Today, we consume a truly vast amount of energy – with demand continuing to skyrocket at an alarming rate. We know that producing this energy has significant…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Jan
15
The future of energy?
Leave a Reply
Solar Panel & Windpower made easy
Solar DIY Wind Power – Green Power Easy Reviewed
Photovoltaic Solar Panels – homemade DIY energy
25 comments
No ping yet
Peter Hall says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:08 pm (UTC 0)
I would love to see more shows like this one.
I am going to take a 3 year course in Energy Systems Engineering
Technologies.
TeamOutSourced says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:18 pm (UTC 0)
Thorium energy nuff said.
liviu bardel says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:35 pm (UTC 0)
climate change is already here it cannot be unmade.
samann95014 says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:08 pm (UTC 0)
what about nuclear technology? if we learn to use it very responsibly, it
can solve most of our energy problems.
Phillip Trzcinski says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:10 pm (UTC 0)
Managed to mention nuclear power twice I think. Proper investment into
nuclear breeder reactors and their use in conjunction with conventional
thermal reactors has the potential to meet pretty much all of our energy
needs for the next 100-1000 years. Obviously, the video is based around the
research taking place in Cambridge, but whilst I agree with everything in
this video, I think nuclear power will play one of the biggest roles in the
future of energy
WarBerJr02 says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:30 pm (UTC 0)
Where is the wind farm pictured at 4:21 located?
Guardedvip says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:36 pm (UTC 0)
Water or air, in air there’s water, in water there hydrogen
H. Shane says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:50 pm (UTC 0)
Suppose theoreticaly we would harvest as much wind energy as we harvest
from fosil fuel now. Wouldnt that just have the same consequence for the
environment? Essentially we are stopping the wind… that’ll have some
consequences I assume.
leerman22 says:
January 15, 2015 at 3:42 pm (UTC 0)
Why does a coal plant need so many more cooling towers than a nuclear
plant? In canada we just use a river or lake for cooling.
Guardedvip says:
January 15, 2015 at 3:55 pm (UTC 0)
Or lava, lave+water= steam
marc brown says:
January 15, 2015 at 4:21 pm (UTC 0)
why dont we use more hydrogen its clean and cheep to produce
Luis Pinto says:
January 15, 2015 at 4:49 pm (UTC 0)
Magnetic fuel cell powered by Continental crust movement
Our planet’s crust is always in a constant move
Use the power of a earthquake to fuel a magnetic fuel cell to which then Is
distributed to communities
LoopKC says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:27 pm (UTC 0)
This is a great video thank you!
Wang Yang says:
January 15, 2015 at 6:07 pm (UTC 0)
If the demands for materal and energy declines, would that means potential
econonic crisis?
xGoodOldSmurfehx says:
January 15, 2015 at 6:59 pm (UTC 0)
wind turbines are primitive and stupid, the wind energy is the final source
of the best energy a type 0 civilization has access to in most cases, we
failed to use it but we already have technologies that exceeds this
primitive form of energy and so its irrelevant
we already have many more efficient and cheaper methods of producing energy
like Solar Roadways and the infamous Bloom Box technology
Josh Paget says:
January 15, 2015 at 7:31 pm (UTC 0)
you should submit this to the new urbanism film festival.
Bill Fox says:
January 15, 2015 at 8:05 pm (UTC 0)
In the UK we are punished by the EU with excessive “green ” taxes and
successive governments have just avoided the problem of building new power
stations of any kind. This is largely driven by the fear of CO2 emissions.
Our future is one of power shortages. Wind power is inefficient here,
either too much wind or not enough.
What makes our energy policy (an oxymoron if there ever was one) ridiculous
is that China is commissioning a new coal-fired power station every couple
of weeks making any reduction in CO2 in the UK a waste of time. That
doesn’t stop the UK governments making us pay through the nose in “green
taxes”.
A lot of this video is intellectual garbage. The UK is too small to make a
difference against the big users like the USA, Russia and China.
TheAdekrijger says:
January 15, 2015 at 8:49 pm (UTC 0)
What about energy that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Hunter Gibert says:
January 15, 2015 at 9:48 pm (UTC 0)
what name’s soundtrack?
Stu Art says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:29 pm (UTC 0)
The future of energy is just this, energy is a constant in the Universe
this should be called the Future of Electricity or Power via
environmentally sustainable technologies.
noddwyd says:
January 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm (UTC 0)
At best, this is saying that today’s standard of living is in fact the best
it’s ever going to get. It’s all downhill from here.
At worst, the truth is that once fossil fuels are gone, So are we. It was
a trap all along. And we fell for it.
Joel Kelly says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:02 pm (UTC 0)
I think Hydro Dams are the most efficient and most useful method to solving
this issue!
Werner Rhein says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:37 pm (UTC 0)
This whole presentation is a bit of a flip flop, first wind energy is going
from several % total production of electricity to only 1%. Electricity
production in total 200 years ago was 0 (zero). Transportation 200 years
ago depended on live man power, live horse power and wind. But the most
important issue of global destruction is not mentioned with one word “over
population”. What about mentioning the green hous gas Methane? Newest
studies show that Methane is responsible for 52% of global warming and it
is coming from fossil fuels mainly Natural gas to fugitive migration from
deep fracked geology, leakage from pipelines and distribution systems in
cities and not from cows or swamps.
Putting CO2 underground for huge cost and uncertenty it will stay there is
foolish.
We tried the nuclear way and it turned out that people like me where right
50 years ago who said it is not feasble because of the safety and the wast
issue, now we know, TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima and a unknown number of
smaller icidents.
Reduce population grows, install solar, wind, geothermal as much as
possible, produce electric vehicles in mass production and reduce the
production of combustion engines. Turn the lights of when not necessary,
build buildings for 500 years and more it was done a long time ago. The
list can go on. But that would mean that the greedy 1% would lose there
grip on the rest of us.
cutCouture says:
January 16, 2015 at 12:13 am (UTC 0)
Cool
Miguel Lindero says:
January 16, 2015 at 1:03 am (UTC 0)
I think that we must turn to old technologies in the era of industrial
revolution, i refere to steam generated not by carbon but by the power of
the sun