The best thing about videos like this one is that it get's people talking, out of talk comes innovation and invention, and that is something more valuable than the oil, and other finite resources we must learn to live without.
Isn't it refreshing to know that so much mental and physical effort is being put into protecting the environment, and minimising humanity's demand for resources?
The key is mixing Wind, Tidal, Solar & Energy storage. Energy storage doesn't need to come from battery's we can use underground balloons, pumped storage, heated salt storage the possibility's are endless. We just need the government to act & invest diversely without selling it off to foreign owners that can put pressure on us down the line or raise prices.
Upon watching until 4:18 when the speaker was saying "We must think about how our other energy usage could be transferred into electric supply then we could've caused so much generated electricity cleanly." I SUDDENLY HAD AN IDEA! --because there was a clip of a bunch of vehicles on the road during that statement, I thought: why not generate electricity from the vibrations or whatever forces vehicles generate on the concrete pavements? (I'm no engineer though) People usually complain about the roads being the cause of heat island effect, now with that idea, at least it would provide more use right? Especially in megacities where there are always vehicles and the traffic is terrible. Also! (Idea #2) Since concrete roads are huge heat absorbers, why not generate electricity from that? An innovator should design some LITTLE contraption-whatsoever for that :)
part 1 - Demand is not the cause, it is a multiplier, which is still important. If we had 100 billion people on the planet but we had sustainable energy and resources then it wouldn't be a problem. Also they said in the beginning that demand for energy grows by 2% each year, which is caused both by increased demand by individuals, and an increased number of individuals.
Thorium reactors are the answer. 150 mile electric car battery. Turn gas stations into a quick change battery station. Don't own the battery change them out with varying degrees of mile capacities. 50, 100, 150, 200 mile batteries.
I'm no expert or anything on this but, if a car is moving at 60mph, then there must be air going at 60mph against the surface of the car (right?) So, I was thinking if cars could have wind turbines inside the grille, and several of them, it would generate a lot of electricity that powers the car,it would be able to run purely on wind power, so that means we'll be using 50% less oil (transport) .
+till kue The rain forest actually grows extremely fast on its own. However it is interesting you brought this up, as 30 years ago this was considered a major topic, now ? nobody seems to think about the simple solution trees provide.
Shouldn't there be a lot more energy from waterpower? Falling water, waterbassins, wave- and tidal energy ... And there should be more and better artificial waterways ... Or not?
1:20 better focus on cleaner energy. because every year the energy consumption we use more and more. we might use it more efficiently but nontheles we use more. and there is no sign of stopping that. so cleaner energy is the future. the best thing whould be making fusion
Ewokah Dong goverments could start with placing power chargers and hydrogen fuel station at every pump/gas station. and maby force privit as well. this whould stimulate sales.
rubikfan1 More simple would be, and read closely because this will work, mandate that all houses are to have evacuated tube hot water = 20A offpeak load that is currently used to heat the countries domestic water can then be used to charge domestic vehicles instead because the hot water will be heated by the sun (is mandated in Israel already, they dont fuck about because they cant afford too) = no or little rise in electric bill and drastic drop in oil/petrol usage. With no upgrade to infrastructure.. Do you follow and if so would it work and not be the most simple way to make dramatic change for little $$?
Just a suggestion to the intellectuals at Cambridge, lower the volume of music when someone is talking, especially in a low pitch voice. We are here to see the impacts and alternatives in energy, if we wanted music, we'd be listening to that only. Just a suggestion!
The problem with on land wind generators apart from the esthetics is that the land which supports the towers can never be used for agricultural land again. which is presently 10's of thousands of acres across Europe.
Why would we want to re-sequester the carbon from fossil fuel? The carbon is already trapped as a solid or liquid. We don't need to re-trap the CO2 if we don't burn the fossil fuel. Switch to nuclear and leave the fossil fuel deposits where they are. The ultimate in carbon sequestration is not to have released it in the first place.
