well on bio-gas.
Sir you are remarkably my name bob i would like to talk with some others put tougher a team put one TOP OFF GRID HOMES FARMERS AND INDEPENDENT THAT THEY CAN THEY ONLY NEED WATER TO LIVE HIGH STANDERS HOME LIFE
Problem with wind and solar is local regulation, planning commission, and the batteries and such are the easiest thing to deal with. I live where there is more than enough wind to power my home from small wind turbines.... However where I live I am not legally allowed to install them, and the same for putting them on the roof of my home. I have to get permission from the city in install them on my house roof. I would have enough solar and wind to be fully independent for electric and heating if I did not need to get permission for everything.
Part of the problems blocking genuine progress.
@@watchthe1369 government is definitely a problem and you can supply your own power with these, but the problem is they don't scale due to lack of storage tech that is decades away from necessary capacity
Nobody ever puts a wind turbine on their roof. It is the worst possible place. I suggest you have a lot of learning to do.
The problem isn't really petroleum, it's how much of it we're using. You can't replace petroleum with wood or other biomass because DUH, THAT POLLUTES MORE TO GET THE SAME ENERGY!!! You'll make things WORSE not better!!! That's why people are focusing on nuclear, solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy!
great content thanks
A still makes alcohol which burns predictably and can run a turbine. A turbine is friendly to heat exchange engine.
Barely discussed the actual steam engine!
Even Tedx talks can't help but follow the money. I have designed a great reliable wind mill, a solar collector years ahead of the competition, an electric bike far ahead of it'e time in 2003, a 100 mpg car, a wood/steam/electricity/heat system, Direct Participatory Democracy and much more only to realize I am predestined to die broke and unknown because I am not part of the monetary system monopolizing weapons dealing war profiteering clan. Would be nice if I was wrong.
Take a look at the arguement - Why renewables can't save the planet. Wast is not being used
Yep agreed 100%!
Thermal efficiency?
in general,
diesel is more efficient then steam
twistedyogert then why is >90% of the world's power made from steam?
I meant for transportation, you hardly see steam trains or cars in use today. But it is true that most of the world's power is generated by some sort of steam turbine.
Because it is a much cleaner way to burn fuel. And diesel can't run on coal, which is used for powerplants
but hot butter is more gooderer for steam powered food mixers
you'd have to insulate the pipes so heat loss would be minimal. extra expense. then a leak, total great way to bonk your head with a new rock. so pipes vs power cables? i go for cables.
Good point now why don't they just use a steam engine/turbine to generate electricity to send over cables?........
I would like to know what NASA engineers can build now if the rules are they can only use steam engines like they're in the 19th century.
Oh I don't know, maybe nuclear-powered steam turbines,, ion space propulsion oh and fusion power...
Steam would be more applicable vehicles to automobiles, trucks, and modern steam trains rather than homes and buildings. Much cleaner running on renewable fuels and much less complex, more reliable and much less expensive than electric and hybrid vehicles. Steam is also a proven technology for vehicles.
The car is very doable. A steam turbine powering batteries. Use charred wood pellets. Make power, from the wood gas in the charing prosses.
Amazing
2016?
He talks as though the fuel source is a trivial issue. It's not. It's the main issue. Steam engines have been around for a long time. Nothing to see here.
It is great to see people thinking to get around problems and developing a workaround, however this is not a viable option, perhaps for someone living off the grit it could be a fallback for wind and solar. On a big scale mechanical devices are not a good option to get around power loss in cables. Efforts to get around this problem would be more profitable to work on the production of graphene.
Seems like a cool guy but he is selling the same old piston generator in his own patent, meaning that you not only take on the cost of the entire system but also the long term maintenance which is significant, and most importantly you need to feed your boiler with fuel every day all day or it stops working.
ALL you did was say, they are bad, they are very bad. Oh this, this is good! What does this do? Well it does good things! I learned nothing, except what your opinions are.
