This Battery Could Drive A Car 1500 Miles - But There's A Catch | Answers With Joe 

See the thing is though, building the "new" infrastructure for these wouldn't be too terribly difficult i don't think. You wouldn't really need to build anything new, just modify existing architecture to accommodate this. There's an Indian company (I believe they're just called the Indian oil Co.) that basically wants to just retrofit their gas stations for this. Swapping the anode can be designed to be a very user friendly process.

They sound terrible from the perspective of the mechanism of action of these batteries being to hydrolyse aluminium. Reduction of alumina is one of the most energy intensive processes in metal refining. There is a reason that aluminium is called congealed electricity. Reducing alumina to aluminium metal is 40% efficient, add in dehydrating the aluminium hydroxide that this battery produces, cleaning the cathode (pure Al cathodes degrade very quickly, 80% energy loss after a month or two), distribution (both ways) and remanufacture of the likely complex electrodes and I can't imagine this would be above 15% of the energy put into make, transport, remanufacture this battery as useable energy out. Much better to use rail for heavy goods transport, can run off grid electricity so it's the best you can get really. This seems like a dumb idea that venture capitalists who understand nothing have thrown money at. It won't pay off. Unless you can vastly improve the energy usage of aluminium refining this is a complete non-starter. It's always going to be worse than just using the electricity to power vehicles directly, so rail, trams, trolley buses etc are far better options. Hell you can get basically free transport if you are mining up a hill with gravity trains, but I guess 19th century tech is just so passe. I do you wonder why this 60+ year old technology hasn't become a hit so far? The limiting factor is the expense of producing Al metal, which no huge process improvements have occurred in decades.

@@seb3090 @Seb I mean I definitely agree that rail is the way to go for cargo, but energy storage will forever be the weak link of EVs, and EVs are one of the best arguments for nuclear power. It's not energy efficient to refine alumina, but again that's where nuclear power comes into play. I'd rather design something that was user friendly but inefficient, so long as its carbon free. As far as venture capitalists who don't understand anything goes, the cathode in this reaction is hydroxyl and yes, the electrolytes get consumed. I think what you mean to say is that the anode will react with the electrolyte when not in use, so their shelf life is low when not in use, but this is a problem that can be designed around and the shelf life of gas is only a few months anyways. The fact remains that conventional batteries are basically at their fundamental limit, and that limit isn't even particularly good. Low energy density, high charging times, they're just awful for cars. Solid states are exciting, but haven't matured yet, and there don't seem to be any breakthroughs in super capacitors on the horizon. Fly wheel driven cars would be interesting, but that has its own list of problems. What else do you propose we do? (Oh and as far as it being old technology, yeah, because gasoline was easier. That's the problem we're trying to solve)

@@seb3090 if the Al production was running off excess renewable power, which in some locations is substantial, it might well be a solid green alternative.

@@spencer1980 I'm not a believer that we can produce our way out of the crisis. Mining is environmental destruction, with aluminium you've got the toxic red mud that is the waste product (and vast quantities of electricity), iron needs coke to reduce, solar cells need fossil fuels to be produced, rare earth minerals refining is the dirtiest refining on the planet (hello black lake of death) so that's wind turbines and electric motors. All of this is just more environmental destruction, more pollution and more toxic waste. We cannot help the environment if we destroy it. And mining is environmental destruction. The best hope we have is moving away from individualised transport and solutions. Mass transit, trains, trams and trolleybuses can all be powered from grid electric and it's much more efficient to move 100 tonnes carrying 1000 people than it is to move 2 tonnes carrying 1-5 (mostly 1-2) people. Else walking and cycling are good options. The continual need for economic growth at the expense of the environment will doom us all, we live unsustainably and trying to find solutions that don't involve reducing production and consumption are bound to fail. My advice is to not have children, because true solutions are not high technology but going back to nature and rebuilding the natural world. Mining is not that and never will be. We cannot build with technology that which technology destroyed. The book Bright Green Lies goes into all the ways that 'green' technology isn't going to save us.