I think what will help the drop of energy use is the development of more efficient products a good example is LEDs. Would be great if there was something to replace the electric element that heats up water. Which is used in electric kettles; washing machines emersion tanks, hair driers, electric fan heaters. Any ideas?
Great video! I think this is one of the most important topics to consider in physics and other related subjects, as it is so current, and essential for the environment. I think that although finding a way to more efficiently produce energy is very important, the amount of energy that we consumers use is the cause of most of the problems. (If we can find away to live a good lifestyle without as much need for fuel/energy, then less fossil fuels would be required by power plants, which would obviously lead to a decrease in CO2 production.) One way in which I think we could make a big difference in reducing fossil fuel consumption, is to design and manufacture vehicle engines that can efficiently turn a totally renewable substance, such as solar power or water, into enough energy to match the energy released from combusting fuels.
i am working on future energy resources. and i think that our future of energy would be hydrogen. but the problem is that we dont know how to produce H2 in a more efficient way. but my aproaching more in technical field we may easily harness hydrogen from water. and since it is a renewable resource ,it is the best energy source.
part 2 - The carbon sink of living organisms pales in comparison to the vast oceans of carbon sink in our fossil fuel gluts. And the difference between carbon in organisms and the carbon in fossil fuels is that carbon in organisms is IN NATURAL CIRCULATION. All of the carbon that a tree takes out of the atmosphere is in the tree itself, problem is when that tree dies it is almost never turned into coal and all that carbon goes BACK into the atmosphere.
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
wind and solar on every home, commercial building around the word and with solar tied into things like cars,truck,18 wheeler ,golf cart , fences , trump wall etc that's how we go green with nuclear to help right now
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.
I've said something along these lines for years. My argument is simple. Once we use all our oil we face a very bleak future, as plastics (or at least the cheap production of plastics) comes from oil. Imagine a world without plastics!
noddwyd Absolute hogwash. Absolute tripe you're spouting. Fact of the matter is, when fossil fuels are gone, we'll have found alternatives for sure. Stop being so bloody pessimistic. The biggest change required is an attitude shift. People are incredibly wasteful with energy these days; some folk still run stupid things like 100w tungsten light bulbs! Madness.
We need to redesign our cities and infrastructure to implement the use of the new energy innovation and be flexible enough to adapt and integrate in the future. The prime example is implementation of the mass transit systems that use the non conventional energy sources and reduce the use of cars.
People's behaviour needs to be changed. They should consume minimal materials as far as possible. They have to have some responsibility for the environment.
We are thinking about this completely backwards. Fossil fuels = lucky phenomenon a few generations were able to enjoy. We've got to get out of fossil fuel based logistics. Bring the farms to the cities.
The best energy source is also binary cycle power generation plant. In my area, the temperature of summer season is 30c° to 48c°. Binary cycle power generation plants can b run with working fluid that have low boiling point. Such as R245fa.
Somebody get this man thousands of armed men and scientists to force the world into a new era of prosperity immediately! As the current leaders and people in charge are obviously too stupid and greedy to be the change we need!
If only profiting from energy is stopped we'll see idea's pouring in, most definitely there's a better way on how we can generate our energy without further damaging the planet.
Part of the problem is that people feel the need to profit from their ideas. Because they are afraid people will steal them, they keep them to themselves. Millions of people have brilliant ideas, but often lack the knowledge or the money to implement them. If we were to let go of the need for profit, we could make great leaps forward.
Brother John Totally agree with you man. honestly, this is the reason I don't actually put something online, I don't know any other way for it cause it will most probably get into wrong hands. I feel bad but then I think just wait until I gather some momentum.