8:00
11:48
Betz limit has been smashed and debunked wind power now works regards Graham S Flowers
Yea? I have not heard this. Tell me we're I can verify this please.
@@6969smurfy check out the video Betz limit has been smashed and debunked regards Graham Flowers
@@grahamflowers I did.
You can tell his brain is operating a few clicks faster than his mouth can work, I bet he was slick af in his youth. Brilliant stuff.
urgh. show me a practicle independent system setup then I might be interested. the internet is awash with these things, swash plate, wobble engines. they have been around since the 1930s.
Efficiency????
Small scale is always more expensive than large scale, so this Scheie would be more expensive than utility scale solar power.
oystla, that is not given since utility power wastes more heat. Local production allows you to utilize a lot more of the waste heat, thus pushing up the efficiency numbers.
@@erikengheim1106 Well, there is a lot of misinformation and worse in this video. This is an inventor that think he has something New. But it's not. There are many small scale combined heat and power systems out there, and no one are able to compete with utility electrical power and when cheap heat is needed you install any kind of heat systems made specifically for heat. Small scale CHP is more expensive and required maintenance. The cheapest electrical energy is and will always be large utility scale production. Utility transfer lines is not a problem as he claims. But many places globally also residental solar energy is now cost effective. The "problem" he is claiming of utility transformers is really not a problem. They Loose only a few percent of the energy.
@@oystla
> This is an inventor that think he has something New.
I never assumed he did, but I assume that he has some kind of innovation in how he does this otherwise he would not have filed patents. I see this basically as dealing with the question of whether Apple invented the Smart Phone or not. Of course they didn't. Plenty already existed. But usually making a break through is about improving enough on an existing idea to make it big. Nobody would deny that Apple made Smart Phones big. Not saying this guy is the Steve Jobs of CHP though ;-)
> There are many small scale combined heat and power systems out there, and no one are able to compete with utility electrical power and when cheap heat is needed you install any kind of heat systems made specifically for heat.
That is not due to technology alone but also due to existing inertia. Why did landlines beat cell phones for years? Because the lines had already been paid for long time ago. Contrast that with Africa where landlines had not been built. Cell phones got a clear advantage and landlines never got built.
Our houses and societies in the west have already been built around the existence of large utilities. It is sunk cost. That makes it cheaper than a lot of alternatives that may have existed had we started from scratch. These CHP systems have to be retrofitted, which gives them a disadvantage. They are produced in tiny volumes which gives another huge disadvantage.
It may not end up that way in other parts of the world. Solar cells e.g. scales down very well, which means it is not impossible that poorer countries will end up skipping the building of large grids and instead build more local power production. CHP systems may fit in more naturally in such circumstances.
> The cheapest electrical energy is and will always be large utility scale production.
With solar it often isn't. The main problem for solar today is that while it can give cheap power, it needs storage. Batteries are still expensive enough to make utilities win. That may not be the case in the future. In countries with unreliable grids, people will likely prefer local energy production.
And ultimately it is about how you organize society. It is not impossible to imagine future neighborhoods or apartment complexes being built with a large steam engine for generating hot water and electricity for a neighborhood. That may increase efficiency in reduce the problem of maintenance since the cost can be split between several families.
Tesla had the answer 100 years ago and the energy companies axed his research.
The electrical grid is actually the best system to transport electricity. High voltage lines more efficient than anything in conveying energy. Also, aks yourself, how have we been powering the worlds economy for the last hundred years? We can never replace the electric grid with something better.
"we have it today". "this can run on biofuels" This poor old man doesn't realize just how hard it is to get biofuels
DUME85, you must be thinking of a specific kind of biofuel. Biofuels in general are plentiful. I don't know about where you live, but at least in my native Norway it is pretty common for people to buy wooden logs to heat their houses in winter. Wooden logs are biofuel. Pellets are getting more popular although I have no idea how hard/easy they are to obtain.