Hasn't someone has already thought of this, albeit with rechargeables and being sold as something for computers? It's called a 'UPS'. :)

@@danieljones9937 Correct me if I'm wrong I haven't owned a UPS in about ten years so not sure how much they advanced, but when I owned one for my computer it provided power long enough for you to save the work you were working on, and then shut down your computer. It didn't actually provide power to keep using your computer till the power company gets you reconnected a couple days later.

The battery slowly loses its charge over time so it wouldn’t work to keep it around for a year waiting for the power to go out.

@@lunaticbz3594 Some modern UPSs can give you an hour or so, maybe more if you're running a low-power system. That's still not a lot of time, but it is more than enough to ensure data is safe.

Places that currently use diesel generators would buy this instead

That's the real Mr. Asterisk

(genuine question) What is the carbon footprint of the production and then discarding of Lithium batteries compared to Aluminum batteries, or even petrol engine?

Are you suggesting the CO2 is made in the electrolysis or in the production of the electricity for the electrolysis? You could just use nuclear power for that, and I'm not worried about CO2 anyways.

@@joefox9875 I thought it was the cursor from Automan

We can modify the design so that it can be recycled using newly made material

it isn't that efficient. Power plants usually have 40-60% efficiency, the you have two or 3 options: dissolve al2o3 in molten cryollite at 1000 degrees c, chlorinate al2o3 to alcl3 and molten salt reduce that, or just reduce the al2o3 with magnesium, dissolve the mgo with hcl, melt electrolize and burn the chlorine with hydrogen to get back hcl. all of these methods are fairy.

That is not how chemistry works. Aluminum is energy dense because it's highly reactive. It'll bond to almost everything. The energy to refine it is in breaking those bonds. Now I know that sounds similar, but no energy is being pumped into aluminum. It's not storing energy. We're using energy to break an energetic strong chemical bond. We're blasting a bunker with dynamite instead of blowing over a house made of straw. Then we're picking up the chunks of concrete to be used elsewhere. That's aluminum refining.

It takes a lot of energy to break the chemical bonds, then you've got a lot of potential for strong bonds to form again, and can extract energy as those bonds form. Makes sense to me.

@@halycon404 isn’t there a thing called chemical potential energy? If so, Wouldn’t that be increasing in the refining process?

@@getoffthegames89 Chemical potential energy is energy held in the the chemical bonds of a substance that we can harvest by breaking the bond. We're breaking the bond to create aluminum, and the energy used to do it loses us energy. This is the diametric opposite of that. We're gaining energy by scavenging electrons in the formation of those bonds inside the battery. But in breaking those bonds we always lose energy. It's why the battery is a energy storage medium and not an energy source. We always lose more than we gain.

Somebody should make a compilation of all Joe’s videos of him just spinning to the camera and that drum loop on repeat.

Exactly when I saw this comment the drums were playing

^

@@Bassotronics not a bad idea...

Do they get you Randy bay-beh?

Seconding this!

Awe! How kind of you to say, thank you!

Your ability to compliment is delightful. I can imagine a bad day when you deconstruct someone though. It gets one-sided I assume...

Agreed!

Nice, of you like this content you probably would like the channel: Vsauce as well

That's a good point; how much of an advantage could it really be when you won't always run out exactly where it needs to be replaced. Those are some significant losses.

2 batteries with 700miles each you have 700 miles to swap for a lossless process.

$5k is still a ton of money… If u find a 1997 passat Tdi wagon you’ll get a NICE one for 5k. And it’ll give you 1500-2000+mile range. And being moderately powered does not pollute anywhere near a common rail Tdi (pollution scandal) And it just might last longer than the rest of your life and could be handed down. Tesla cannot be handed down. U need accounts and stuff to even use it.

Brilliant John.

Are you located in the UK? Reason I ask is that in the U.S. there are no “lorries” except for a few woman named Lorry. But we do have “Trucks” which is what I think it is. I’m gonna tell my friend Lorry that she is a truck. She’ll be happy about that. Lol

Also hybrid for long distance travels with private cars by putting the stations on autobahn where people will go anyway when they travel long distance. Very easy to supply and scale. Though a standard system would be needed and still complicated.

