Do you think the US can catch up and that flow batteries can make a difference? Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/undecided - Enter promo code UNDECIDED for 83% off and 3 extra months for FREE! If you liked this video, check out: Exploring Solar Panel Efficiency Breakthroughs in 2022 th-cam.com/video/m8crjuL8FFs/w-d-xo.html
No, the US gov't is trying to protect its oil and gas companies. They have been ignoring alternate energy sources since the oil embargo of the 70s. Nothing will change.
All countries are together, the drama is only for the slaves to keep them separated and afraid easy to manipulate, whatch what they do not what they say, Rotschild communism and socialism is all there is nowdays
@@slcpunk2740 what a hair-brained take on the situation! So fitting that your PFP is that of a pop satire of the commoditisation of punk culture. Ha! The licensing was there for China to agree to... But they don't play by the rule-of-law. They use the largest spying apparatus ever known to man , the "Thousand Talents Program" , to train their engineers in our prestigious colleges and conduct espionage which goes back to enrich the CCP, a brutal authoritarian State Run Capitalist regime. This is not a win for civilization
This was not a “give away”, “error”, “mistake” or “stupidity”. This was a case of politicians/lobbyists selling the tech for their own personal gain. I’m sure that’s also the reason behind Forever Energy’s difficulties in getting a license.
The video specifically says that it was because the public office that oversaw the licenses was underfunded and understaffed. I'm not saying that it wasn't also corruption, but a stronger public service would have helped prevent this better than anticorruption measures.
@@SocialDownclimber "a stronger public service" - vague nonsense. Please run for office; you sound like you would be a welcome candidate in political circles where they need someone to run interference with the public.
@@thom1218 Just like the Patent office other offices in the government have very intelligent and educated staff. Understaffing the wrong office can have catastrophic outcomes
Glad that flow batteries are being covered. They have huge potential. One gripe is that the first successful redox battery demo was done by an Aussie chemical engineer. She figured out the sulphuric acid method to do that demo in the 80’s. That’s the patent expiry that opened up the market in the early 2000’s. It wasn’t all NASA and US gov research.
Gripe? Matt made no claim that it was "only" NASA and US gov research. He said their contribution improved efficiency of the electrolyte with the addition of HCL, and that it was this energy density contribution that made it actually viable in grid-scale deployments.
It is a beautiful system that allows knolage to be locked away from civilization for two decades while you lack the skills/resources to develop it. I love humans. 🥰
Thanks for a great video! A video editing request for you Matt, when comparing two numbers, would you be able to put both numbers on screen at the same time instead of sequentially? Example at 13:36-13:42. I find it easier to mentally compare the numbers this way. In either case, thanks for reading my comment! Cheers!
@@UndecidedMF A grid/spreadsheet comparing all common (or previously discussed) technologies would be ideal. I keep seeing numbers and think "is that good?" because I don't have a way to compare it to other tech without pausing the video and googling it.
Bushveld Minerals in South Africa are a major supplier of Vanadium to the West and they are currently in the process of completing their Vanadium Redox Flow Electrolyte Plant, to produce 200mwh per annum. Bushveld Minerals also own/control 50% of the VRFB provider Cellcube. Bushveld Minerals is a listed company on the London Stock Exchange.
It's great to hear more news about redox flow batteries. During my first year of my chemistry bachelor 6 years, I had a class where we had to write a short report and make a presentation about a novel subject in a group. I chose the redox flow battery as a subject and got very excited about the capabilities. Pretty sad that it hasn't taken off as much as I hoped 6 years ago
It’s taking off, in China, where our enemies likely bribed their way into becoming exclusive owners of this US taxpayer owned and developed technology.
@@LiterallyJesusChrist if bribery was going on it seems a lot more likely to be fossil fuel interests (the great deep-pocketed friend of both parties) wanting to keep renewables in a perpetual state of "unreadiness" in the US by sidelining tech that could reduce their dominance here
A group of engineers with NRECA and I visited a redox flow battery manufacturer a decade or so ago, somewhere in the NE US mainland. We spent a half a day there, learning about the issues they were having in design and manufacturing. They were building flow batteries into modified shipping containers for a project in a remote Alaskan village. The thing I remember most about the batteries was the complexity of the monitoring and control of the system. There were wires and circuit boards everywhere. I thought about how many things could go wrong. Maybe it was all just monitoring and not really necessary for operation, but I don't think the batteries ever went in service due to breakdowns or failures. If anyone is familiar with this project, I'd be interested to hear what ever happened here.
15 million in US development over 6 years, vs. 300 million invested by China over 6 years (according to your numbers) it's very clear where each governments' priorities lie.
I can't see why China having this technology is a bad thing. They need to have grid scale energy storage too. The US government should definitely facilitate US manufacture of this technology though.
Right I'm not sure what the problem is here. It doesn't sound like that prevents the US from developing the tech. We _want_ China to adopt green tech. They're terrible carbon emitters.
I believe the point is mostly an economic one. Specifically, the current licensing of the technology is allowing China to develop this technology and make money off of research and development that the US government made. Think of it this way: if you put money into the stock market and someone else then got your stock and any profits from that stock you probably wouldn't be happy about it. Additionally, I do not think we should trust China to do the right thing when it comes to environmental or human protection. I believe our standards as higher than China and corporations are held more responsible to their actions here so it is also a safety factor.
@@En-Jon-eer Unfortunately that attitude caused America to be the very last to halt all flights of the 737 Max while all other countries followed China's lead in its correct assessment of safety. Having said that, America does have some laws to protect its domestic environment but it will be oblivious to the environment outside its borders. For instance, when China ended imports of millions of tons annually of contaminated "recyclables"/waste after years of warning it would do so, the US demanded China continue to take in its waste. Prior to this, China said it would reduce output of rare earths to reduce its environmental impact, the US which uses the very same reasoning to not produce rare earths coddled the EU and Japan to force China to meet their demands.
@@downtomars6268 I don't agree that the 737 Max thing had anything to do with China. That was more the typical US problem of businesses getting too close to regulators. If I recall correctly the FAA was basically just taking the word of Boeing that their planes were safe or that people didn't know all the facts. You see similar patterns when it comes to cigarettes, global warming or any other impact to a business's bottom line basically going like this: report comes out of risk to the public, businesses pushes back by exaggerating the uncertainty or doubt about the findings while raising fears of how it would effect the economy to do any regulation about the issue, issue becomes a political one and gets endlessly stuck in legislation. As you might guess I don't think the US is perfect. I agree that the US is generally blind about environmental concerns outside of the US; though I would also argue that things that get screwed up, like the plastic thing, is due to a level of misinformation provided to the people by the corporations that benefit from that misinformation.
You should make a video comparing pros and cons for all the different electrochemical batteries including redox flow batteries, liquid metal batteries, sodium-ion batteries, and others.
Had been keeping an eye on the Redflow company in Aus which produced some zinc-bromine units that you could install in residential homes, the only issue being the smell/gas toxicity apparently, needed to be installed in a very well ventilated space in case of off-gassing due to the bromine used in their electrolytes. Unfortunately I don't think they are pursuing their residential home battery lines (ZCell) anymore and are moving onto just their industrial versions of the ZBM3, which is unfortunate, as I really liked the idea of the safety of using a battery that isn't potentially going to burn down my home.
I've also been following Reflow for a long while. Zinc bromine is a great option and fantastic for remote off-grid applications. Unfortunately the cost of scaling to small systems doesn't stack up, hence why the Zcell hasn't really progressed. I looked at putting in their large systems into PNG for a remote telecommunications system as we can helicopter them in empty and just fill with the electrolyte.
Yeah, the focus on China seems fearmonger-y. For helping with climate change (and being decent people) these kinds of technologies should be widely available, including to China.
@@acmefixer1 but they didn't "steal" it, they got the rights to it. The only scandal is that no one else has been able to get those rights. The mistakes were clearly on the part of the patent holders and the patent office.
Great video! It’s frustrating that the US doesn’t find the $300 million to help alleviate supply chain limitations to future energy/power, yet the same US finds 10-100x to fight overseas wars. It’s not just the US, every country should attempt to secure supply chains in order to protect internal and external peace.
It is international reliance, international trade, that makes peace the preferred state. It is also the state that leads to the largest supply of goods to go around, and thus the highest quality of life. Self-sufficiency is for the bad actors, who want to abuse other nations without consequences. A strategy that usually leads to impoverishment, like in North Korea. We could grow bananas, but they would cost $4 per banana. And only rich snobs would buy them. We have already gone too far with this. Corn syrup cost far more to produce than cane sugar, but we slap a huge tariff on cane sugar, so we can all be forced to pay more for corn syrup. And there are plenty of other examples. Our big problem is that our companies don't want to produce in high volume and compete internationally in high volume products. Too many business majors who want to find some angle to gouge. That and unions kill companies. NIMBYs, of course, are also a problem. You never hear about unions striking in China. The reason our mines produce about 1% as much as China, is unions. If there is any obvious value to the ore, the unions destroy the company. The only ore we lead the World in is Fuller's Earth, AKA kitty litter. I Am not saying we should not have some economic robustness, but I think that is better achieved by the Fed storing materials, food and drugs rather than merely oil. We used to store other things. Not so much anymore.
Remember, we aren’t sending the money overseas, we’re enriching the US corporations who take the money and ship weapons/logistics overseas. Much like congress could give leveraged $4-$5 trillion to wallstreet in the first plague legislation but only begrudgingly gave $1200-$2000 to average US citizen in the later bills.
This is the problem when Republicans strangle government and don't give departments enough resources to do their jobs. We deserve everything coming to us.
@@rogerphelps9939 It was never the unions that made mines safe...unless you consider abandoned mines safe. It was the muckrakers that lead to regulations, inspections and safer mines in the US. And people in charge of mining actually studying mining technology. And I am not saying we can trust companies to always do what is right. American coal miners are still dying by the thousands, and the mines hid this by laying off anyone showing symptoms of black lung. So when health inspectors showed up at the mines, everyone looked just fine. Increasing Union influence, and power would not help...workers don't like regulations, even when they protect the workers. They are supposed to wear masks, but they take them off because they are uncomfortable, and clog easily.