@@erikengheim1106 yes you can burn wood, but there is a reason we started burning coal for energy instead. Now would also be a good time to point out that trees aren't a sustainable fuel because they take too long to grow back. I'm not sure if you have seen any of the talks about how large solar farms would have to be to get a good amount of electricity from them but farms for biofuel would have to be at least 3 times larger as they absorb far less energy from the sun. There are also good reasons to believe that a steam engine that small would be less efficient than just running energy through a grid.
Don't believe everything you see on ted. They let sam hide give a talk about the future. Probably the best ted talk of all time but still.
@@dume85 I think the problem with your objections and that of many others is that you tend to see all these systems in isolation. The real value here is in the combined usage. Back when we used coal, that was almost exclusively the only source of energy for industrial use. Biofuels do not need to replace all coal. Why should it? The main point is to replace most power production with wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. The purpose of biofuels IMHO is to deal with the variation in energy production from renewable energy sources.
The point is not for say wood to beat coal. The point is for say solar + wood to beat coal. That is an entirely different challenge.
> Now would also be a good time to point out that trees aren't a sustainable fuel because they take too long to grow back.
That is patently false, as you have not laid out any assumption for this assertion. How much wood do you assume we need to consume, and how did you arrive at that number? We already consume a lot of wood in the world, and outside of the rainforest there tends to be a net growth of forrest.
In my native Norway e.g. we use wood for almost everything. Most of our houses are built in wood. Wood is far more popular for heating than coal. In fact I can't remember ever hearing about anybody using coal for heating their home in Norway. We have a lot of paper production. Still the net growth of forrest today is twice the amount of what it was in the 1920s. The total forrest area in Norway is has been growing for almost 100 years despite consuming a lot of wood and exporting it.
In the US, there are large areas that have become covered by forrest which had none a 100 years ago. But forrest is just ONE way of obtaining biofuels. Algae e.g. produce biological material a lot faster. You produce biomass with algae or say cyntobacteria at a tiny fraction of the area required for traditional crops. These could be used for making biogas, biodiesel etc.
It is a matter of tradeoffs. Algae requires much less land but is more capital intensive as you need to build facilities. Forrests need little capital investments but requires more land.
> There are also good reasons to believe that a steam engine that small would be less efficient than just running energy through a grid.
As I've said you are not looking at the whole picture. You are missing the central point Robert is making, which is that a small scale steam engine can be utilized for more than electricity or mechanical energy production. With a large "efficient" grid engine, all the heat goes to waste. A small scale steam engine with 10% efficiency in generating electricity, but where all the remaining heat is used in the home for heating, cooking, distilling etc will have a better total energy efficiency than a grid style steam engine with 20% efficiency, since all the remaining heat energy goes to waste.
> Don't believe everything you see on ted. They let sam hide give a talk about the future. Probably the best ted talk of all time but still.
This isn't just a TED thing. I did in fact NOT find Robert due to his TED talk. I found him because I already knew localized energy production made sense because you can utilize the heat. There are other ways of doing this. I was simply interested in surveying the different approaches. Instead of steam e.g. you could use a pressured air system. You could use e.g. solar cells or wind power to pressurize air locally. The heat from pressurization could be used for heating water for cooking, shovers etc. Releasing air causes cooling which could be used for refrigeration.
The primary reason a lot of alternative systems for a multitude of things don't exist today, isn't because they don't make sense but due to inertia. Once society goes down one technological path, it tends to increase the barriers for other systems. E.g. the PC was never a very good computer architecture, but once it reached a certain volume, competing standards had not chance, even if they were better. Same with EVs. To my knowledge they are cheaper than ICE cars at the same production volume. Hence ICEs win today mainly due to much higher existing volume of production.
