A channel dedicated to making videos about the sustainable futures of the automotive and energy industries, probably with a bit of off topic stuff about racing;)
De Amsterdammers willen dat niet. De burgemeester en de linkse politici.Ze willen er een 15 minuten stad van make waar niemand een auto mag hebben,behalve de rijken.Gewoe mensen mogen geen eigendom hebben.Ze moeten alles van Multinationals kopen.De MKB gaat kapot De mensen onder controle
This plan has a high NEOM value: that city in one line at Saudi Arabia from 170 kilometers in barren land. You can’t change the shortage of housing. This plan will double the price- nobody can pay it. With a high value of bullshit jobs.
For North America, transitioning to a circular economy would mean having a modern Napoleon in power to dismantle the powers that be shackling the continent to the linear model.
Thumbnail is a little missleading. I thought this was going to be a video about how Amsterdam was created as a circular city. You know, considering the map of old Amsterdam.
What’s those words: hopes to be circulair in 2050, haha These are empty words, hope And it lies far into the future As they still ruining plans for a more localized food system @lutkermeerpolder #voedselparkamsterdam
This is certainly a great step forward. I wonder how much hinges on having a 'green' mayor, and the threat of dominant rightwing politics that is in full denial regarding the environment?
Amsterdam's plan is certainly a step on the right direction. Years earlier the city became recognised as a creative hub of active community initiatives, such as the Repair Cafes. Bottom-up initiaves are flourishing and ahead of the game. However they cannot do the circular transition alone, when businesses and public institutions have a large share of responsibility to contribute, with top-down initiatives. Overall on this side, there is too much talk, not enough walk. For instance, I was visiting friends in Amsterdam in April this year and stayed in their house. I was shocked to learn that the city no longer requests that organic waste is sorted separately from PLASTIC and drink cartons! In 2024, about 4 years since the city implemented the Doughnut Model, the city asks residents to mix organic waste, plastic and drink cartons as residual waste, meaning this is incinerated, right? I live in Gelderland and here organic waste is separated from PMD (Plastic, Metal, Drink Cartons) recyclables. Even though the recycling rates are still low, they are certainly higher than Amsterdam's.
I don't know how it's handled in Amsterdam, but I know that in Leiden they also removed the separation for plastic, because of new machinery at the waste processing plants. I suspect that Amsterdam has something similar. Apparently, these garbage separation machines can now filter out the plastic, and it's much more convenient in maintenance and transport if you collect everything first and separate it after...
@@jeffafa3096 , even if the plastic is separated from the organic waste after collection, at this point is quite contaminated. The lower quality means it cannot be recycled into food packaging or even other types of packaging. It is thus downgraded, and very likely a great part of it end up encinerated for energy recovery. If Amsterdam has a plan to become a circular city, it needs to prioritise higher quality recycling like bottle-to-bottle recycling.
great video, much is applicable to other cities in the Netherlands as well, not only to the tourist capital ;) how come your Dutch pronounciation is spot on? and to the point, much of these plans are for rich inhabitants only and create or promote unequality. Sustainability is not affordable for everyone. that is one of the biggest challenges of the programs that cities or other lawmakers are having
Ultra-cheap consumer goods are often built on systems of mass theft and exploitation - both of other poor(er) people and the environment. As companies further optimize these systems, they figure out to how deliver as little of that stolen value to the end consumer as possible and extract more profit. Of course it feels good to buy a new TV for 100 euro or a new tshirt for 2 euro, but that product is almost certainly built with stolen labor (workers paid almost nothing), stolen raw inputs (environmentally destructive, just taken from the producing region), and stolen lifecycle cost (it is designed to break in 2 years and then becomes unprocessable trash that everyone else pays for). The extra costs of ethecially sourced goods don't just magically appear, it's how everyone/everything involved are fairly compensated. By definition a (true) circular economy can't be/isn't just for "rich" people. Buying a cheap pair of shoes produced 10000km away harms (higher quality) local jobs and wealth - the cost of those shoes essentially exits the local economy immediately, and never comes back. Those shoes (usually) don't support a small business. They will never be repaired by a cobbler. They'll wear out in a couple years, then get thrown in the trash. They'll be made from a conconction of dressed up oil-sludge, so there will be nothing to recycle. So yes the person buying the cheap shoes feels immediate benefit, but everyone around them suffers in the long run. It's the same for most "cheap" products - it's a temporary illusion of advancement.
I imagine the incredible tidal energy at San Francisco’s Golden Gate, but also imagine the incredible environmental catastrophe. Did Singapore build dams across their ocean outlets to eventually convert what was salt water into fresh water from their huge amount of rain that falls on land? If San Francisco Bay was fresh, they wouldn’t have the drought problem. Huge channels with gates would have to be built for ships and sailboats to pass in and out of the narrow Golden Gate.
Very interesting 👍 Dont know if I missed it, could you build this design on a different site for cheaper from scratch? I understand the retrofit thing, but,,,,? I hear lots of talk of about how old office buildings are too expensive to convert to apartments, but here in Ontario Canada, and many places in the world are seeing a housing crisis. Cheers
Thanks! According to a CNN article repurposing the tower saved $102 million over building from scratch. I guess a large part of the challenge lay in designing and engineering the new parts of the structure to be fit to the existing core.
I'm always passionate about this technology, however, in my mind a question is always asked. if the flywheel reached its full rpm then thats it, it might take a few minutes do that? after that how do you store the energy?