Rabbit Hole (1) Iron-Air: Not sure if it's worth the research, but twenty years ago, an American company developed the iron-air battery and the US Military labeled it disruptive technology and outlawed it. In other words, our military has been stopping progress and preventing technological development. Rabbit Hole (2) Thorium Salt: Current reactor design was selected (and enforced) for it's ability to make material for bombs. We had a running Thorium Salt reactor for a year. Somewhere around 1967. This design can burn most of the actinide sequence. They run at ambient pressure, 750 degrees, so much safer on that front. The waste is over three hundred times faster to become harmless. If they do manage to overheat, the molten salt just dumps into a cooling chamber, so much safer. And lastly, they can burn the waste from the current idiotic designs.
@@b_uppy sadly enough this stuff is publicly accessible. Thorium reactors have been publicly known to be awesome for a long time. We mostly didn't go that route because we wanted lot's of weapon's grade materials. After we went in that direction, commercial & political inertia has kept em undeployed. Fe-O2 batteries are also publicly accessible tech, they just haven't been very practical because of cycle limitations(pretty sure there's a semi-recent vid covering recent improvements in those). Until recently iron air batteries just weren't workable & it remains to be seen if they can be scaled economically.
I think thorium salt obsession is slowing us down. A plug is a good idea, but why not just use plain water for cooling and use a hybrid uranium / thorium facility NOW? We don't have many meltdowns, and we desperately need the delay to stop.
@@Deciheximal I suppose going from one hundred thousand years of poison to three hundred may not be motivating. How about a zero percent chance of a melt down? How about using the third most abundant substance on Earth for fuel? But in answer to your question: Why not use a hybrid system? Complexity is a friend to disaster and an enemy of Engineers. If I can build you a reactor with four thousand percent fewer parts, it will break less, be easier to manufacture, and will produce very cheap power, especially if cost is calculated over the entire supply chain. It is also worth noting that Thorium is sitting around in giant piles all over the Earth, because it's produced as a side effect of mining rare earth minerals. The reason we hear so much push back on Thorium is probably the same reason we turned off the US power plant: They don't produce weapons grade plutonium. And in case you happen to care about flags, as many do, China is going to have cheap, safe, power via Thorium in pretty short order. How do you think a military conflict will go when we are begging OPEC for oil, while China has unlimited energy from dirt?
Matt, you have to be put up for an Oscar. You looked genuinely surprised that the US government would 'let' the technology go overseas. Businesses and the government have been doing this for years in the name of profit and greed.
I enjoy staying up to date on new energy tech and I applaud you on doing so in an efficient way. Thank you! I hope future content can include how the individual home owner can have its own, stand alone independence. I can appreciate needing large scale applications but if anyone with the means wants to be independent of the grid, the more that do so means less large scale would be needed. I’m ready to see a package plug n play battery, inverter, charge control that hooks to your house with relative ease.
Thanks for the comments. When I see one of Matt's vids, my first thought is that I'll watch another vid on technology I don't understand and I'll never see in application.
Most politicians are not creators, builders, or beneficial thinkers. This, combined with an inherent lack of honesty and integrity in those same politicians has been one of the key factors in the decline of America. The sad part is that a large number of Americans continue to support those corrupt politicians. They are either willfully ignorant, or they are easily fooled by the cheerleading squad for corrupt politicians; you know the squad as the media. We need term limits and a media that is not controlled by politicians or billionaires.
An Australian company produces a type of (electrolyte) Flow Battery that uses Bromine, which is completely inert (safe) and can last nearly 100 years. What's more, its charge doesn't discharge over time, and its efficiency degradation is incredibly slow... meaning even if you haven't used the battery in years, it will still have the majority of its charge, so it's ideal for stationary energy storage solutions. The (RFB) flow battery discussed in the video, seems to be a more dense version, and thus requires a smaller footprint
@@UndecidedMF Correct sir. Redflow is the battery manufacturer I was referring to, but didn't want to mention the brand, as every time I mention a specific brand, other commentators end up accusing me of working for whatever company I happen to mention :)
I heard that one possible use of flow battery would be in EVs. Instead of recharging the battery at a charge station, the depleted electrolytes on the cars are swapped with the charged electrolytes. Then the depleted electrolytes are charged at the charge station getting ready for the next swap.
But how do vanadium flow batteries compare to iron flow batteries? Iron is cheaper($0.045/ lb for iron ore) & more plentiful than vanadium ($7.20/lb for V2O5)). Aside from their existing deployment down in San Diego, ESS just signed a deal for a 2 GWh facility in Sacramento.
That's another cool flow cell technology. There's also zinc based chemistries out there too competing with vanadium. It's not just cost of materials, but also the performance characteristics that have to be considered (degradation, energy density, etc.). I'm still digging through a bunch of this stuff, but here's an interesting report about the flow cell tech that's out there: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775320311083#!
Bushveld Minerals ticker #BMN on the London Stock Exchange are about to bring online the largest vanadium electrolyte production facility in South Africa.
I was thinking how this battery is more of a plumbing system than an electrical system. Curious then if you could put these holding tanks of the electrolyte solutions at some distance from the electrical components. Also considered that installation could be accomplished in tight quarters or otherwise underutilized oddly shaped locations by installing custom shaped tanks, perhaps even bladders confined by simple wood frame boxes. Also, the fact that it is a liquid filled tank means that you would presumably install the tank empty making it very easy to handle and put in difficult locations (like attic spaces) and then fill the tank with a hose and transfer pump from a convenient distance.
Redflow started as a company in 2006. The Winter brothers (founders) had been tinkering with flow batteries for several years before that. I joined Redflow in 2010 and designed some of their specialty manufacturing equipment and assisted with electrode and membrane development. Redflow have been around much longer than Uni Energy and Mr Yang. Redflow and a sister company are also active in the USA.
Matt said lithium batteries last for ten years. But the LFP batteries last far longer - they can have 3000 or more charge-discharge cycles, compared to NMC batteries with 1000 or so. I think the LFP batteries should last a full 30 years, possibly more. Still, I think RFBs are the best solution for longer term storage and should be widely deployed to supply power at night when there's no sunshine. Plus the whole world needs a lot of pumped hydro for even longer term storage.
I looked into these to power my house a few years ago. unfortunately the up front cost was a issue 30kw $45k AU vs $30k for lithium, but the flow battery did include sma inverters. It took up 1sqare meter and weighed 1.5 tonne. They also told me if in the future I no longer wanted the battery they would buy back the electrolyte
Saudi Armaco are also building a Vanadium RFB production facility which is due to come online next year. It will produce 3GWH of VRFB's annually. They are extracting Vanadium from spent oil.
I don't know what Forever Energy has designed. But I can tell you that they certainly did not design the battery they showed you in that rendering. How do I know? Because I made that rendering when I worked for UET (yeah I know it's not a great rendering). Notice how it looks awfully similar to the small Vanadis batteries at the 6:48 mark? By the way that battery was patented by UET - US11276870B2.
Your rendering was certainly good enough for Forever Energy to put their logo over ours! Seriously, you were instrumental in creating the best grid battery on the planet!
Honestly I think it is way more important to incentive and invest in new batteries than to care who will profit. In this case China was clearly more interested and better prepared to handle Vanadium and you cannot dismiss the benefits of having a country that is willing to invest into it when compared with a country that clearly slept on it for years. At the end of the "day" (or rather century), what matters is that we have the technology to go net zero, not who profits the most, because I can tell you right know where the biggest profit will go: The ecosystem, the planet.
Canadian perspective: make it easier to license, and give subsidy to US development that scales up with US content. But share the tech. North America is not the biggest contributor to global warming, stuff like this needs to be developed and used world wide. Also, tie improvements to formula back to all license holders, with incentives (monetary) so that the entire licensed industry can be benefit.
The "Big Battery" project near Hawker in SA, Australia, was based around the redox-flow battery technology, but that install is pretty small compared to the one in China.
This is a great video with many great graphics that artfully simplify a complex technology. As a seasoned energy storage pioneer, I believe climate change is a global problem requiring global collaboration to solve, so I’d like to clarify 3 facts: 1: The 400MWh Dalian battery is not the US technology - the US tech needs only half the footprint. 2: PNNL never gave the technology away. Rather, Rongke Power invested $72M into US collaboration to fund over 300 man-years of work by US engineers and scientists. Rongke also willingly shared access to crucial advanced components and production technologies to together deliver the breakthrough modular vanadium product. 3: The US tech electrolyte is no longer being produced in China, despite Rongke investing two decades and over $100M to refine vanadium electrolyte production and then apply it to the US tech. They are still the only ones who know how to make it, and it will take many years to develop the process in the US. Net, Net: The result of this decade of passionate, award-winning global collaboration is a US-patented, commercially compelling battery that could be manufactured in the US.
Thanks for the insight. The NPR article and those that cite it as their primary source focus on an alleged wrongdoing, rather than what actually happened.
On September 20, 2022, the 250,000-kilowatt/1,000,000-kilowatt-hour all-vanadium flow battery energy storage + 1,000,000-kilowatt market-based grid-connected photovoltaic power generation project started construction in Qapqal Xibe Autonomous County, Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture.
85% efficient vs 95% efficient? That sounds like a bit of an important distinction! It certainly is more efficient than compressed air or hydrogen production from water electrolysis but quite a bit less than Lithium. Now with the simplicity of the battery, perhaps the fact that making it in the first place would use so much less energy than lithium battery production that the gap would be inconsequential. Vanadium sounds rare though and hard to get, how is its production at scale vs the alternatives?
Broooooo seriously! Thank you for covering this story!! I couldn’t understand why no one seems to care how we paid to have technology sent somewhere else. Love you!
Given the climate emergency, all the green energy development should be open source. It's definitively not the time for throat cutting competition and the witholding of possible solutions. E.g.: China switching to green energies will save way more lives and millions of dollars in the US and the whole world just by reducing the harm (like natural disasters, hurricanes, droughts, etc) that would happen otherwise.