Yeah on avarage what is good for a car is even better for an autobus so yeah , Car bad , Bus better , Train good

Exactly what I was going to say. I think this would be a better option for commercial vehicles than to charge. I think the swap stations could be easily integrated in truck stop gas stations

Lol, still love this video, glad you brought it to his attention!

You have encouraged me to write a really long and cringey comment and email to Joe.

@@jasonlast7091 Yeah let's all do that! He only has 1.25 million subscribers, he deserves a really long cringey comment from each and every one of us as a token of our appreciation lol :)

@@jasonlast7091 goooooooooooooood

@@jasonlast7091 me too, but I think i'll use calligraphy and snail-mail mine

Yuuka profile pic on a video by joe, didn't think I'd see that today.

The apple car would have fun with this one

The tractor industry dude 100%

@@PossiblyKona Same with Yoshika. Did not think of seeing it in the comments. Although going out of topic, my bad.

NOPE

Hehe, I do my best. :)

Just like refilling gas, can't use the car without gas ;)

@@arneeidefjeldsgard1863 If car companies owned all the gas stations or all the oil refineries then that would be a valid comparison.

He never actually said you won't own the battery. They are taking the battery that came with your car after all, so if they take ownership of your battery then it makes sense that you would own the battery they provide to you. He didn't say they're doing this for aluminum yet but for lithium, so there's nothing stopping you from charging it the 'old fashioned' way after they swap you with a new one. It seems like it's mostly for long trips where you can't recharge.

@@username65585 car companies are in bed with oil refineries which are in bed with all the oil producers, it's just one big happy bunch

@@slcpunk2740 It's the same difference if it is impossible to recharge the battery and you are expected to pay a subscription fee to be able to get it replaced instead of buy a new one. Then they can just say "Oh no, we won't provide our service any more" and your car is useless because the battery is dead, can't be recharged, and the only company selling them decided they don't want to sell it to you since you didn't want their service.

Reminds me of Mr. Clippy

not true...

Sorry but it was Betamax vs VHS in a vcr. By the way, Betamax was better but the record time was only 5 hours an VHS was six so public consummation made the winner, VHS. (you could record 3 movies vs only 2 on Betamax).

The advantage of having a standardised technology comes into play when taking the logistics/infrastructure and such into account. To put it one way, a single tanker filled with petrol/diesel has the ability to fuel anything from a car to an oil tanker, if you replace the ICE with 5 different technologies, you now need 5 different tankers, 5 different mechanics, 5 different engineers, 5 different factories and so on and so on, pretty quickly those 5 different (yet more economical) technologies net worse than the dirty singular one we had before. This is why I'm personally an advocate of hydrogen power, it has the potential to be a fully green, fully recyclable fuel whilst causing minimal disruption to current infrastructure and maintaining a wide range of applications which inevitably leads to cheaper running costs.

Tech companies need competition or they won’t improve because they don’t have to

@@The1Bendotcom You should stop lying and advocating about hydrogen power because it will never be "green power" There is no way to generate energy with hydrogen technology, and I am pissed off about people that are trying to sell technologies as green even though they are not. Hydrogen needs to be produced; it can't be mined > mainly fossile fuels are used for the electricity > efficiency is extremely low (20% after turning back to movement/ electricity) > in the end even more CO2 is produced with this "green technology" than just using traditional fuel. This technology won't prevent any CO2 in our generation. Maybe after we coat all deserts with solar cells, but not anytime soon.

Psst, let them dream. Dont tell them that this technology is another dead end like many others.

It is in fact that oxide state which is why aluminum is such a PIA to refine in the first place. And energy expensive to produce.

It does not need to have extreme efficiency. It just needs to be a good enough medium to transfer/store energy, and it might be that.

@@frontrider3240 , ROTFL, that flew right over your head.

Couldn’t you just scrape off the oxide layer? I’m sure aluminum oxide itself has some uses right? You wouldn’t need to melt down the whole plate.

You could have just said iron or steel

Wouldn't it have made more sense to say there are lighter materials since aluminum is known not for its strength but for its weight.