No it is a steaming pile of shit. It has been used in a large scale in the past few years and its a joke it works but its a militance hog and the time to pull the vacuum to service it takes all day. Just stick to LiFePO4
Flywheel's are good at storing mechanical motion. They work well in engines, ensuring there is enough force for compression. This is their best scenario.
Even with how dangerous lithium ion batteries are, flywheel storage (with the exception of maybe very large, slow-spinning flywheels) is much more dangerous. Our physics textbook in high school mentioned a physics experiment where some scientists were spinning a trashcan-sized chunk of steel to high rpms, and eventually the steel itself failed, the mass ripped apart, and the chunks almost vanished. They later found that one of them burrowed through the entire building and finally exited through a side door, ripping the door off the hinges and ejecting it into the adjacent parking lot. Another chunk hit the foundation, making the entire multistory building shift a centimeter off of its foundation. Heavy, spinning stuff is no joke. If the bearings wear out, or the material that's spinning ever experiences brittle failure due to hard-to-detect internal stresses or manufacturing defects, whatever building it's housed in is toast. With lithium batteries at least you can have fire suppression systems, house the system outside where it can burn off freely, etc. With flywheel storage, the failure is instant and violent, like the mythbusters cannonball incident. The pieces will bounce off of hills, rip through cars as if they're made of paper, etc.
I have noticed that Amber Kinetics install their systems in the ground. Worst that can happen then is that you only hear a loud "whump" and the earth shaking a little.
I'd like to think this as kind of like nuclear energy. It could be extremely dangerous if the safety is ignored, but it is still highly recommended for energy transition, especially because it can be highly efficient and have a long lifetime.
5:50 For that one time purchase. It depends on how often you would swap the battery but there is that to take into account, also round trip efficiency conversion in storage time spans below the self discharge issue (so sub 2 days or so, like overnight HVAC etc). If I remember correctly FES is more efficient than batteries in this regard? Also not measurable in USD per se, but at least for me, the recyclability is a MAJOR selling point.
Nice video and script. For small correction. We don't have to transform to "renewable". We need to transform to low or no carbon world. Saying that we have to transform to renewables discards achievements of nuclear power(already successfully decarbonised some countries), geothermal, geological hydrogen etc. We also can actually get rid of the CO2 from atmosphere- enhanced weathering with silicate minerals could do it and give us more time for energy transition.
Eek. Yeah, cost has to come way down. A quick google turns up a cost of $8k to $16k for a typical home solar battery bank, before rebates, so the cost would need halved, and both of them would still be expensive. However, I believe that once this unit gets manufactured in greater volume, then economies of scale would most likely drop that price radically. I think the future of this technology is in other countries, where they don't have lithium deposits and want something else bad enough to pay for it.
4:05 uh, what? A flywheel is a dumb piece of weight, it needs to be heavy and cheap. Why on earth would you make one out of something that's lightweight AND expensive?
I rebuilt my live-aboard sailboat with a NiFe battery bank, works just fine for 130 years or so. Boat living is the future, my yearly cost of living is down to $3500 including everything. I've been playing with the thought of flywheel on a sailboat, but more for the gyroscopic effect and as shifting ballast, both for keeping the boat upright to accept more sail than normal. And thus getting more speed.
That low cycling number, I don't see any benefit. It would be perfect for grid stabilization. Charging and discharging the storage several hundred times a day
Please, no music over voice. It is unnecessary, annoying and distracting. I haven't subscribed because of this, which is a pity because this video content is interesting and unusual.
Flywheel storage is absurd. It takes energy just to keep them spinning, and as a store for energy, why? I can see for short duration, high energy or short duration burst energy production but beyond that, it is absurd. It is basic physics; you either need a super heavy mass, or have that thing spinning at an absurd speed, or both And how is changing an EV faster than just going off the grid or a generator? You have to wait to spin the flywheel up, then have to wait to discharge it; the time it takes to spin it up can be spent charging the EV Being able to be used in cold environments is a benefit Also, a spinning wheel is 10 times the cost of lithium batterie? Hilarious.
So you want to go net zero, you mine to build solar panels and wind turbines with 15 year life spans, batteries with 10 year life cycles and then now you want to build flywheels when all of these are in a conventional power generator with full economies of scale. How any of this is green really befuddles the mind.
@@Hawk7886 Yeah sure, past 15 years the cells in the solar panels would have degraded so far until it does not make sense to maintain it and to replace with newer technology with far superior efficiency. Same as batteries. Wind turbines are notoriously worse.
@@mynameisusedz nope, batteries around 15 years see a drop in capacity but otherwise work fine. Cells can be replaced and the battery load balanced as needed. Wind turbines have a design lifespan of 30 years but require maintenance and upgrades as they are massive mechanical devices. Around 10 years the average turbine sees a partial repowering where various different parts are upgraded to the current standard, such as blades, gearboxes, bearings, etc. The foundation and tower can stay in place practically indefinitely as long as it isn't damaged. Full repowering is uncommon and usually done to bring a very old installation up to the current standard. There are plenty of solar installations that are older than 25 years. The panels aren't as efficient as current designs, but they work fine. Most of the time they're replaced due to the efficiency gain paying for itself eventually, not due to panel failure, which is most commonly attributed to damage from storms or other outside influences.
I'm wondering how safe these are. How would these hold up in say, an earthquake? Wouldn't want a fast-spinning 500kg+ steel beyblade to come loose and wreck havoc in my home lol
They're suspended by magnetic bearings in a housing containing no atmosphere. They'd fare better in an earthquake than you would. Step one of the design would be containing the rotor in a catastrophic event.