Flow batteries (independent of chemistry) have an important difference from wet and dry cell batteries. They can be turned OFF, meaning there is no voltage difference between the Plus and Minus terminals, even when "fully charged". Just drain the reaction area of electrolyte(s) and they are completely OFF. You can short the terminals. Also, if the charged electrolytes do not degrade on their own when confined to the storage tanks, there is no self-discharge.
Hi Matt, long time viewer, but my first comment. I am not sure if you read these comments. Thought you might be interested in Redflow Batteries. It is an Australian company based in my hometown. It is another flow battery, but the liquid is less problematic than using acids. It is a zinc-bromine flow battery. No idea what the LCOS is, but imagine you would be able to figure it out :) I would love to see a story on this if you think it is worthwhile.
While the SNAFU about this license is frankly not surprising - in the end this may be a good thing; in that more grid storage is installed in China (and other places?) and we ALL benefit from the reduced carbon emission. This is like Mercedes and Volvo giving away their patents on passenger safety cell and 3-point seat belts - it saves lives. Profit is not important as avoiding worse climate change.
I have read today on pv magazine australia that "Dalian Rongke Power has connected a 100 MW redox flow battery storage system to the grid in Dalian, China. It will start operating in mid-October and will eventually be scaled up to 200 MW. The vanadium redox flow battery technology was developed by a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences."
I'm not mad at China. They are wise enough to invest in state-owned enterprise for the purpose of advancing their industry and technological progress. If anything this should result in a re-examination of our own ideological fetters that are causing the US to refuse to use government policy for necessary investment.
"If they can secure the license, they're definitely a company to keep your ion..." I always enjoy your puns, Matt, but this one deserves an award! Keep up the great work.
These batteries are awesome, they can be discharged down to zero and back to 100% without any problems. In Australia we have a company called Redflow which makes them for stationary storage. It is crazy that they are not being used more.
I'm a little surprised at the focus on the fact that China was able to make use of this technology while the US ignored it. I very much enjoyed the update on the technology -- and if focusing on the fact that a relatively small amount of research money is making green energy work better in China but not the US helps promote adoption of that technology in the US, I get it. However, I'd prefer a less "America First" tone. Don't get me wrong. You provide tremendous value. I'm just not used to you dragging politics so prominently into the technology discussion. Successful adoption of renewables is a global problem. I'd be curious to know why there was no push to embrace it in the US.
That guy is on a pay role to badmouth China like the usual big TH-cam accounts. Of course he will critisise China even when they fund important projects in technologies. Who would have guessed that Americans investors only have profits in mind. He doesn't care about progress when China/the Chinese just have a tiny bit success. Sadly this video will further shape the image of Chinese IP stealer...
Really it bothers you to discuss poiltics and technology at the same time? China violent suppressive regime is using almost every tool there is to torture and kill more than 12000000 innocent people and it dosen't bother you at all!
"I'm a little surprised at the focus on the fact that China was able to make use of this technology while the US ignored it." Our obsession with short term gains has created a system that rejects long term investment. It's worse given a lot of long term investment comes in the form of tax funded programs and projects. Those who worship short term gains abhor publicly funded projects as it represents, for them, a kind of competition that threatens the monopoly control they covet. The video eludes to this, and answers your question of why there was no push to embrace it: because it wasn't profitable fast enough.
As we ramp Lithium batteries, especially iron phosphate, it becomes harder, and harder for competing technologies - unless they can prove that they have an outstanding advantage. Anything "mechanical" can suffer degradation over 10-20-30 years - and it's not always easy to predict, until they have that long in the field...corrosive, toxic or high temperature materials likewise. Batteries can be switched vary rapidly (milliseconds), so can provide more services to the grid. Having said that, we need to trial different systems, because unless we do, we might miss an even better solution ! (And the production advantages of Tesla's 4680 have just raised the bar even higher...)
Zinc Bromine is another flow alternative - buy the chemicals from an ag-store. Redflow in Australia have made house scale modular flow batteries. Though this technology does have issues with energy draw needing parallel units and zinc dendrite issues potentially rupturing the cell (needs full discharge regularly) but can be stored at 0% DOD or 100% DOD near indefinitely and volume of chemicals is the only limiting factor in its total storage capacity (just its not high current producing or sinking compared to Lithium).
Welcome to the club! Here in Australia we’ve been giving away breakthrough inventions for decades! Wifi, solar panels and black box recorders were invented here in Australia and given away to the rest of the world.
I live in Iowa and will build a new passive house of around 4,000 - 5,000 sq ft. The weather can be extreme with temps of 103 in the summer and -30 in the winter. Would this be a good solution if I had and extra separate 1,500 sq ft garage/storage building? Looks like it might be a better solution than Tesla or the like batteries that need replaced every 10 years. Would be ideal to use battery energy during the high cost times and recharge them the rest of the time as needed.
Was looking for this comment. Everyone: Stop believing the fairy tale of an inventor making a world changing invention in his garden shed defending himself using a patent. Patents are mostly used by big corporations to keep the small new players out of the market. Or, as in this case, to hand successful inventions made with public money to some friend. (Also stop putting scientific papers behind a paywall.)
I get thr immediate outrage but in terms of global impact, giving China this technology was the right thing to do. Not to get too political but we could easily lead green manufacturing if the voters actually demanded it and voted for politicians that support green tech. Clearly thr private sector can't compete with China, but the public sector can... easily.
The short turn around financial model that companies are doing to please their stockholders is a major issue. Honeywell forced its engineers to stop working frequently over the past few years because the end of a quarter was coming, and they wanted to make it look like the goals of minimal hours charged to projects were met. Honeywell paid their engineers to sit around and do nothing for a few weeks.... and then came the layoffs down the road. Its not about good business, innovation, and production. Its about playing some game in the stock markets.
Then let Honeywell go broke and an other take its place. And let all the 'investors' who fell for this trick and bid up the stock go broke as well. That's how a market should work, punish the bad players. (But nooo, we think we can safe the economy by keeping those companies afloat with bail out money)
In a future where hydrocarbons are no longer used for storing energy, these types of systems are essential for energy independence. I didn’t hear anything about max discharge RATES… I’m curious if this could be a competitive energy storage for tanks/other military weapons that guzzle fuel.
Matt, as always very informative. Thanks for all the work behind bring forth the solid content. Are these batteries available in the US (I know they are not produced here, yet) and are they a good solution in a Home based system or is cost, maintenance, etc. put them out of reach.
StorEn is a US based company that had produced VFBs and is currently looking for a location to start large scale production. www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1720258/000110465922064761/tm2216776d1_1k.htm
Thanks too everyone over at UNDECIDED for yet ANOTHER AMAZING video i legit have to watch ur videos 3-5 times each just to absorb HALF of what is being presented .... you guys CRUSH ... always have (Matt Solo) and always will (Matt & Team) and thank you to the new producers and WELCOME!
That 40kWh battery is interesting especially for a household use. I hope this technology gets commercialize to the masses. I didn't even know we already have this advancement in battery technology. This is just impressive.
Great to see more options than just Lion Batteries. Sad that politicians keep screwing our transition to renewables. 😢 Have you looked at an Australian Company Redflow who do Redox Batteries. I believe they are involved in Grid scale pilot in US. Of course the Australian government has done nothing to help this company. Look forward to all your videos. Thanks 👏👏
Hi Matt, thanks for a great video! I'm wondering whether this tech might be a way to fuel up one's EV (how large would be the volume of the electrolytes required), how it would compare with charging or perhaps fueling up H2 for a fuel cell based EV. I also remember one of your other videos about storing H2 on a metallic surface, which I think is also a remarkable idea. Thank you!
Yes, these would be great as a buffer at EV charging stations. When a station is full of EVs, all fast-charging at once, the vanadium batteries could take some of the strain off the grid. Then when there are few cars, they could recharge.
VRFBs are definitely a good solution for charging EVs, also good to store excess energy to use for hydrogen production when renewable generation isn't available
...just revisited the topic with the RedFlow design, the energy density of their electrolyte is around 0.1kwh/kg. When compared to diesel, with some 0.3kwh/kg (accounting for 30% engine efficiency), one would have to tank 3x the amount of electrolyte to get the diesel mileage, very roughly speaking. So we probably won't be pouring electrolyte into our car tanks just now but the gap isn't actually that bad, what do you think? Thanks!
StorEn Technologies is a company in the United States based out of New York that specializes in exactly this. They are small company but growing, but still an American Based company. They do have contracts with other countries like their biggest contract in Australia, but it has yet to have success with the same sort of customer size here in the states. Let’s hope that changes.
Dude, you're killing it! You Content is getting better and better. You got me excited about the future that I'm already excited about! Never stop what you're doing!
One draw back for Redox flow battery is its real energy density is very low, 40Wh/kg to 60Wh/kg compared to lithium ion's 250Wh/kg. Unless the energy density improves, it's not cost effective and the storage area required is to big.
The US fell waaay behind in the solar and storage sectors, IMO. We'll be lucky to catch up, but China has that singular will to get things done, so it could be fuitle, but I think we should still be trying to make stuff here as far as our energy needs go..
It was just all a lie. The developed world was always gatekeeping other countries from gaining access to technologies. This kept them poor, which was likely very intentional to keep exploiting them. Since the beginning colonialism those developed countries needed poor countries to exploit, this hasn't changed.
We should share technology more often. Especially if it aids us in not destroying our planet. Bonus points if doesn't happen through bureaucratic mismanagement.
Last I heard, ion exchange membrane lifespan was still a problem and some research teams are working on laminar flow cells, hoping to eliminate the membrane altogether.
So, why are lead acid not used? Lead can be mined readily in America and they've been around for ages so we're used to working with, and recycling them
I’m not surprised that the U.S. shot itself in the foot but it’s disappointing that we’re not taking advantage of this technology ourselves. Am I wrong in my assumption that VRFBs would likely be more applicable to commercial or grid level storage first than residential uses mainly because of the current costs of these batteries?
In Germany people are charging their RFB batteries at might when utilities are much cheaper due to less demand for power. Then you can run the house off the RFB during the daytime peak power rates to save one third of the cost.