@@slcpunk2740 aluminum’s utility is in its strength to weight ratio - it is strong for how light it is, hence its dominance in the automobile and aerospace industries.

@@KC_G4S ok so again, not known for its actual strength compared to other materials but for its light weight 🤦 prove my point some more why don't you

@@slcpunk2740 Congratulations on winning a RU-vid comment section argument 👏 hope it was worth your time

You're not thinking it through. You don't put one, massive power cell in the car ... you have 4 or 8 "ports" where you slide out an empty powercell and slot in a new one. That makes them a size that can be handled by a single adult, and allows the internal electronics to use one cell at a time, showing you a dashboard of which cells are ready to be replaced, and which ones are still unused.

The other reporting I’ve seen actually shows a single battery pack that is swapped in a single operation. Perhaps it is not representative of effective implementation, but that’s what’s being shown.

Don Fehr Good point.

@@danielbudney7825 I don't think YOU are thinking it through. I've spent a career working on photocopiers. You'd be surprised the number of ways users can screw up something as simple as replacing toner, or ever paper! I have zero confidence in "a single adult" in the general population being able to manipulate a light (ish) but considerably sized pack out of then into a vehicle, THEN ensuring a quality (DANGEROUS) electrical connection. Trust me, if there's a way to screw up, someone will. Two more questions. Where in the vehicle? Accessible, generally means near the perimeter of "the box". It's going to encroach on passenger space, or name the vehicle bigger. Next, re we considering a "universal pack"? One which suits everything from a city car to a high performance vehicle? Think about that.

@@rogerstarkey5390 Well if your average joe shmoe cant be relied upon to swap it themselves ... then do what they do in New Jersey. Bring back "full service" gas; or in this case, Battery stations. You roll in and trained attendants go to town wiping windows, swapping out however many battery units you want, checking your brakes, checking and if needed re-inflating your tires, etc. Rain or shine. And if the batteries are stored in the floor boards then you simply have a "pit" that you drive over to facilitate the swap Much like those numerous drive thru lube stations. (and maybe give the suspension a once over while they are there) You dont even have to leave your vehicle unless you want to to use a rest room or buy snacks or drinks for the road. As to the Universal pack issue ... If one average car with two motors (one for each axle) can have room enough for one big battery that gives it 1500 miles of range ... then it stand to reason that you could put in 5 smaller batteries each with 300 miles of range. swap them out as you use them. Range anxiety and cost anxiety be damned. You could pull in and swap out a pack as soon as its empty or wait until you are on your last pack its your call. Maybe your super light high performance roadster saves weight by using only 2 packs. Maybe you pull one for that extra edge on race day (or have it set aside so you have something to drive home with i dunno). Or for that matter your tiny sub compact econobox barely big enough for you, one passenger and groceries that uses one motor limited to a city speed limit of 40mph and still carries two packs one primary and one spare. Maybe your Jeep is a 2 door Wrangler and only has room for 4 packs. But its built for off roading and has 2 high performance motors. which eat into your range a big deal because you also drive like a maniac. Which cut their range in half. And you STILL have a Jeep that gets 600 miles of off road range. Which many jeep owners would trade a spare internal organ for. Maybe your 3,000 lb luxury touring sedan carries all five but has so many extra things using power that it only get 1200 miles from all the packs. And you can still take this on a road trip from New Orleans to DC Maybe your average Sprinter commercial van is hauling around 4000 lb of internal storage for local delivery. Averaging 3-400 miles in a day It would use maybe a battery and some change in one day. And has room enough for 8-9 packs. so its going to the service station once a week. What about a truck big enough to need air brakes? Like a class B Box truck. All 26 feet of it. You have A LOT of room for a lot of batteries. Which it would need given that it could weigh as much as 28 thousand lbs of gross vehicle weight. Maybe you are in a Tractor Trailer. the tractor itself may be using 6-8 motors one for each wheel. That is three to 4 times the power draw (sooo much torque tho ) and yet it still has room for 15 battery packs. And that doesnt count the space above the tires where the driver assistant and sleeper cabin go. That thing could dead head across the continental U.S. if it picks the right route. The attached trailer with all the 40-60-80 thousand pounds of cargo. will suck up a lot of that range but those 53' foot trailers have room for extra battery packs all along its under carriage. And given that these trucks will be using truck lots to recharge then those facilities would definitely afford acquiring specialized machinery to swap out packs three or five at a time depending on how they get stored.