Our energy systems are largely the same. They are a product of an intricate history. It is not going to change by itself. I will require political action. And in some cases it doesn't because history is entirely different. E.g. in Africa they jumped over landlines and straight to cell phones. They may do the same with the electric grid. Building a grid is expensive and time consuming. Grids in many African countries are notoriously unreliable. Diesel generators are wide spread. Local energy production would make a lot more sense in many cases. You can setup solar cells, windmills etc in a local village and avoid having to connect it to the grid. A steam engine could be used to provide energy when the sun doesn't shine or the wind does not blow. Alternatively they use the sun to create steam directly. Carl Bielenberg of Village Industrial Power is already doing this kind of stuff in Africa.
@@erikengheim1106 i think we actually agree on just about everything than. It just sounded to me like he was saying the whole electric grid could be replaced by just steam engines and just biofuels which is absurd.
"will have a better total energy efficiency than a grid style steam engine with 20% efficiency, since all the remaining heat energy goes to waste." That's mostly true however i just though i should point out that for say combustion plants the steam can be used in heat exchangers for various reasons. You also likely will have to let some of the heat from a home steam engine go to waste. Of course it wont be as much as say a plant which is producing far more thermal energy in the first place.
@@dume85
> It just sounded to me like he was saying the whole electric grid could be replaced by just steam engines and just biofuels which is absurd.
If he indeed thought that, I would agree with you too ;-)
I can agree that the guy was not that great at promotion and communications. On his page it said he was looking for somebody to take over the business. I almost got tempted, thinking about what could have been achieved with better marketing, communications and presentation.
Still I am of the opinion that solving environmental issues purely as a consumer issue doesn't work. One would need some form of collective action promoting the usage of CHP units (combined heat and power). Our houses and infrastructure is currently not well designed for local power production. I think one should explore e.g. having standards for low voltage DC currents in houses. So much equipment: LED lights, computers, flatscreens etc work fine with low voltage DC, exactly what say solar cell outputs. What is most optimal for a steam engine to output I don't know.
Just looking at my apartment, there is not easy way to put in a CHP unit. That would require a number of adjustments and retrofitting. I think we really need some sort of established standard which house builders and makers of CHP, solars cells and a host of other things can follow.
This man speaks technically but only knows about half the words.
WILL CONTACT YOU worms in are mist
As hard as it to get electricity piping gas every one it a lot easier tham piping gas
Insufficient detail on how polluting waste products are dealt with and what combustible form waste from landfill would take to be able to put into the engine.
Where wood is burned non-combustible complex carbon chains pollute the biosphere.
Most of the energy is lost making steam. A truthful analysis would show an efficiency number trail from past to present, with projections into the future with numbers for each component of the system. Losses are additive.
So make steam in a vacuum have it escape to another vacuum chamber and have a turbine between returning the water with a one-way valve that takes advantage of any remaining pressure or thermal expansion of the heat source.
Toby, in this system the heat from the steam engine ISN'T LOST as it is used in the home for: heating water (shower, cooking) and heating the home in cold periods. The MAJOR point about this whole presentation was that central power stations are inefficient because waste heat cannot be utilized. Local power stations like this one can potentially get very high efficiency since the waste heat can be utilized.
"do you need batteries?"
"no, you just need a few hours of stored electrcal energy"..... Sooo like a frigging battery?? What a crank!
There are many ways of storing energy that doesn’t involve batteries. Can be as simple as pumping water up to a raised reservoir. When power is needed the water powers a hydro generation turbine on its way back down to the lower reservoir. Voila stored energy with no battery.
Alex Tomev that's what a flipping battery is
you can also store hot water in a thermally insulated reservoir, or in phase-change materials, or as hot mineral oil, you don't have to store the energy as electricity in order to be able to utilize it.
So interesting...
sure it is. you just cheapen everthing, higher volts higher volts, and you need self iscisillating transformers toi not pay the inducriin cost
Great Idea for cooler climate places, Thorium molten salt reactors for warmer places.... I have a friend keen on building one of these units for power in Kenya ....