What's cheaper, building over capacity AND storage for wind and solar or building molten salt (nuclear) reactors. Even RE systems create chemical wastes which must be dealt with, either neutralized or isolated forever. Thus, the little bit of radioactive molten salt reactor wastes can be stored too. The only difference is that 80% of radioactive fission products decay into harmless elements in just 10 years, (the other 20%, just 300 years). The super long lived wastes (actinides) can be reused in the molten salt fuel, if closed cycle. Why would ANYONE want to put CO2 into the ground without first chemically fixing it! The way to deal with that is to put it naturally into the ground - as soils. This requires mega nuclear powered desalination plants for the water needed to literally green a desert. The nuclear power option could be sidestepped (to some degree) if water was instead barged from the mouths of the plentiful rivers worldwide. The byproducts: a very minute volume of nuclear wastes (comparatively) and LOTS of produce/vegetation. If greening an entire desert is not enough to store the approx 2.2 TRILLION tons of excess CO2, then, we'll have to use diesel powered heavy equipment to MINE OLIVINE rock, crush, pulverize and distribute. It's like a fertilizer which sequesters CO2 into limestone when rained on. Eventually, it goes into the ocean and also counteracts ocean acidity caused from - excess CO2. This is also natures way of geologically storing CO2 on the order of millions of years. Therefore, the discussion of liquid CO2 sequestration is merely directing people on the WRONG path (towards developing REAL solutions to safe excess CO2 storage). Renewables should, however, be strongly developed AFTER machine automation can make them and their storage cheaper than coal!
@11:00 But hyper efficiency assumes economies of scale, which assumes massive production, which assumes huge wastage. There is nothing efficient about hyper efficiency. Declining demand (people using things more responsibly) will wreck those companies who're not prepared to downsize their operations on a flip of a switch.
The future of energy will arrive by the end of next decade in southern France, it is called Tokamake. The first comercially viable Fusion Energy Power Plant. It's prototype is already being assembled by ITERN.
Don't forget about nuclear! Also, wind and solar aren't made for free, solar for example uses some nasty chemicals in the production process. It's a shame no one talks about new reactor designs or different fuel types (such as thorium). But that's because politics has gotten involved with science I suppose.
CCS will be like the clean diesel and clean coal sort of thing, we should be investing in clean generation, not investing in fossil fuels which will run out in a few decades regardless.
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.
Werner Rhein So what you're saying is "Capture, store and use the methane, and kill two birds with one stone. Brilliant! All you need now is the means to do it.
part 3 - pumping CO2 underground DRAMATICALLY reduces EROEI, and we need energy sources that are high on EROEI in order to support our growing economy.
The energy we consume is not nearly vast enough, please focus on technologies to provide cheaper more abundant energy than reducing consumption. Progress and development need resources and if we had abundant energy all industries would spring like the computers and internet did.
I think this is a risky try 'cause with the co2 storage sistems we can loose the posibiliy to use the oxigen that is in the co2 for our breathing or for the animals... Does anyone see this issue???
in future, all cars will be driveress, driverless directly leads to light vehicles, this favours electric cars, as batteries for light cars are cheap (non-linear relationship). The cost of electricity is much less tto gas.
Very well done video that looks at so many aspects of the issues. I had done a presentation that is on my website, Innovations in Transportation that explores ideas for more efficient transportation. Bill Kuhl
the problem is overpopulation. releasing the resevoir of fossil fuel has allowed population to explode beyond sustainable limits. its a question of resources - technology was developped to exploit this resource. Nature is already renewable 'solar-powered nano-technology' , its unlikely humans can engineer anything as effective as plants (which we already evolved in symbiosis with)
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.
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
unfurtunately fusion is always 30 years away , in the 90 it was 30 years away and still is today in 10 years it may be be 30 years away as well, there are a lot of technologies in energy generation but they depend on the price mechanism of this economic system, again energy is generated by very big private companies and state copanies so basicly the market is closed for the little investors, that;s why we may never know about some technologies that are not aproved by the big companies.
Yea-yea-yea - let's keep the rich oil guys happy and work on something that keeps them 'healthy' instead of using one of a hundreds alternatives like HHO Stanley Mayer's (he was poisoned), Japanese car company that in 2008 has invented the car that only needed a water to run and then disappeared from the market and so on... Let's wait until we run out of oil and not until then we would see any changes.