Vanadium redox flow batteries, to my understanding were originally invented as a storage solution in Australia. Could not find any commercial investors here. I think University of NSW. Australia, educated country, inventive. Also invented the dry photocopy process, gave it away to Xerox for lack of investors to commercialise. We are a smart country right up to the last step.
It disincentivizes R&D to have someone steal your ability to recuperate your money spent on research. It also hampers future research by skilled companies...
@@UndecidedMF the sense I got from the video was that you were more upset with the 300 million in research being "given away". We didn't lose the research. We still have it. It's our own ridiculous red tape preventing us from using it. We should be upset at our own regulations. China is barely even involved in that.
Just to recap there is a common positive and common negative electrolyte so as a flow battery u have to limit the power lost through the conductivity in the electrolyte between cells. The higher the voltage the more loss as the conductivity stays the same from charged to discharged. I suggested a method to do this based on the film projector Maltese cross mechanism though it moves is can be disconnected electrically speaking. The big advantage of the system is a few low voltage cells at high amps can be in series with the high voltage stack .u can tap multi voltage points for all sorts of purpose .
China may build them but they'll continue to use fossil fuels. They have tons of coal plants. If the world was serious, they'd insist ALL countries give up fossil fuels, not just America. Climate change is more about destroying western culture than it is about carbon.
Patent is why people invent things. It creates incentive to find new solutions. Otherwise, why bother putting in money and effort when other companies can just wait for some startup to take off and steal their invention?
Alsways been a fan of RFB and Compressed Air Energy Storage. Worked with Li-Ion batteries in the auto industry and found out much about their weaknesses.
Hi Matt. I'm a poltiical scientist and I think one of the most ominous developments in recent years has been the US' almost desperate attempt to start a new Cold War with China. The world needs cooperation now more than ever. These kind of technologies should be spread far and wide, not hoarded by any country. It does not really matter who makes these batteries and improves green tech so long as it is widely available. I assume that China's bigger market, lower costs and economies of scale mean it will likely dominate this particular technology at the international level. That is fine with me if that means that these batteries are more affordable to people all over the world. The same goes with any other green tech. As an aside, the US has been putting up obstacles to dealing with climate change for decades. By contrast, China has been trying to develop this tech for a long time. This is not a "winner/loser" story.
Hello Mr. Farrell, posters and readers on redox flow batteries (RFB). Are there reviews, hopefully in journal articles, of at least most of the RFB technology? I am looking for a comprehensive coverage of the Tech, economics of rolling out the tech from building pilot plants to use, businesses of managing, and international and domestic power, politic and influence affairs on the RFB. The comprehensiveness and precision of the coverage are more important than the depth of the details.
This is crazy... we normal people will never understand the reasons behind these decisions, but corruption is probably one of them. O_o Thank you for your videos Matt. :-)
The thought you put into this presentation was excellent. How does this technology compare to Donald Sadoway’s redox technology. Also don’t you also need something like flywheel peaking technology to handle power spikes?
I watched with interest. Lots to agree on here, as a consumer I'd like to know when to switch to a hybrid/off grid solution. I note the 12hour use case, ideal for EV charging by night? The UK is focused on topping up the grid, when in fact reducing demand with localised storage has to be be more efficient? Lots I do not profess to understand, but excited to see an alternative to LI. One that could be deployed now.
There is a reason for everything. If this tech was kept in the US and was not exported to China, it would probably have been to expensive to develop it fast enough so that it can become a real world marked contender, which is now desperately needed, in the nick of time!
No mention of lithium iron phosphate (LFP)? Lithium Ion not a good choice for batteries for the home. LFP has 5x more power cycles than L-ion batteries. We need a Flow to LFP battery comparison for a fair fight.
When did this channel become political and anti China? I subscribed to learn about new technology that could save the planet and advance human civilization. After all we share the same planet...
I feel like salt batteries still seem like the batter method - no li even if their weight is higher - it doesnt matter when you consider you can just build higher vs wider. Flow batteries seem ok, but you still have a lot of waste just hitting in either pools or machines... any of that leaks it could be a problem. For example, I wouldnt want to see one of these close to the sea along a beach if weather was strong enough to ever cause damage.
I'm glad China has developed this technology. The patent system itself is holding ideas up that could contribute to the solutions we need. China seems pragmatic.
Another example is Thorium Molten Salt Reactor Nuclear Energy System(TMSR). There are two reasons to give it to Chinese. One is the patents are expired; the second is that energy issue is a world issue. Once Chinese make it to a practical level, we can benefit from that too.
Interesting and informative presentation Mr Matt Farrell! The Vanadium Redox Flow battery was invented by Maria Skyllas Kazacos in Australia and developments around the world are advancing the technology all the time. I am sure the Chinese would be flattered (as the Chinese don't respect patents & they actively see it as a compliment if someone copies them) if the US company produces their own vanadium electrolyte in whatever chemical structure Forever Energy want to use. Of course, they could easily contact US Vanadium and use their electrolytes. The requirement for domestic energy storage which is ideal for hot climates and zero fire risk is a huge opportunity. I am surprised even Elon Musk has not got his head around VRFB technology yet. VRFB which is the official name by the way as agreed by Vanitec the association set up by the Vanadium Industry is monitoring the growth of the industry closely. many of the key Vanadium miners and processors as well as the VRFB manufacturers are sharing technology to speed up the rollout of VRFB across the world. Primary vanadium is mined by Glencore in SA, Bushveld Minerals in SA and Largo in Brazil. With many projects planned in Australia as well. The US has few opportunities for primary vanadium and imports most of its vanadium from SA and Brazil. Vanadium is primarily used to strengthen steel as 1 kg per 1 tonne doubles the strength of steel and prevents it from corroding. The long-term duration and lifetime of VRFB installations as well as the fact the vanadium can be reused at the VRFB's end of life add to the VRFB's advantage as part of the circular economy! There are two companies in the US that are developing the use of a modified Vanadium Pentoxide for use in both the anode and cathode of Lithium Ion Battery cells, which is another exciting development for Vanadium in battery cells. If work continues with this technology it could bring portable device cells super fast charging times of less than 8 minutes and a life of 20 years with very slow degradation compared to current lithium-ion tech. Definitely a space to watch. Vanadium is one of those super minerals and is a great investment opportunity for the next generation. Look at Largo LGO NASDAQ, Bushveld BMN.L, Australian Vanadium AVL.ASX and Technology Metals TMT.ASX all growing rapidly but sitting under the radar.
It's O.K. We have Zinc8, Graphene Manufacturing Group, and Magnis Energy...and several others. Long life, recyclable, affordable, and safe batteries are ramping up in the U.S.
Do you think the US can catch up and that flow batteries can make a difference? Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/undecided - Enter promo code UNDECIDED for 83% off and 3 extra months for FREE!
If you liked this video, check out: Exploring Solar Panel Efficiency Breakthroughs in 2022 th-cam.com/video/m8crjuL8FFs/w-d-xo.html
Hi Matt, I put several comments, I hope you are considering reviewing thermal solar cooling.
No, the US gov't is trying to protect its oil and gas companies. They have been ignoring alternate energy sources since the oil embargo of the 70s. Nothing will change.
America is a declining empire plain and simple!
All countries are together, the drama is only for the slaves to keep them separated and afraid easy to manipulate, whatch what they do not what they say, Rotschild communism and socialism is all there is nowdays
@@slcpunk2740 what a hair-brained take on the situation! So fitting that your PFP is that of a pop satire of the commoditisation of punk culture. Ha!
The licensing was there for China to agree to... But they don't play by the rule-of-law. They use the largest spying apparatus ever known to man , the "Thousand Talents Program" , to train their engineers in our prestigious colleges and conduct espionage which goes back to enrich the CCP, a brutal authoritarian State Run Capitalist regime. This is not a win for civilization
This was not a “give away”, “error”, “mistake” or “stupidity”. This was a case of politicians/lobbyists selling the tech for their own personal gain. I’m sure that’s also the reason behind Forever Energy’s difficulties in getting a license.
The video specifically says that it was because the public office that oversaw the licenses was underfunded and understaffed. I'm not saying that it wasn't also corruption, but a stronger public service would have helped prevent this better than anticorruption measures.
@@SocialDownclimber "a stronger public service" - vague nonsense. Please run for office; you sound like you would be a welcome candidate in political circles where they need someone to run interference with the public.
@@thom1218 SocialDownclimber was clear, as you are not ...irony.
@@JanDeeKat Thinking isn't your strong suit... we get it. Btw, your username begins with a typo: that should've been an "F".
@@thom1218
Just like the Patent office other offices in the government have very intelligent and educated staff. Understaffing the wrong office can have catastrophic outcomes
Glad that flow batteries are being covered. They have huge potential.
One gripe is that the first successful redox battery demo was done by an Aussie chemical engineer. She figured out the sulphuric acid method to do that demo in the 80’s. That’s the patent expiry that opened up the market in the early 2000’s.
It wasn’t all NASA and US gov research.
Maria Skyllas Kazacos
Gripe? Matt made no claim that it was "only" NASA and US gov research. He said their contribution improved efficiency of the electrolyte with the addition of HCL, and that it was this energy density contribution that made it actually viable in grid-scale deployments.
@@thom1218 But Matt did leave this out of the history of RFBs. For that reason I think the gripe is still valid.
They’ve got a VRFB at UNSW
It is a beautiful system that allows knolage to be locked away from civilization for two decades while you lack the skills/resources to develop it. I love humans. 🥰
Thanks for a great video! A video editing request for you Matt, when comparing two numbers, would you be able to put both numbers on screen at the same time instead of sequentially? Example at 13:36-13:42. I find it easier to mentally compare the numbers this way. In either case, thanks for reading my comment! Cheers!
Yes! I should have done that with this one. We'll do better. Appreciate the feedback.
@@UndecidedMF A grid/spreadsheet comparing all common (or previously discussed) technologies would be ideal. I keep seeing numbers and think "is that good?" because I don't have a way to compare it to other tech without pausing the video and googling it.
dont know why youtubers have forgotten how to do this. i find myself constantly rewinding to have both numbers fresh in my mind at once.
@@jonathanodude6660 pencil and paper can go a long way
totally agree!