But isnt that still in its research phase and not yet ready for commercial usage
@@gladwingeorge2606 they actually built a working reactor when they built the first Uranium power reactors . the technology is known and safe, it wasn't made popular for political reasons (Nixon Presidency ...) There are people designing newer and smaller reactors as the fuel is cheaper and safer ....
Yeah i did some research turns out thorium is the future and it can dwarf what is made by solar and wind easily.
wow a lot has happened in the last 4 years, is this man still alive?
Lol yeah burn utility poles! You’ll kill everything the smoke touches
wood or anything if burnt fully then no smoke emitted
@@vandanams6052 Agreed, but most poles are treated to prevent rot, and release chemicals when burned that are not suitable for humans to inhale. Infact, it is Illegal where I live to burn treated wood; it can only be dumped in a landfill. With that said, each system has it's trade offs. I'm a fan of renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro) if it means that our air stays clean.
Whoa - The pictures shown are from a long time ago and/or places that have no well designed or safety regulated power grids. This is not truth. All the reasons goven for trouble, except for transformers or true as far as causes of failure are concerned. Considering the number and siz of transformers there are not many that cause problems. They are also 98% efficient. They are the least problem as far as distribution losses are concerned. Here is this one guy against 100 years of research and develpment of the electric system. The incentive for power generators and local distributors is efficiency. The make more profit with efficient systems. SO while you are calling out the bad points inherent in any system. they artive to imporve and upgrade. More efficient boilers - you don't mention that. Larger generators which work better on higher pressure steam. You don't mention that. You talk about apes that climbed power poles without understanding the consequences and drunk people who stupidly climp poles because they are drunk. These are NOT common. The snow bound wires do not exist today. Those were likely early telephone or telegraph wires NOT power lines. You are not present truth. You are using outdated and exaggerated information for your proof of the possibility that your system in contrast to the existing systems which have worked qquite well. ALL systems will fail. Every transport or distribution system of any kind fails. SO build a better pipe than the present pipelines. Built better cars and all other wheeled vehicled than presently exist. But don't base your assumptions on outdated and archaic equipment and means of use.
This guy could sell a baseball to someone and as that someone walking out the door, not sure if in fact it was a baseball they might have bought.
I could only listen to a couple of minutes of this. Average lose in transmission is very small
Backup power in micro grids, not a new idea! Elon has spoken about this also but using his batteries. This guy is just trying to sell his steam engine to make electricity. I'd like to know the efficiency of his engine by the way no generator on stage. Biogas is not Green if made from trees. So many things wrong with this setup.
This guy really has no idea about how the power grid works. Transformers are pretty efficient. Yes outages can happen, but that's why reclosers exist. The power grid is much more advanced than he gives credit.
There is nothing new about these wobble plate engines. His engine seams to a low pressure low expansion design making his clams unreal.
A steam turbine is able to produce power over a wide range at fairly constant efficiency. The design is to simplistic to address all the problems. Water has desolved solids that cause many problem in steam systems. Scale build up etc. Steam produces high torque the engine shown here would not be able handle driving a generator that could power most homes today.
The concept is doable. But I doubt that engine is the soloition.
i allso agree but its not as efficient as a wibblewobbl jelly is it?no i dont think it is.Or as wobbley as a wobbley hat
Couldn't he use superheated steam? It was used in locomotives to increase power and efficiency. Its like supercharging an internal combustion engine.
Yep, but steam turbine in small scale is not more efficient. There are lots of more advanced, yet simple piston steam engine designs. One of the great advantages about piston one is that it works fine over a wide range of loads and can adjust itself to keep up with load
For example, if you put load on a turbine-powered generator, it just slows down and your light in a house would dim. When the same would be with piston-powered one, it will adjust the valves or throttle to keep up the same RPM and give you as much power as required
Water boils in a vacuum at room temperature think about it.
Four minutes into it and is really very childish.