I`ve figured out the storage problem which I will be putting to a government grant agency on Monday 14 November. I don`t think they really want to do it right or the same old faces will lose out financially. We do not need Hinkley Point or that deal, but it`s a political move, therein lies the problem.
1:12 I think it is a very good idea to do this solar panels with some kind of artificial light that provides energy, so the sun is nopt the only energy provider in solar panels.
Wind power seems sooo unrealistic. . Simple question : if we harvested ALL the wind on the useful surface of the world, would it be enough? . If not, then even talking about wind power as if it was a viable solution to the forthcoming energy crisis is unhelpful.
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
How much percent we are using energy from sunlight, wind, waves to transfers into renewable energy sources, for alternative energy today? This can help our World reduction environmental pollution, threatening the living life of Human. (Do the climate change-global warming-caused hurricanes, drought and the variety of all the human species.) Today world in the developed countries, are using large amounts of oil gas, coals and nuclear power plants, hydro-power dams for expansion economic. This problem will cots, occur for the power source of the world's reserves shortfall, exhausted in the future. I think sooner or later, this issue must proceed. Because according to the needs of economic development worldwide (EDW), also because the oil and gas energy, will be established in the future. Think about how much percent of energy came from sunlight, wind and ocean waves on our earth everyday?
You're being ignorant here, just because wind can't solve ALL our problems, doesn't mean it can't solve some of them. There is no one complete fix for a problem, with something this massive, you need more than 1 workable solution to be implemented at the same time. Wind power isn't our only clean generation method; don't forget solar, hydroelectric, and to a lesser extent thermal.
The best thing about videos like this one is that it get's people talking, out of talk comes innovation and invention, and that is something more valuable than the oil, and other finite resources we must learn to live without.
Isn't it refreshing to know that so much mental and physical effort is being put into protecting the environment, and minimising humanity's demand for resources?
The key is mixing Wind, Tidal, Solar & Energy storage. Energy storage doesn't need to come from battery's we can use underground balloons, pumped storage, heated salt storage the possibility's are endless. We just need the government to act & invest diversely without selling it off to foreign owners that can put pressure on us down the line or raise prices.
Thanks for your question. The city at 1:22 is San Francisco.
Upon watching until 4:18 when the speaker was saying "We must think about how our other energy usage could be transferred into electric supply then we could've caused so much generated electricity cleanly." I SUDDENLY HAD AN IDEA!
--because there was a clip of a bunch of vehicles on the road during that statement, I thought: why not generate electricity from the vibrations or whatever forces vehicles generate on the concrete pavements? (I'm no engineer though)
People usually complain about the roads being the cause of heat island effect, now with that idea, at least it would provide more use right? Especially in megacities where there are always vehicles and the traffic is terrible.
Also! (Idea #2) Since concrete roads are huge heat absorbers, why not generate electricity from that? An innovator should design some LITTLE contraption-whatsoever for that :)
God bless everyone still waking up everyday chasing their dreams salute
part 1 - Demand is not the cause, it is a multiplier, which is still important. If we had 100 billion people on the planet but we had sustainable energy and resources then it wouldn't be a problem. Also they said in the beginning that demand for energy grows by 2% each year, which is caused both by increased demand by individuals, and an increased number of individuals.
They fail to mention that the behavior change on the demand side also requires more time and is generally an inconvenience.
Thorium reactors are the answer. 150 mile electric car battery. Turn gas stations into a quick change battery station. Don't own the battery change them out with varying degrees of mile capacities. 50, 100, 150, 200 mile batteries.
I'm no expert or anything on this but, if a car is moving at 60mph, then there must be air going at 60mph against the surface of the car (right?) So, I was thinking if cars could have wind turbines inside the grille, and several of them, it would generate a lot of electricity that powers the car,it would be able to run purely on wind power, so that means we'll be using 50% less oil (transport) .