Nitpick: Napoleon *III*, not just Napoleon. The First Consul's nephew was a little less consequential.

Yeah. I saw a presentation about them. Seems like this company is going to shoot past the stars soon.

It's easier than mining aluminum, because the anodes you extract from a spent battery will already be purified aluminum oxide, so it wouldn't have to be refined, just smelted. Smelting the aluminum oxide back into aluminum is electrically expensive -- as one would expect given how much energy there is to re-extract by oxiding the aluminum -- but it's not particularly difficult. The real problem is that smelting aluminum creates a *lot* of CO2 (12 tons of it for every ton of smelted aluminum).

Well, yes and no. The waste electrolyte can be used directly in the primary process or resold, with some reprocessing, to other industries (e.g. fire retardant coatings, etc)

Well you wouldn't need to mine and crush the bauxite which is a big chunk of cost.

@@tjsbbi I'm just saying that recycling aluminum oxide is MUCH more energy intensive (by an order of magnitude) than simply recycling aluminum metal.

@@Drysart that's not a problem

@@Beakerzor

In New Zealand you see Leafs with 65 to 70 left with far fewer kilometres on them. Either they are getting odometer cracked in Japan before export used to New Zealand or the Japanese heats wears them down more before they arrive here

You dont seem to know very well how the li-ion battery degradation works@@HighestRank . The lost capacity does not reflect in lower operating voltage. It reflects in the total energy output at nominal voltage. Think of it like a coke bottle that shrinks from the bottom. The opening is still the same size for contents to pour out.

It mainly has to do with ambient temperature@@blackterminal . I live in estonia where yearly average temp is like.. 6C or something (42f). This limits the ability for leaf to damage it's battery by heat, due to lacking in battery cooling. I tend to say, that dont buy a leaf if you live in a country that gets no snow. It's battery will not hold up for long in warm climate, unless you use it quite lightly.

@@gelisob hello. That's pretty cold. You must be tough.

Yes, I was feeling uneasy, but I didn't know where it was coming from. But you nailed it and, unfortunately, put that image of Mr clippy back in my head...

OK, beat Ready Kilowatt for annoying.

I need one.

Badgey is laughing in Star Trekese.

Now that you've mentioned it, I started hating that thing with renewed passion.

Sadly, the energy density is not high enough. Per joule, aluminum is 37 percent heavier than kerosene, and even that near-miss becomes a far miss if the aircraft has to hold on -- and it does -- to the oxidized aluminum after it has done the oxidation and used the energy. If the oxidation is wet electrochemical oxidation, then there is still more mass involved: water, etc. The solid rockets the video led with just burn it. And they don't hold on to the ash.

@@grlcowan but on the other hand, electric motors are super efficient.

@@grlcowan Could use lots of smaller batteries and drop to used ones overboard but I don't think anyone below it would appreciate that.

@@joshuaworley3898 what the fuck man just keep using fossil fuels until an alternative is found instead of dropping empty batteries from airplanes

youre literally wrong... NEXT

This is five times the range of my gas tank. And if they are smart, it wouldn't be one monoblock, it could be a series of five separate fuel cells so you don't have to wait until it's almost empty before you swap one. And if you are really worried about pack replacements in remote regions, you could just store additional fuel cells in a shed.

Not having regen breaking is a red flag.

@@patrickkeller2193 So many problems with the idea, and as implicit in the solution you propose - extra complexity to solve even the simplest of those problems.

Same goes for normal aluminium recycling doesn't it? And if 100000 batteries are smelted together in the same oven efficiency goes up.

@@God-yb2cg No. If l have an aluminum can I can easily melt it and the metal can be immediately used. To go from dead battery to aluminum metal, the aluminum hydroxide will need to be extracted, collected, and sent to a smelter where massive amounts of electricity converts it to aluminum metal. Please search aluminum smelting to see what's involved. It would probably be better to bury the aluminum hydroxide since it's just clay.