Bushveld Minerals in South Africa are a major supplier of Vanadium to the West and they are currently in the process of completing their Vanadium Redox Flow Electrolyte Plant, to produce 200mwh per annum. Bushveld Minerals also own/control 50% of the VRFB provider Cellcube.
Bushveld Minerals is a listed company on the London Stock Exchange.
It's great to hear more news about redox flow batteries. During my first year of my chemistry bachelor 6 years, I had a class where we had to write a short report and make a presentation about a novel subject in a group. I chose the redox flow battery as a subject and got very excited about the capabilities. Pretty sad that it hasn't taken off as much as I hoped 6 years ago
Thanks for sharing. It does seem like we're on the cusp of it right now (finally).
@@UndecidedMF
That's pretty optimistic.
It’s taking off, in China, where our enemies likely bribed their way into becoming exclusive owners of this US taxpayer owned and developed technology.
@@LiterallyJesusChrist if bribery was going on it seems a lot more likely to be fossil fuel interests (the great deep-pocketed friend of both parties) wanting to keep renewables in a perpetual state of "unreadiness" in the US by sidelining tech that could reduce their dominance here
Even if not taken off, seems to be taking off.
A group of engineers with NRECA and I visited a redox flow battery manufacturer a decade or so ago, somewhere in the NE US mainland. We spent a half a day there, learning about the issues they were having in design and manufacturing. They were building flow batteries into modified shipping containers for a project in a remote Alaskan village. The thing I remember most about the batteries was the complexity of the monitoring and control of the system. There were wires and circuit boards everywhere. I thought about how many things could go wrong. Maybe it was all just monitoring and not really necessary for operation, but I don't think the batteries ever went in service due to breakdowns or failures. If anyone is familiar with this project, I'd be interested to hear what ever happened here.
15 million in US development over 6 years, vs. 300 million invested by China over 6 years (according to your numbers) it's very clear where each governments' priorities lie.
That is the real problem. They talk green, but don't invest in actual solutions.
Even with the facts stated by themselves, some people still have that cognitive dissonance stemmed from their victim mentality and xenophobia.
The US Government could simply buy Bushveld Minerals for $1b and it would have all the Vanadium it will ever need for Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries.
I can't see why China having this technology is a bad thing. They need to have grid scale energy storage too. The US government should definitely facilitate US manufacture of this technology though.
Right I'm not sure what the problem is here. It doesn't sound like that prevents the US from developing the tech. We _want_ China to adopt green tech. They're terrible carbon emitters.
I believe the point is mostly an economic one. Specifically, the current licensing of the technology is allowing China to develop this technology and make money off of research and development that the US government made. Think of it this way: if you put money into the stock market and someone else then got your stock and any profits from that stock you probably wouldn't be happy about it.
Additionally, I do not think we should trust China to do the right thing when it comes to environmental or human protection. I believe our standards as higher than China and corporations are held more responsible to their actions here so it is also a safety factor.
Per capita, they emit half of that of the US....and while being a factory of the world. Get lost, Yankee
@@En-Jon-eer Unfortunately that attitude caused America to be the very last to halt all flights of the 737 Max while all other countries followed China's lead in its correct assessment of safety. Having said that, America does have some laws to protect its domestic environment but it will be oblivious to the environment outside its borders. For instance, when China ended imports of millions of tons annually of contaminated "recyclables"/waste after years of warning it would do so, the US demanded China continue to take in its waste. Prior to this, China said it would reduce output of rare earths to reduce its environmental impact, the US which uses the very same reasoning to not produce rare earths coddled the EU and Japan to force China to meet their demands.
@@downtomars6268 I don't agree that the 737 Max thing had anything to do with China. That was more the typical US problem of businesses getting too close to regulators. If I recall correctly the FAA was basically just taking the word of Boeing that their planes were safe or that people didn't know all the facts. You see similar patterns when it comes to cigarettes, global warming or any other impact to a business's bottom line basically going like this: report comes out of risk to the public, businesses pushes back by exaggerating the uncertainty or doubt about the findings while raising fears of how it would effect the economy to do any regulation about the issue, issue becomes a political one and gets endlessly stuck in legislation.
As you might guess I don't think the US is perfect. I agree that the US is generally blind about environmental concerns outside of the US; though I would also argue that things that get screwed up, like the plastic thing, is due to a level of misinformation provided to the people by the corporations that benefit from that misinformation.
You should make a video comparing pros and cons for all the different electrochemical batteries including redox flow batteries, liquid metal batteries, sodium-ion batteries, and others.
Don't forget potato batteries.🤣
And the prices please
Had been keeping an eye on the Redflow company in Aus which produced some zinc-bromine units that you could install in residential homes, the only issue being the smell/gas toxicity apparently, needed to be installed in a very well ventilated space in case of off-gassing due to the bromine used in their electrolytes. Unfortunately I don't think they are pursuing their residential home battery lines (ZCell) anymore and are moving onto just their industrial versions of the ZBM3, which is unfortunate, as I really liked the idea of the safety of using a battery that isn't potentially going to burn down my home.
I've also been following Reflow for a long while. Zinc bromine is a great option and fantastic for remote off-grid applications. Unfortunately the cost of scaling to small systems doesn't stack up, hence why the Zcell hasn't really progressed. I looked at putting in their large systems into PNG for a remote telecommunications system as we can helicopter them in empty and just fill with the electrolyte.
The problem isn't that RFB shouldn't be given away, it's that RFB should have open source from the start. Public funds should mean public benifit.
Yeah, the focus on China seems fearmonger-y. For helping with climate change (and being decent people) these kinds of technologies should be widely available, including to China.
If the Chinese are willing and able to develop grid scale battery technology when the US economy fails to, then that's not a bad thing at all.
@@theamazingsolt
When anyone does this at the expense of someone else, that's called theft of intellectual property. That's *bad*.
@@acmefixer1 but they didn't "steal" it, they got the rights to it. The only scandal is that no one else has been able to get those rights. The mistakes were clearly on the part of the patent holders and the patent office.
I concur 100%. Fighting climate change is an all hands (countries) on deck issue.
Great video!
It’s frustrating that the US doesn’t find the $300 million to help alleviate supply chain limitations to future energy/power, yet the same US finds 10-100x to fight overseas wars.
It’s not just the US, every country should attempt to secure supply chains in order to protect internal and external peace.
It is international reliance, international trade, that makes peace the preferred state. It is also the state that leads to the largest supply of goods to go around, and thus the highest quality of life.
Self-sufficiency is for the bad actors, who want to abuse other nations without consequences. A strategy that usually leads to impoverishment, like in North Korea.
We could grow bananas, but they would cost $4 per banana. And only rich snobs would buy them.
We have already gone too far with this. Corn syrup cost far more to produce than cane sugar, but we slap a huge tariff on cane sugar, so we can all be forced to pay more for corn syrup. And there are plenty of other examples.
Our big problem is that our companies don't want to produce in high volume and compete internationally in high volume products. Too many business majors who want to find some angle to gouge. That and unions kill companies. NIMBYs, of course, are also a problem.
You never hear about unions striking in China.
The reason our mines produce about 1% as much as China, is unions. If there is any obvious value to the ore, the unions destroy the company. The only ore we lead the World in is Fuller's Earth, AKA kitty litter.
I Am not saying we should not have some economic robustness, but I think that is better achieved by the Fed storing materials, food and drugs rather than merely oil. We used to store other things. Not so much anymore.
Remember, we aren’t sending the money overseas, we’re enriching the US corporations who take the money and ship weapons/logistics overseas.
Much like congress could give leveraged $4-$5 trillion to wallstreet in the first plague legislation but only begrudgingly gave $1200-$2000 to average US citizen in the later bills.
This is the problem when Republicans strangle government and don't give departments enough resources to do their jobs. We deserve everything coming to us.
@@ChessMasterNate There are fires, explosions, mine disasters and goodness knows what else in places without unions.
@@rogerphelps9939 It was never the unions that made mines safe...unless you consider abandoned mines safe. It was the muckrakers that lead to regulations, inspections and safer mines in the US. And people in charge of mining actually studying mining technology.
And I am not saying we can trust companies to always do what is right. American coal miners are still dying by the thousands, and the mines hid this by laying off anyone showing symptoms of black lung. So when health inspectors showed up at the mines, everyone looked just fine. Increasing Union influence, and power would not help...workers don't like regulations, even when they protect the workers. They are supposed to wear masks, but they take them off because they are uncomfortable, and clog easily.
Rabbit Hole (1) Iron-Air:
Not sure if it's worth the research, but twenty years ago, an American company developed the iron-air battery and the US Military labeled it disruptive technology and outlawed it.
In other words, our military has been stopping progress and preventing technological development.
Rabbit Hole (2) Thorium Salt:
Current reactor design was selected (and enforced) for it's ability to make material for bombs.
We had a running Thorium Salt reactor for a year. Somewhere around 1967.
This design can burn most of the actinide sequence.
They run at ambient pressure, 750 degrees, so much safer on that front.
The waste is over three hundred times faster to become harmless.
If they do manage to overheat, the molten salt just dumps into a cooling chamber, so much safer.
And lastly, they can burn the waste from the current idiotic designs.
Do you have a specific article you can cite or has this largely been kept hush hush by censors?
@@b_uppy sadly enough this stuff is publicly accessible. Thorium reactors have been publicly known to be awesome for a long time. We mostly didn't go that route because we wanted lot's of weapon's grade materials. After we went in that direction, commercial & political inertia has kept em undeployed.
Fe-O2 batteries are also publicly accessible tech, they just haven't been very practical because of cycle limitations(pretty sure there's a semi-recent vid covering recent improvements in those). Until recently iron air batteries just weren't workable & it remains to be seen if they can be scaled economically.
Actually Al-air batteries are also promising (as Al is produced by electrolysis, you can dump the product Al2O3 in the electrolysis cell).
I think thorium salt obsession is slowing us down. A plug is a good idea, but why not just use plain water for cooling and use a hybrid uranium / thorium facility NOW? We don't have many meltdowns, and we desperately need the delay to stop.
@@Deciheximal I suppose going from one hundred thousand years of poison to three hundred may not be motivating.