What about stopping to erode or even repopulating the rain forrest?
+till kue Good point!
+till kue The rain forest actually grows extremely fast on its own.
However it is interesting you brought this up, as 30 years ago this was considered a major topic, now ? nobody seems to think about the simple solution trees provide.
Because of erosion replanting is often is not possible.
what about nuclear technology? if we learn to use it very responsibly, it can solve most of our energy problems.
Shouldn't there be a lot more energy from waterpower?
Falling water, waterbassins, wave- and tidal energy ...
And there should be more and better artificial waterways ...
Or not?
Just watching the way how we generate our energy just makes me realize how outdated this modern world is.
What we need is an arc reactor or a Tesseract :D
Excellent way to give a perspective of future of energy and actions that could be taken.
Solaiman Elkhereiji,It is important that we start saving energy as individuals and societies and make this as part of our education and culture
If growing overpopulation is an important cause for climatechange,
then why is there so little talk about family planning during summits?
1:20 better focus on cleaner energy.
because every year the energy consumption we use more and more. we might use it more efficiently but nontheles we use more. and there is no sign of stopping that.
so cleaner energy is the future.
the best thing whould be making fusion
Ewokah Dong goverments could start with placing power chargers and hydrogen fuel station at every pump/gas station. and maby force privit as well.
this whould stimulate sales.
rubikfan1 More simple would be, and read closely because this will work, mandate that all houses are to have evacuated tube hot water = 20A offpeak load that is currently used to heat the countries domestic water can then be used to charge domestic vehicles instead because the hot water will be heated by the sun (is mandated in Israel already, they dont fuck about because they cant afford too) = no or little rise in electric bill and drastic drop in oil/petrol usage. With no upgrade to infrastructure.. Do you follow and if so would it work and not be the most simple way to make dramatic change for little $$?
Just a suggestion to the intellectuals at Cambridge, lower the volume of music when someone is talking, especially in a low pitch voice. We are here to see the impacts and alternatives in energy, if we wanted music, we'd be listening to that only. Just a suggestion!
I would love to see more shows like this one.
I am going to take a 3 year course in Energy Systems Engineering Technologies.
Good for you. I do hope your studies are fruitful.
The problem with on land wind generators apart from the esthetics is that the land which supports the towers can never be used for agricultural land again. which is presently 10's of thousands of acres across Europe.
Why would we want to re-sequester the carbon from fossil fuel? The carbon is already trapped as a solid or liquid. We don't need to re-trap the CO2 if we don't burn the fossil fuel. Switch to nuclear and leave the fossil fuel deposits where they are. The ultimate in carbon sequestration is not to have released it in the first place.
I think what will help the drop of energy use is the development of more efficient products a good example is LEDs.
Would be great if there was something to replace the electric element that heats up water. Which is used in electric kettles; washing machines emersion tanks, hair driers, electric fan heaters.
Any ideas?
Great video! I think this is one of the most important topics to consider in physics and other related subjects, as it is so current, and essential for the environment. I think that although finding a way to more efficiently produce energy is very important, the amount of energy that we consumers use is the cause of most of the problems. (If we can find away to live a good lifestyle without as much need for fuel/energy, then less fossil fuels would be required by power plants, which would obviously lead to a decrease in CO2 production.) One way in which I think we could make a big difference in reducing fossil fuel consumption, is to design and manufacture vehicle engines that can efficiently turn a totally renewable substance, such as solar power or water, into enough energy to match the energy released from combusting fuels.
Nuclear + R&D = Future energy
i am working on future energy resources. and i think that our future of energy would be hydrogen. but the problem is that we dont know how to produce H2 in a more efficient way. but my aproaching more in technical field we may easily harness hydrogen from water. and since it is a renewable resource ,it is the best energy source.
I think Hydro Dams are the most efficient and most useful method to solving this issue!