@@ngneer999 I see, sounds problematic, it makes sense since the same amount of energy needs to be put in to revert a battery to it's former state (no way around thermodynamics) but I thought a simple oven would have that energy.

Or a light-weight 100-mile backup for emergencies.

Here's a thought. The vast majority would use the "1000 mile range" unit only when they go on holiday? When they have a car full of people and luggage? When they need the space? So why would you remove useable volume from the vehicle?

@@rogerstarkey5390 a lot of current cars seem to be selling with 3-500 miles in range but most days most people drive less than 100 miles. So having less rechargeable daily capacity and use that space to install large capacity single use batteries. The suggestion does not require your luggage or children ride on the roof.

I think this would be a great product if it could be made.

My problem there is that it costs about $12 to refill a regular 20lb cylinder of propane, but it's $20 for a swap. I would expect batteries to have similar markup. That right there is enough to kill the idea for me

With what I said. Money is money 💰🤑

Where do you get the lithium? This is the problem with EV. Lithium is one of the worst materials to extract from the earth. But as long as you see advertisements and propaganda telling you to buy EV you will. By the way as long as we are talking about things you will do just because society tells you to - please get the vaccine. (Stupid fuckers)

@@Gibson99 Exactly. Somebody has to pay for the batteries.

@@glasstuna When society tells me to do something, I’m automatically suspicious. When government tells me to do something, I’m extra suspicious. When I hear the word science bantered about without any scientific evidence, I run the other way!

You don't have to swap the whole battery, just the anode. It can literally be as simple as plugging in a cassette tape. It doesn't need to be a very involved process at all. The previous anode is oxidized into Alumina powder, so you don't even have to remove an old anode, just plug the new one in. You have to recover the alumina powder for recycling, which is what I imagine would be the real purpose of the swap stations. It's less about replacing the battery and more about being a recycling center.

One of the issues too with aircraft is weight. Current chemical fuels that burn off get lighter as they deplete where as batteries do not. A depleted battery weights the same as when it is full but a depleted fuel tank does not.

@@adamrichardson2227 as the aluminum reacts with atmospheric oxygen, they would get heavier as they're consumed. That being said, the energy density is such that it's probably a non issue.

@@adamrichardson2227 What if the whole aluminum batteries weigh lesser than the empty fuel tank itslef?

@@spencer1980 Not so sure. Energy and mass interchange. If the Energy potential in the aluminum is depleted, that should equate a drop in mass. I wonder which is greater...

Pointless. Non-rechargeable batteries make no sense and you will spend the saved energy recycling the chemically reacted aluminum. It is shameful to see multiple channels doing this silly topic at the same time as that means these are paid ads someone paid for. It is too much of a coincidence that multiple channels cover non viable batteries at the exact same time.

@@_PatrickO the reason you see multiple channels covering this topic now is because that's how news works.

@@RockitFX1 lol, what news? The only way this is news is if some scam company paid for someone to cover it as news.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Yes - why can't people that go on the rare long-distance trip have the option of going to local battery swap garage and renting a larger battery on a daily basis? When they bring it back to center, they get deposit back along with original (or equivalent) battery as original. A win-win for everyone involved.

@@_PatrickO 1. All paid sponsors are to be explicitly stated by law and 2. this topic has been a center of research as of late and of course started picking up media coverage and 3. this literally happens with anything that’s trending. Not everything is a scheme to control your life.

That and the idea of lunar hamster balls for tourists to bounce around in, they sound like a lot of fun

It is. That's where the energy of the battery comes from.

Yes, and the efficiency is rather poor. Compared to something like 85% for recharging batteries, it's a joke.

@@karldavis7392 : So we're not talking about a "battery", in any meaningful sense, but combusting aluminum in a controlled way.

@@akatsukami9578 Right, exactly. It sounds rather inefficient to me. I'm not sure it's any better than combusting gasoline.