How about a zero percent chance of a melt down?
How about using the third most abundant substance on Earth for fuel?
But in answer to your question: Why not use a hybrid system?
Complexity is a friend to disaster and an enemy of Engineers.
If I can build you a reactor with four thousand percent fewer parts, it will break less, be easier to manufacture, and will produce very cheap power, especially if cost is calculated over the entire supply chain.
It is also worth noting that Thorium is sitting around in giant piles all over the Earth, because it's produced as a side effect of mining rare earth minerals.
The reason we hear so much push back on Thorium is probably the same reason we turned off the US power plant: They don't produce weapons grade plutonium.
And in case you happen to care about flags, as many do, China is going to have cheap, safe, power via Thorium in pretty short order.
How do you think a military conflict will go when we are begging OPEC for oil, while China has unlimited energy from dirt?
Matt, you have to be put up for an Oscar. You looked genuinely surprised that the US government would 'let' the technology go overseas. Businesses and the government have been doing this for years in the name of profit and greed.
I think you mean stupidity of politicians
@@AC-im4hi Who do you think owns the politcians? The rich and corporate America!
@@AC-im4hi Oil Compaines are petrified of the expansion of electricity.
@@AC-im4hi which politician sold this tech? Or was it a company so they could profit off of the Chinese markets…
@@TheYaegerjeusmc it was a lack of willingness of US investors to get involved.
I enjoy staying up to date on new energy tech and I applaud you on doing so in an efficient way. Thank you! I hope future content can include how the individual home owner can have its own, stand alone independence. I can appreciate needing large scale applications but if anyone with the means wants to be independent of the grid, the more that do so means less large scale would be needed. I’m ready to see a package plug n play battery, inverter, charge control that hooks to your house with relative ease.
Thanks for the comments. When I see one of Matt's vids, my first thought is that I'll watch another vid on technology I don't understand and I'll never see in application.
Most politicians are not creators, builders, or beneficial thinkers. This, combined with an inherent lack of honesty and integrity in those same politicians has been one of the key factors in the decline of America. The sad part is that a large number of Americans continue to support those corrupt politicians. They are either willfully ignorant, or they are easily fooled by the cheerleading squad for corrupt politicians; you know the squad as the media. We need term limits and a media that is not controlled by politicians or billionaires.
An Australian company produces a type of (electrolyte) Flow Battery that uses Bromine, which is completely inert (safe) and can last nearly 100 years. What's more, its charge doesn't discharge over time, and its efficiency degradation is incredibly slow... meaning even if you haven't used the battery in years, it will still have the majority of its charge, so it's ideal for stationary energy storage solutions.
The (RFB) flow battery discussed in the video, seems to be a more dense version, and thus requires a smaller footprint
I assume you're talking about Redflow. I have a possible video on my backlog for that one too.
Is it feasible in terms of price?
@@UndecidedMF Correct sir.
Redflow is the battery manufacturer I was referring to, but didn't want to mention the brand, as every time I mention a specific brand, other commentators end up accusing me of working for whatever company I happen to mention :)
@@leonesperanza3672 Yes, you can check out their info online, under the name Redflow (batteries) in Australia.
the cost and longevity is usually the big issues to overcome.
I heard that one possible use of flow battery would be in EVs. Instead of recharging the battery at a charge station, the depleted electrolytes on the cars are swapped with the charged electrolytes. Then the depleted electrolytes are charged at the charge station getting ready for the next swap.
But how do vanadium flow batteries compare to iron flow batteries? Iron is cheaper($0.045/ lb for iron ore) & more plentiful than vanadium ($7.20/lb for V2O5)).
Aside from their existing deployment down in San Diego, ESS just signed a deal for a 2 GWh facility in Sacramento.
Aramco in KSA are about to bring online a 3GWH annual production VRFB facility using Vanadium from spent oil catalysts.
That's another cool flow cell technology. There's also zinc based chemistries out there too competing with vanadium. It's not just cost of materials, but also the performance characteristics that have to be considered (degradation, energy density, etc.). I'm still digging through a bunch of this stuff, but here's an interesting report about the flow cell tech that's out there: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775320311083#!
Bushveld Minerals ticker #BMN on the London Stock Exchange are about to bring online the largest vanadium electrolyte production facility in South Africa.
@@paulc7205 who owns that company?
You're talking right
I was thinking how this battery is more of a plumbing system than an electrical system. Curious then if you could put these holding tanks of the electrolyte solutions at some distance from the electrical components. Also considered that installation could be accomplished in tight quarters or otherwise underutilized oddly shaped locations by installing custom shaped tanks, perhaps even bladders confined by simple wood frame boxes. Also, the fact that it is a liquid filled tank means that you would presumably install the tank empty making it very easy to handle and put in difficult locations (like attic spaces) and then fill the tank with a hose and transfer pump from a convenient distance.
There are also Zince-Bromide based flow batteries, like the ones the Australian company Redflow currently produce.
Gelion?
Redflow started as a company in 2006. The Winter brothers (founders) had been tinkering with flow batteries for several years before that. I joined Redflow in 2010 and designed some of their specialty manufacturing equipment and assisted with electrode and membrane development. Redflow have been around much longer than Uni Energy and Mr Yang. Redflow and a sister company are also active in the USA.
@@Will_CH1 are they using quaternary ammonium compounds in organic solvent to prevent the burning from gassing off?
Redflow? Sounds like a woman's product
@@petevenuti7355 The electrolytes were highly acidic but did not use a solvent. However i am a MechE and a little useless with organic chemistry.
Matt said lithium batteries last for ten years. But the LFP batteries last far longer - they can have 3000 or more charge-discharge cycles, compared to NMC batteries with 1000 or so. I think the LFP batteries should last a full 30 years, possibly more.
Still, I think RFBs are the best solution for longer term storage and should be widely deployed to supply power at night when there's no sunshine. Plus the whole world needs a lot of pumped hydro for even longer term storage.
I looked into these to power my house a few years ago. unfortunately the up front cost was a issue 30kw $45k AU vs $30k for lithium, but the flow battery did include sma inverters. It took up 1sqare meter and weighed 1.5 tonne. They also told me if in the future I no longer wanted the battery they would buy back the electrolyte
Saudi Armaco are also building a Vanadium RFB production facility which is due to come online next year. It will produce 3GWH of VRFB's annually. They are extracting Vanadium from spent oil.
I don't know what Forever Energy has designed. But I can tell you that they certainly did not design the battery they showed you in that rendering. How do I know? Because I made that rendering when I worked for UET (yeah I know it's not a great rendering). Notice how it looks awfully similar to the small Vanadis batteries at the 6:48 mark? By the way that battery was patented by UET - US11276870B2.
Your rendering was certainly good enough for Forever Energy to put their logo over ours! Seriously, you were instrumental in creating the best grid battery on the planet!
is there an excellent source for more information on the work done? thanks
@@shirleypotter4668 Sure ... feel free to reach out
Honestly I think it is way more important to incentive and invest in new batteries than to care who will profit. In this case China was clearly more interested and better prepared to handle Vanadium and you cannot dismiss the benefits of having a country that is willing to invest into it when compared with a country that clearly slept on it for years. At the end of the "day" (or rather century), what matters is that we have the technology to go net zero, not who profits the most, because I can tell you right know where the biggest profit will go: The ecosystem, the planet.
Canadian perspective: make it easier to license, and give subsidy to US development that scales up with US content. But share the tech. North America is not the biggest contributor to global warming, stuff like this needs to be developed and used world wide.
Also, tie improvements to formula back to all license holders, with incentives (monetary) so that the entire licensed industry can be benefit.
Fellow Canadian also perplexed by the US centricity of this.
The "Big Battery" project near Hawker in SA, Australia, was based around the redox-flow battery technology, but that install is pretty small compared to the one in China.
This is a great video with many great graphics that artfully simplify a complex technology. As a seasoned energy storage pioneer, I believe climate change is a global problem requiring global collaboration to solve, so I’d like to clarify 3 facts:
1: The 400MWh Dalian battery is not the US technology - the US tech needs only half the footprint.
2: PNNL never gave the technology away. Rather, Rongke Power invested $72M into US collaboration to fund over 300 man-years of work by US engineers and scientists. Rongke also willingly shared access to crucial advanced components and production technologies to together deliver the breakthrough modular vanadium product.
3: The US tech electrolyte is no longer being produced in China, despite Rongke investing two decades and over $100M to refine vanadium electrolyte production and then apply it to the US tech. They are still the only ones who know how to make it, and it will take many years to develop the process in the US.
Net, Net: The result of this decade of passionate, award-winning global collaboration is a US-patented, commercially compelling battery that could be manufactured in the US.
Thanks for the insight. The NPR article and those that cite it as their primary source focus on an alleged wrongdoing, rather than what actually happened.
On September 20, 2022, the 250,000-kilowatt/1,000,000-kilowatt-hour all-vanadium flow battery energy storage + 1,000,000-kilowatt market-based grid-connected photovoltaic power generation project started construction in Qapqal Xibe Autonomous County, Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture.
If it was funded by US taxpayers money it should either be open sourced or the money should be paid back.
85% efficient vs 95% efficient? That sounds like a bit of an important distinction! It certainly is more efficient than compressed air or hydrogen production from water electrolysis but quite a bit less than Lithium. Now with the simplicity of the battery, perhaps the fact that making it in the first place would use so much less energy than lithium battery production that the gap would be inconsequential. Vanadium sounds rare though and hard to get, how is its production at scale vs the alternatives?
Broooooo seriously! Thank you for covering this story!! I couldn’t understand why no one seems to care how we paid to have technology sent somewhere else. Love you!
Given the climate emergency, all the green energy development should be open source.
It's definitively not the time for throat cutting competition and the witholding of possible solutions. E.g.: China switching to green energies will save way more lives and millions of dollars in the US and the whole world just by reducing the harm (like natural disasters, hurricanes, droughts, etc) that would happen otherwise.
Flow batteries (independent of chemistry) have an important difference from wet and dry cell batteries. They can be turned OFF, meaning there is no voltage difference between the Plus and Minus terminals, even when "fully charged". Just drain the reaction area of electrolyte(s) and they are completely OFF. You can short the terminals.