GREAT PRESENTATION! Can't wait to go to Cambridge university!!
part 2 - The carbon sink of living organisms pales in comparison to the vast oceans of carbon sink in our fossil fuel gluts. And the difference between carbon in organisms and the carbon in fossil fuels is that carbon in organisms is IN NATURAL CIRCULATION. All of the carbon that a tree takes out of the atmosphere is in the tree itself, problem is when that tree dies it is almost never turned into coal and all that carbon goes BACK into the atmosphere.
you should submit this to the new urbanism film festival.
Thank you for this wonderful video, and I do like putting the references at the end. It's appreciated
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
wind and solar on every home, commercial building around the word and with solar tied into things like cars,truck,18 wheeler ,golf cart , fences , trump wall etc that's how we go green with nuclear to help right now
Yes this is future of energy that we use in future thank you so much for all the scientist that they discover this free gift of nature to us
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.
I've said something along these lines for years. My argument is simple. Once we use all our oil we face a very bleak future, as plastics (or at least the cheap production of plastics) comes from oil. Imagine a world without plastics!
noddwyd Absolute hogwash. Absolute tripe you're spouting. Fact of the matter is, when fossil fuels are gone, we'll have found alternatives for sure.
Stop being so bloody pessimistic. The biggest change required is an attitude shift. People are incredibly wasteful with energy these days; some folk still run stupid things like 100w tungsten light bulbs! Madness.
What do you think is the best way to reduce the weight of automobiles: carbon fibres or aluminium?
They make a great case for an RBE.
We need to redesign our cities and infrastructure to implement the use of the new energy innovation and be flexible enough to adapt and integrate in the future. The prime example is implementation of the mass transit systems that use the non conventional energy sources and reduce the use of cars.
i watched this in class and this is very good!!!
People's behaviour needs to be changed. They should consume minimal materials as far as possible. They have to have some responsibility for the environment.
We are thinking about this completely backwards. Fossil fuels = lucky phenomenon a few generations were able to enjoy. We've got to get out of fossil fuel based logistics. Bring the farms to the cities.
I like your video very much. It's really great. I'll keep an eye on your channel. I am your fan and I will support you.
I am from NUST
And I think that one another major source of energy is water waves at sea
4:25 looked AWESOME it is very fascinating.
The best energy source is also binary cycle power generation plant.
In my area, the temperature of summer season is 30c° to 48c°.
Binary cycle power generation plants can b run with working fluid that have low boiling point.
Such as R245fa.
Somebody get this man thousands of armed men and scientists to force the world into a new era of prosperity immediately! As the current leaders and people in charge are obviously too stupid and greedy to be the change we need!
If only profiting from energy is stopped we'll see idea's pouring in, most definitely there's a better way on how we can generate our energy without further damaging the planet.
Part of the problem is that people feel the need to profit from their ideas. Because they are afraid people will steal them, they keep them to themselves. Millions of people have brilliant ideas, but often lack the knowledge or the money to implement them. If we were to let go of the need for profit, we could make great leaps forward.
Brother John Totally agree with you man. honestly, this is the reason I don't actually put something online, I don't know any other way for it cause it will most probably get into wrong hands. I feel bad but then I think just wait until I gather some momentum.
What's cheaper, building over capacity AND storage for wind and solar or building molten salt (nuclear) reactors. Even RE systems create chemical wastes which must be dealt with, either neutralized or isolated forever. Thus, the little bit of radioactive molten salt reactor wastes can be stored too. The only difference is that 80% of radioactive fission products decay into harmless elements in just 10 years, (the other 20%, just 300 years). The super long lived wastes (actinides) can be reused in the molten salt fuel, if closed cycle.
Why would ANYONE want to put CO2 into the ground without first chemically fixing it!