"Electricity is not suited for long-distance transmission" ?? why gosh, it's the biggest form of energy we transport, even more than oil, and much safer than that in the transportation
If you research our current grid system, you find that Nikola Tesla had a better idea than did Edison. This my or may not be debatable ! Part of the debate seams to go back to the money or profits, and bankers willing to invest for a high and continuous return. I’ve heard it said, that if Edison were to come back from the dead, he would see very little change to the system he invented. A continuous, monthly electric bill, all in the name of convenience $$. Mr Green pointed out the reason the electric grid is a poor system, the expensive transformers! Much like todays cable/internet system work. In order to keep strong signals through miles of cable, they need to place a “booster” every so often in order to deliver the fast speeds promised. The point here is, having your own power source. He was nervous and did a poor job explaining his ideas. I see a steam engine as only one piece. I would have liked him talk more about the steam generator. Electricity is the largest transported source of energy as you stated, but only because no one wants to invest in a better way. Solar and wind are not it. In the eyes of Big government and business, god forbid consumers having their own power source.
Tell that to the towns burned in the Carr or Camp fires.
About the engine:
Well, it uses a cam instead a crank. ok. Why none wide commercialized engine use this? There is not innovation on it.
All the problenms he throw about current distribution is widelly know.
Produces your own energy is very good, but many tecnologies allow renovable fuels.
No innovations at all.
you only knew burn bro not cold
Any heat engine must work between two temperatures which are wide apart for maximum efficiency. If the exhaust side of the engine needs to cool down and this is done only through the heat exchanger, then the hot water side in the boiler must not reach a high value otherwise the engine exhasut would have to be vented to the air. It is possible theoretically , but in practice there will be difficulties.
your thinking of stirring engines not steam engines
You need to also Google up Steam Condenser.
A system like this would condense the steam, and pump the water back into the boiler.
Still does not change the fact that wobble plate designs are bad, and there are a host of other problems.
?
Alright Thomas Edison
Underrated comment
sigh...
If all you do is dedicate tons and tons of time to fearmongering rather than the product at hand...
... you discredit yourself(and your product is forgotten too), in a big way....
Fear mongering about what? He was just talking about making a more complete use of the energy from combustion. Instead of wasting heat energy in cooling towers following electrical generation to use it to heat a structure and have hot water. This is already done at business, institutions and work camps that generate their electricity in house, they don’t waste the heat from burning their fuel they heat buildings and make hot water from the excess heat.
Alot of good stuff but I cant watch father time stuttering for 18 minutes.
Ok, so we go back to exploding boiler problem again very soon? Not on my house
Your house has a boiler already I hope? Those would blow up without a bleed valve you know.. This is a low pressure steam system not a high pressure, so less boom.
All a steam engine does is convert heat in to motion where do you think heat comes from ?
Tony Wright your right but the same happens with any fuel burning engine .
All nuclear does is to convert heat in to motion. Big price to pay. The internal combustion engine does the same thing despite the pollution. For a mechanical process, steam generation can be a very viable process. Our expectation of electricity is so 20th century as to be embarrassing. Tesla had a vision that was corrupted by big business, same as it ever was........
yes but a sosage roll gathers no kate moss
Water boils at room temperature in a vacuum you just need another low-pressure area vacuum chamber for it to go to and a turbine in between with a condenser and a one-way valve and piping to return the water to the hot side. So you can run a steam turbine with very low energy inputs.
don schmidtke
What Robert says is true, unfortunately his communication skills need much improvement. He is a concept developer and struggles to verbalize his thoughts.
Use the grid to power local Dynamos
if too poverted people cant afford this,
what now?
what a BORING presenter...!!!
Not really boring, the man is just a little elderly and unable to stream at a speed and comprehensivess as I'm sure he would have in earlier years. It was good of the moderator fellow to help him along in expressing his knowledge. We will all one day be aged as well; it won't mean we're boring....
*CRACKPOT*
What's the name of the electric company work for??