Also, if the charged electrolytes do not degrade on their own when confined to the storage tanks, there is no self-discharge.
Hi Matt, long time viewer, but my first comment.
I am not sure if you read these comments. Thought you might be interested in Redflow Batteries. It is an Australian company based in my hometown.
It is another flow battery, but the liquid is less problematic than using acids. It is a zinc-bromine flow battery. No idea what the LCOS is, but imagine you would be able to figure it out :)
I would love to see a story on this if you think it is worthwhile.
While the SNAFU about this license is frankly not surprising - in the end this may be a good thing; in that more grid storage is installed in China (and other places?) and we ALL benefit from the reduced carbon emission. This is like Mercedes and Volvo giving away their patents on passenger safety cell and 3-point seat belts - it saves lives. Profit is not important as avoiding worse climate change.
I have read today on pv magazine australia that "Dalian Rongke Power has connected a 100 MW redox flow battery storage system to the grid in Dalian, China. It will start operating in mid-October and will eventually be scaled up to 200 MW. The vanadium redox flow battery technology was developed by a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences."
I'm not mad at China. They are wise enough to invest in state-owned enterprise for the purpose of advancing their industry and technological progress. If anything this should result in a re-examination of our own ideological fetters that are causing the US to refuse to use government policy for necessary investment.
"If they can secure the license, they're definitely a company to keep your ion..." I always enjoy your puns, Matt, but this one deserves an award! Keep up the great work.
These batteries are awesome, they can be discharged down to zero and back to 100% without any problems.
In Australia we have a company called Redflow which makes them for stationary storage.
It is crazy that they are not being used more.
I'm a little surprised at the focus on the fact that China was able to make use of this technology while the US ignored it. I very much enjoyed the update on the technology -- and if focusing on the fact that a relatively small amount of research money is making green energy work better in China but not the US helps promote adoption of that technology in the US, I get it. However, I'd prefer a less "America First" tone. Don't get me wrong. You provide tremendous value. I'm just not used to you dragging politics so prominently into the technology discussion. Successful adoption of renewables is a global problem. I'd be curious to know why there was no push to embrace it in the US.
Well, I hate to say it but people voted for it to go to China.
That guy is on a pay role to badmouth China like the usual big TH-cam accounts. Of course he will critisise China even when they fund important projects in technologies. Who would have guessed that Americans investors only have profits in mind. He doesn't care about progress when China/the Chinese just have a tiny bit success. Sadly this video will further shape the image of Chinese IP stealer...
@@JasonBowman121 Oh that’s interesting! I wonder why the Americans didn’t want it but gave it to China instead.
Really it bothers you to discuss poiltics and technology at the same time? China violent suppressive regime is using almost every tool there is to torture and kill more than 12000000 innocent people and it dosen't bother you at all!
"I'm a little surprised at the focus on the fact that China was able to make use of this technology while the US ignored it." Our obsession with short term gains has created a system that rejects long term investment. It's worse given a lot of long term investment comes in the form of tax funded programs and projects. Those who worship short term gains abhor publicly funded projects as it represents, for them, a kind of competition that threatens the monopoly control they covet. The video eludes to this, and answers your question of why there was no push to embrace it: because it wasn't profitable fast enough.
As we ramp Lithium batteries, especially iron phosphate, it becomes harder, and harder for competing technologies - unless they can prove that they have an outstanding advantage. Anything "mechanical" can suffer degradation over 10-20-30 years - and it's not always easy to predict, until they have that long in the field...corrosive, toxic or high temperature materials likewise. Batteries can be switched vary rapidly (milliseconds), so can provide more services to the grid. Having said that, we need to trial different systems, because unless we do, we might miss an even better solution ! (And the production advantages of Tesla's 4680 have just raised the bar even higher...)
This needs to be watched by every member of congress. However, I hope revealing this doesn't get you demonetized. Great job!
Zinc Bromine is another flow alternative - buy the chemicals from an ag-store. Redflow in Australia have made house scale modular flow batteries. Though this technology does have issues with energy draw needing parallel units and zinc dendrite issues potentially rupturing the cell (needs full discharge regularly) but can be stored at 0% DOD or 100% DOD near indefinitely and volume of chemicals is the only limiting factor in its total storage capacity (just its not high current producing or sinking compared to Lithium).
I thought Vanadium batteries were invented in Australia
That 40kWh fridge-sized option sounds pretty amazing as a home backup so I hope they can sortb out the Lisencing and get that to market.
Welcome to the club! Here in Australia we’ve been giving away breakthrough inventions for decades! Wifi, solar panels and black box recorders were invented here in Australia and given away to the rest of the world.
actually, VRFB is also from an Australian chemical engineer during her works at NASA and UNSW
I live in Iowa and will build a new passive house of around 4,000 - 5,000 sq ft. The weather can be extreme with temps of 103 in the summer and -30 in the winter. Would this be a good solution if I had and extra separate 1,500 sq ft garage/storage building? Looks like it might be a better solution than Tesla or the like batteries that need replaced every 10 years. Would be ideal to use battery energy during the high cost times and recharge them the rest of the time as needed.
What I am hearing is another technology that was stuck behind a patent for OVER 30 years and could have had amazing results now if it wasnt patented
Was looking for this comment.
Everyone: Stop believing the fairy tale of an inventor making a world changing invention in his garden shed defending himself using a patent.
Patents are mostly used by big corporations to keep the small new players out of the market. Or, as in this case, to hand successful inventions made with public money to some friend.
(Also stop putting scientific papers behind a paywall.)
Where we're at a disadvantage is that Vanadium is mined in South Africa, China, & Russia, so we're dependent on them for a key raw material.
Or the US Government could just buy a Vanadium producer like Bushveld Minerals. The Chinese Government have been buying energy miners for years.
I get thr immediate outrage but in terms of global impact, giving China this technology was the right thing to do. Not to get too political but we could easily lead green manufacturing if the voters actually demanded it and voted for politicians that support green tech. Clearly thr private sector can't compete with China, but the public sector can... easily.
WuMao..
The short turn around financial model that companies are doing to please their stockholders is a major issue. Honeywell forced its engineers to stop working frequently over the past few years because the end of a quarter was coming, and they wanted to make it look like the goals of minimal hours charged to projects were met. Honeywell paid their engineers to sit around and do nothing for a few weeks.... and then came the layoffs down the road. Its not about good business, innovation, and production. Its about playing some game in the stock markets.
Then let Honeywell go broke and an other take its place. And let all the 'investors' who fell for this trick and bid up the stock go broke as well. That's how a market should work, punish the bad players.
(But nooo, we think we can safe the economy by keeping those companies afloat with bail out money)
I would be interested in a similar video on Lithium Iron Phosphate chemistry batteries as they are becoming a more prevalent solution.
In a future where hydrocarbons are no longer used for storing energy, these types of systems are essential for energy independence.
I didn’t hear anything about max discharge RATES… I’m curious if this could be a competitive energy storage for tanks/other military weapons that guzzle fuel.
I doubt they could be used in anything mobile due to weight.
Matt, as always very informative. Thanks for all the work behind bring forth the solid content. Are these batteries available in the US (I know they are not produced here, yet) and are they a good solution in a Home based system or is cost, maintenance, etc. put them out of reach.
StorEn is a US based company that had produced VFBs and is currently looking for a location to start large scale production.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1720258/000110465922064761/tm2216776d1_1k.htm
As a Californian, the first thing that came to mind when I heard this is a LIQUID battery is
EARTHQUAKES.
How would these hold up in an earthquake?
Thanks too everyone over at UNDECIDED for yet ANOTHER AMAZING video
i legit have to watch ur videos 3-5 times each just to absorb HALF of what is being presented ....
you guys CRUSH ... always have (Matt Solo) and always will (Matt & Team)
and thank you to the new producers and WELCOME!
That 40kWh battery is interesting especially for a household use. I hope this technology gets commercialize to the masses. I didn't even know we already have this advancement in battery technology. This is just impressive.
Great to see more options than just Lion Batteries. Sad that politicians keep screwing our transition to renewables. 😢 Have you looked at an Australian Company Redflow who do Redox Batteries. I believe they are involved in Grid scale pilot in US. Of course the Australian government has done nothing to help this company. Look forward to all your videos. Thanks 👏👏
Hi Matt, thanks for a great video! I'm wondering whether this tech might be a way to fuel up one's EV (how large would be the volume of the electrolytes required), how it would compare with charging or perhaps fueling up H2 for a fuel cell based EV. I also remember one of your other videos about storing H2 on a metallic surface, which I think is also a remarkable idea. Thank you!
Yes, these would be great as a buffer at EV charging stations. When a station is full of EVs, all fast-charging at once, the vanadium batteries could take some of the strain off the grid. Then when there are few cars, they could recharge.
VRFBs are definitely a good solution for charging EVs, also good to store excess energy to use for hydrogen production when renewable generation isn't available
...just revisited the topic with the RedFlow design, the energy density of their electrolyte is around 0.1kwh/kg. When compared to diesel, with some 0.3kwh/kg (accounting for 30% engine efficiency), one would have to tank 3x the amount of electrolyte to get the diesel mileage, very roughly speaking. So we probably won't be pouring electrolyte into our car tanks just now but the gap isn't actually that bad, what do you think? Thanks!
StorEn Technologies is a company in the United States based out of New York that specializes in exactly this. They are small company but growing, but still an American Based company. They do have contracts with other countries like their biggest contract in Australia, but it has yet to have success with the same sort of customer size here in the states. Let’s hope that changes.
Simply superb! Concise, clear and comprehensive, like all your content. Thank you, Matt!
Yes, but I wish he would speak a little slower - my 71 year old ears can't keep up LOL
Gary Yang was born near Dalian peninsula & coincidentally approaches a company from the same area once he saw the critical technology made in USA.
Dude, you're killing it! You Content is getting better and better. You got me excited about the future that I'm already excited about! Never stop what you're doing!
Appreciate that!