The way to deal with that is to put it naturally into the ground - as soils. This requires mega nuclear powered desalination plants for the water needed to literally green a desert. The nuclear power option could be sidestepped (to some degree) if water was instead barged from the mouths of the plentiful rivers worldwide. The byproducts: a very minute volume of nuclear wastes (comparatively) and LOTS of produce/vegetation.
If greening an entire desert is not enough to store the approx 2.2 TRILLION tons of excess CO2, then, we'll have to use diesel powered heavy equipment to MINE OLIVINE rock, crush, pulverize and distribute. It's like a fertilizer which sequesters CO2 into limestone when rained on. Eventually, it goes into the ocean and also counteracts ocean acidity caused from - excess CO2. This is also natures way of geologically storing CO2 on the order of millions of years.
Therefore, the discussion of liquid CO2 sequestration is merely directing people on the WRONG path (towards developing REAL solutions to safe excess CO2 storage).
Renewables should, however, be strongly developed AFTER machine automation can make them and their storage cheaper than coal!
wind power will never meet the power demands not possible
@11:00 But hyper efficiency assumes economies of scale, which assumes massive production, which assumes huge wastage.
There is nothing efficient about hyper efficiency. Declining demand (people using things more responsibly) will wreck those companies who're not prepared to downsize their operations on a flip of a switch.
Put the CO2 into a dome with plants the plants will turn it into oxygen
not plants, algies. there are very well working projects testing that.
algies have a multiple times higher consumption of co2 per used m² (or m³)
How about we make a big sphere, covering the entire planet, and fill it with plants!
thats carbon dioxide. were dealing with carbon. it would just kill off the plants. :(
The future of energy will arrive by the end of next decade in southern France, it is called Tokamake. The first comercially viable Fusion Energy Power Plant. It's prototype is already being assembled by ITERN.
Don't forget about nuclear! Also, wind and solar aren't made for free, solar for example uses some nasty chemicals in the production process. It's a shame no one talks about new reactor designs or different fuel types (such as thorium). But that's because politics has gotten involved with science I suppose.
I think wind turbine farms are kind of beautiful.
No radiation.no waste.clean energy.
CCS will be like the clean diesel and clean coal sort of thing, we should be investing in clean generation, not investing in fossil fuels which will run out in a few decades regardless.
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.
Werner Rhein So what you're saying is "Capture, store and use the methane, and kill two birds with one stone. Brilliant! All you need now is the means to do it.
part 3 - pumping CO2 underground DRAMATICALLY reduces EROEI, and we need energy sources that are high on EROEI in order to support our growing economy.
The energy we consume is not nearly vast enough, please focus on technologies to provide cheaper more abundant energy than reducing consumption. Progress and development need resources and if we had abundant energy all industries would spring like the computers and internet did.
I think this is a risky try 'cause with the co2 storage sistems we can loose the posibiliy to use the oxigen that is in the co2 for our breathing or for the animals... Does anyone see this issue???
Don't worry people Carnegie wave energy from Australia will solve energy and water needs commercially in 2018
Brushless DC motors(generators) have existed for a while tho?
Thorium is a good source of energy
in future, all cars will be driveress, driverless directly leads to light vehicles, this favours electric cars, as batteries for light cars are cheap (non-linear relationship). The cost of electricity is much less tto gas.
Very well done video that looks at so many aspects of the issues. I had done a presentation that is on my website, Innovations in Transportation that explores ideas for more efficient transportation. Bill Kuhl
everyone is saying go nuclear...the reason we have not gone that route is.....lack of fuel......it's that simple
Make fuels out of atmospheric CO2 via CCS, making transportation circular. Trees are still one of the most economic viable solutions.
Let's make this World a little Beautiful.
Let's reduce energy consumption, be more efficient
Let's produce more renewable energy
HI. I wanted to know if you can tell me the name of the music that is used in the background at the first part of the video. Tanks
the problem is overpopulation. releasing the resevoir of fossil fuel has allowed population to explode beyond sustainable limits. its a question of resources - technology was developped to exploit this resource. Nature is already renewable 'solar-powered nano-technology' , its unlikely humans can engineer anything as effective as plants (which we already evolved in symbiosis with)
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.