I'd put this in the "like hydrogen, but solid" section regarding realistic investment potential. (I'm sure Nikola will announce an Aluminium Air battery truck in a few weeks)

Agreed. And how much waste is going to go into batteries being replaced that haven't been completely used up? Because nobody is going to want to be somewhere where they cant get a battery change. But I'd say more like 10k miles would be worth consideration.

True, but anything designed to break soon after the warranty ends, so you'd go to buy a new one, is a rip off. The plastic gearing is just one example of it.

Agree. battery swap is dumb any benefit of battery swap will be gone within the decade.

These 'batteries' are even worse because the waste is basically aluminium ore. Aluminium being one of the hardest base metals to reduce means that this essentially needs to be re-refined back to metal using the very inefficient bayer and hall-heroult processes. That's the limiting factor, that it only produces aluminium hydroxide (likely non-pure, as pure metal electrodes do not do well as the build up of hydroxide reduces performance) so this needs to be purified and dehydrated before it can be reduced from alumina. Just this will reduce the battery to only 15% of energy put in to create is available in the battery. Far better to use the electricity directly with rail, light rail, trams and trolley buses than to create congealed electricity (aluminium) to produce these batteries.

WOOHOO! I found the "sensible thread"!!!!

Agree

EVs are good enough if home charging is viable which it is not for many people get the charging time down to the same as refuling gas and then it will be good enough for those who cant home charge and even so hydrogen feul cells are alos viable option for those situations also

@@ThunderClawShocktrix DC fast charging should never be the solution for people who can’t charge at home as it degrades the battery much quicker than regular charging. rather, the solution should be charging ports at workplaces and just generally at most parking spots. the electricity is already run to parking lots as there are street lights. installing chargers shouldn’t be much of a hassle.

Counter - boats have an even more energy dense solution available - nuclear power.

@@chatboss000 yeah but foreign countries tend to not like enriched uranium sitting in boats at their ports. i agree that it would be a great solution energy-wise, but politically-speaking, nuclear isn’t great. when my grandfather was in the navy, he had to deal with ports not letting them dock for fear that they would dump nuclear waste. and it’s not like the view of nuclear power has gotten much better since.

No it isn't. Maybe the only way for batteries, but Hydrogen fuel cells and organic combusion engines are both systems that have good range.

@@MsHojat And ones that should be invested in. Instead of Elon's m increasingly demented ideas. Same as classic efficient solutions To refine them instead of sidelining them like nuclear energy, electric railways(would help to combat massive emissions of commercial road transport) and air/sea transport. Batteries are horrible solution for air and road transportation. Unless they truly find a tech for them that isnt toxic,light and rechargeable; but that is unlikely to happen...

@@MsHojat It's going to be near impossible for everyone to drive eventually. Alternatives to batteries are going to be needed.

begone demon

That's interesting, I haven't heard of a 'gravity battery' before. I wonder if a 'flywheel battery' could work? It's kind of similar, a heavy flywheel can spin a big generator, but once it's up to speed, a small current can keep it spinning. Could harvesting energy from the sun to maintain the spin provide enough to make a net gain?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Was about to say.

Yep what is aloominum lol

Why am I seeing stock footage of steel cans?

Pineapple!

And petroleum is more energy dense than pretty much anything we have except maybe uranium, which isn’t so practical for cars... so why should we be required to give up our petroleum infrastructure? I say we ought to keep it!

@@ethanlamoureux5306 because Oil will destroy our atmosphere and you probably don't want have to use a spacesuit outside and fossilized fuel will run out before 2100 and biofuel is still bad for the planet even thou it would never run out...

It's an america thing, he isn't mispronouncing aluminum and his way of pronouncing it is common to most dialects in the US.

Say Tantalum. Now say Aluminum. What is this aluminium you speak of?

The name has a long and varied history, going back to a British chap... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Etymology

Those days are over. Electric is here for good.

Big business, and especially big oil will love this! The amount of oil, gas and coal needed to recycle these things would be many times more then they're currently selling directly into car's petrol tanks..

Most intelligent words I've heard.

Crypto is the new gold

@Judith Alien That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr Steven Hatzakis

I heard that his strategies are really good

I got sir Steven Hatzakis info, how good is he ?