One draw back for Redox flow battery is its real energy density is very low, 40Wh/kg to 60Wh/kg compared to lithium ion's 250Wh/kg. Unless the energy density improves, it's not cost effective and the storage area required is to big.
The US fell waaay behind in the solar and storage sectors, IMO. We'll be lucky to catch up, but China has that singular will to get things done, so it could be fuitle, but I think we should still be trying to make stuff here as far as our energy needs go..
Single mind yes, but they simply don't have the imagination that America has.
@@TheHalcyonAnon America is busy researching ''Clean Coal'' - D.J.Trump 😂😂😂😂
Would you consider an ongoing KWH top 20 chart? bringing all the different technologies together?
I was told science has no country long time ago, humanity wins at the end. what changed?
It was just all a lie.
The developed world was always gatekeeping other countries from gaining access to technologies.
This kept them poor, which was likely very intentional to keep exploiting them.
Since the beginning colonialism those developed countries needed poor countries to exploit, this hasn't changed.
Give this tech to every nation
We should share technology more often. Especially if it aids us in not destroying our planet.
Bonus points if doesn't happen through bureaucratic mismanagement.
Last I heard, ion exchange membrane lifespan was still a problem and some research teams are working on laminar flow cells, hoping to eliminate the membrane altogether.
Don't forget 10% for the Big Guy.
So, why are lead acid not used? Lead can be mined readily in America and they've been around for ages so we're used to working with, and recycling them
I’m not surprised that the U.S. shot itself in the foot but it’s disappointing that we’re not taking advantage of this technology ourselves.
Am I wrong in my assumption that VRFBs would likely be more applicable to commercial or grid level storage first than residential uses mainly because of the current costs of these batteries?
In Germany people are charging their RFB batteries at might when utilities are much cheaper due to less demand for power. Then you can run the house off the RFB during the daytime peak power rates to save one third of the cost.
Vanadium redox flow batteries, to my understanding were originally invented as a storage solution in Australia. Could not find any commercial investors here. I think University of NSW. Australia, educated country, inventive. Also invented the dry photocopy process, gave it away to Xerox for lack of investors to commercialise. We are a smart country right up to the last step.
... this isn't a competition, China using this tech benefits the world. The only issue is any artificial exclusivity
Exclusivity can create motivation as ot allows profit.
I don't disagree. It's good to have beneficial tech out there, but the red tape holding back some companies for even starting is the big issue.
It disincentivizes R&D to have someone steal your ability to recuperate your money spent on research. It also hampers future research by skilled companies...
@@UndecidedMF the sense I got from the video was that you were more upset with the 300 million in research being "given away". We didn't lose the research. We still have it. It's our own ridiculous red tape preventing us from using it. We should be upset at our own regulations. China is barely even involved in that.
Just to recap there is a common positive and common negative electrolyte so as a flow battery u have to limit the power lost through the conductivity in the electrolyte between cells. The higher the voltage the more loss as the conductivity stays the same from charged to discharged. I suggested a method to do this based on the film projector Maltese cross mechanism though it moves is can be disconnected electrically speaking. The big advantage of the system is a few low voltage cells at high amps can be in series with the high voltage stack .u can tap multi voltage points for all sorts of purpose .
Why would that be bad? Sounds all good. patent is nonsense, we all live on this planet and need to create a sustainable world.
How else can we blame China emissions.
China may build them but they'll continue to use fossil fuels. They have tons of coal plants. If the world was serious, they'd insist ALL countries give up fossil fuels, not just America. Climate change is more about destroying western culture than it is about carbon.
@@N0Xa880iUL hahaha that's exactly how it works! US press: "China heavily investing in renewable energy and carbon negative future, but at what cost?"
WuMao concept were just supposed to accept??? No thank you.
Patent is why people invent things. It creates incentive to find new solutions. Otherwise, why bother putting in money and effort when other companies can just wait for some startup to take off and steal their invention?
Alsways been a fan of RFB and Compressed Air Energy Storage. Worked with Li-Ion batteries in the auto industry and found out much about their weaknesses.
Hi Matt. I'm a poltiical scientist and I think one of the most ominous developments in recent years has been the US' almost desperate attempt to start a new Cold War with China. The world needs cooperation now more than ever. These kind of technologies should be spread far and wide, not hoarded by any country. It does not really matter who makes these batteries and improves green tech so long as it is widely available. I assume that China's bigger market, lower costs and economies of scale mean it will likely dominate this particular technology at the international level. That is fine with me if that means that these batteries are more affordable to people all over the world. The same goes with any other green tech. As an aside, the US has been putting up obstacles to dealing with climate change for decades. By contrast, China has been trying to develop this tech for a long time. This is not a "winner/loser" story.
Rongke power was working on Vanadium flow batteries for at least 4 years before UniEnergy Technology was even founded.
Hello Mr. Farrell, posters and readers on redox flow batteries (RFB). Are there reviews, hopefully in journal articles, of at least most of the RFB technology? I am looking for a comprehensive coverage of the Tech, economics of rolling out the tech from building pilot plants to use, businesses of managing, and international and domestic power, politic and influence affairs on the RFB. The comprehensiveness and precision of the coverage are more important than the depth of the details.
For example, is it possible to exploit different redox state of one chemical elements or chemicals to build RFB using resources in-situ at a factory?
It's not just this type of technology, China was given practically our entire copyright building on all things US made.
By design by key politicians in power.
Capitalism working as intended
@@sleepyjoe4529 Not like this. We come a long way from the extreme cases during the US's industrial revolution.
@Nicholas Time Oh, no a free market is good, just a better control over copyrights should be a thing.
If a company gives you 83% discount they are definitely overcharging from the start or going belly up..... That is my opinion and thoughts.
This is crazy... we normal people will never understand the reasons behind these decisions, but corruption is probably one of them. O_o
Thank you for your videos Matt. :-)
America is busy researching ''Clean Coal'' - D.J.Trump 😂😂😂😂
The thought you put into this presentation was excellent. How does this technology compare to Donald Sadoway’s redox technology. Also don’t you also need something like flywheel peaking technology to handle power spikes?
Hints of sinophobia in this one - quite distasteful.
I watched with interest. Lots to agree on here, as a consumer I'd like to know when to switch to a hybrid/off grid solution. I note the 12hour use case, ideal for EV charging by night? The UK is focused on topping up the grid, when in fact reducing demand with localised storage has to be be more efficient?
Lots I do not profess to understand, but excited to see an alternative to LI. One that could be deployed now.
There is a reason for everything. If this tech was kept in the US and was not exported to China, it would probably have been to expensive to develop it fast enough so that it can become a real world marked contender, which is now desperately needed, in the nick of time!
No mention of lithium iron phosphate (LFP)?
Lithium Ion not a good choice for batteries for the home. LFP has 5x more power cycles than L-ion batteries.
We need a Flow to LFP battery comparison for a fair fight.
I didn't get to that directly, but did mention lithium titanate batteries which have an incredible lifespan. Good call out.
When did this channel become political and anti China? I subscribed to learn about new technology that could save the planet and advance human civilization. After all we share the same planet...
just unsubscribe: Matt is pure vapourware.
Yeah, channel is getting more clickbaity by the upload. Moving on!
He's just pandering to his insecure western audience...
I feel like salt batteries still seem like the batter method - no li even if their weight is higher - it doesnt matter when you consider you can just build higher vs wider. Flow batteries seem ok, but you still have a lot of waste just hitting in either pools or machines... any of that leaks it could be a problem. For example, I wouldnt want to see one of these close to the sea along a beach if weather was strong enough to ever cause damage.
I'm glad China has developed this technology. The patent system itself is holding ideas up that could contribute to the solutions we need. China seems pragmatic.
Another example is Thorium Molten Salt Reactor Nuclear Energy System(TMSR). There are two reasons to give it to Chinese. One is the patents are expired; the second is that energy issue is a world issue. Once Chinese make it to a practical level, we can benefit from that too.
Interesting and informative presentation Mr Matt Farrell!
The Vanadium Redox Flow battery was invented by Maria Skyllas Kazacos in Australia and developments around the world are advancing the technology all the time. I am sure the Chinese would be flattered (as the Chinese don't respect patents & they actively see it as a compliment if someone copies them) if the US company produces their own vanadium electrolyte in whatever chemical structure Forever Energy want to use. Of course, they could easily contact US Vanadium and use their electrolytes. The requirement for domestic energy storage which is ideal for hot climates and zero fire risk is a huge opportunity. I am surprised even Elon Musk has not got his head around VRFB technology yet.
VRFB which is the official name by the way as agreed by Vanitec the association set up by the Vanadium Industry is monitoring the growth of the industry closely. many of the key Vanadium miners and processors as well as the VRFB manufacturers are sharing technology to speed up the rollout of VRFB across the world. Primary vanadium is mined by Glencore in SA, Bushveld Minerals in SA and Largo in Brazil. With many projects planned in Australia as well. The US has few opportunities for primary vanadium and imports most of its vanadium from SA and Brazil.
Vanadium is primarily used to strengthen steel as 1 kg per 1 tonne doubles the strength of steel and prevents it from corroding.
The long-term duration and lifetime of VRFB installations as well as the fact the vanadium can be reused at the VRFB's end of life add to the VRFB's advantage as part of the circular economy!
There are two companies in the US that are developing the use of a modified Vanadium Pentoxide for use in both the anode and cathode of Lithium Ion Battery cells, which is another exciting development for Vanadium in battery cells. If work continues with this technology it could bring portable device cells super fast charging times of less than 8 minutes and a life of 20 years with very slow degradation compared to current lithium-ion tech. Definitely a space to watch.
Vanadium is one of those super minerals and is a great investment opportunity for the next generation. Look at Largo LGO NASDAQ, Bushveld BMN.L, Australian Vanadium AVL.ASX and Technology Metals TMT.ASX all growing rapidly but sitting under the radar.
Mass Energy production should not be in private hands or private corporations. It should never be on any stock market. That is all.
3:18 “as several patents expired”…
So much for the “patents promote innovation” argument
It's O.K. We have Zinc8, Graphene Manufacturing Group, and Magnis Energy...and several others. Long life, recyclable, affordable, and safe batteries are ramping up in the U.S.