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
Ok, when you figure out how to do that, please give me a million dollars because you'll be a billionaire :D
statikreg Deal!
unfurtunately fusion is always 30 years away , in the 90 it was 30 years away and still is today in 10 years it may be be 30 years away as well, there are a lot of technologies in energy generation but they depend on the price mechanism of this economic system, again energy is generated by very big private companies and state copanies so basicly the market is closed for the little investors, that;s why we may never know about some technologies that are not aproved by the big companies.
Reduce the expensive investment in these new alternative sources and spend it on what we know works - nuclear power
Yea-yea-yea - let's keep the rich oil guys happy and work on something that keeps them 'healthy' instead of using one of a hundreds alternatives like HHO Stanley Mayer's (he was poisoned), Japanese car company that in 2008 has invented the car that only needed a water to run and then disappeared from the market and so on... Let's wait until we run out of oil and not until then we would see any changes.
Shale gas is only temporary we need to look at look term solutions as shale gas will run out eventually
Ocean water pressure can be used to spin a generator. Imagine that, endless out of sight out of mind clean energy that will never run out.
the problem with that is, it would hurt he pockets of the masters
Space Solar is the future!
Why?...
I don't know, just sounds damn cool!
Where is the wind farm pictured at 4:21 located?
Top 50 carbon emission locations listings accurate to street number is non-existence. Why? Is it because of corporate politics or economic politics?
I'm certain if you hunt around you could find something, especially if its pertaining to Bio-fuels or maybe Hydro-electrical.
Water or air, in air there's water, in water there hydrogen
What about energy that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere.
I`ve figured out the storage problem which I will be putting to a government grant agency on Monday 14 November. I don`t think they really want to do it right or the same old faces will lose out financially. We do not need Hinkley Point or that deal, but it`s a political move, therein lies the problem.
7 billion people in the world...what about people power to turn everyday life into clean energy.
Have a lot of people don't think for the future. Use and use oil.
1:12 I think it is a very good idea to do this solar panels with some kind of artificial light that provides energy, so the sun is nopt the only energy provider in solar panels.
what name's soundtrack?
Wind power seems sooo unrealistic.
.
Simple question : if we harvested ALL the wind on the useful surface of the world, would it be enough?
.
If not, then even talking about wind power as if it was a viable solution to the forthcoming energy crisis is unhelpful.
They can't show solutions for all problems in one 15 min movie. Don't you think that all these alternative sources of energy are useful ?
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
Solar energy is the future.
I like how at the beginning the show STEAM pouring out of these power plants . That should discredit the entire video because of the dishonesty.
How much percent we are using energy from sunlight, wind, waves to transfers into renewable energy sources, for alternative energy today?
This can help our World reduction environmental pollution, threatening the living life of Human. (Do the climate change-global warming-caused hurricanes, drought and the variety of all the human species.)
Today world in the developed countries, are using large amounts of oil gas, coals and nuclear power plants, hydro-power dams for expansion economic.
This problem will cots, occur for the power source of the world's reserves shortfall, exhausted in the future.
I think sooner or later, this issue must proceed. Because according to the needs of economic development worldwide (EDW), also because the oil and gas energy, will be established in the future.
Think about how much percent of energy came from sunlight, wind and ocean waves on our earth everyday?
You're being ignorant here, just because wind can't solve ALL our problems, doesn't mean it can't solve some of them. There is no one complete fix for a problem, with something this massive, you need more than 1 workable solution to be implemented at the same time. Wind power isn't our only clean generation method; don't forget solar, hydroelectric, and to a lesser extent thermal.
If the demands for materal and energy declines, would that means potential econonic crisis?
are there any activities set on this video?
CambridgeUniversity - why don't you mention the worlds rapidly rising population in this video regarding increasing consumption of energy?
🔥🔥🔥!