These are ten most promising alternative energy sources of tomorrow.
It’s a really exciting time to be alive. We have a front row seat to the only known transformation of a world powered by dirty fossil fuels, to a planet that gets its energy from renewable, clean sources. It’s happening just once, right now.
Subscribe to TDC:
Like our page on Facebook
Join us on Google+
Follow us on Twitter
10. Space-based solar power
9. Human Power
8. Tidal Power
7. Hydrogen (fuel cells)
6. Geothermal heat from underground lava beds
5. Nuclear Waste
4. Solar windows
3. Bio-fuels (algae)
2. Flying wind farms
1. Nuclear fusion
This video profiles the alternative energy sources of the future and the areas of energy development.
Check out our recent series on the solutions to stop Global Warming:
@Will Power you do realize there are allready drones powered by this reactor in the united states air force. The documents on their tests exist. They are unmaned and can cloak look like flying dorito chips and constantly hover around and regularly rest near homes. Somtimes stay above home for months. Give off a lot of radiation but its nothing our bodys cant handle. If you so happen to notice one it will have 3 glowing jets on its corner 1 propellor hiddin in the center and a ball of liquid salt surrounding the main reactor. Its really quiet but you can make out the wirring noises as the salt slushes around. As far as I know they are harmless. Ive thrown a tennis ball at one and it just sat their. Didnt budge. Eventually after a month it went away. You can see them escourting the presidents jet in some videos. They are strange but they are public now. In the next couple of year weird stuff will happen. It will seem like the end. But we as humanity will find a way. We allways do. And we allways will. I may not seem like the one to give a speach on a phone in the middle of a bunch of texts but ill tell you this. Find the smarted people you know. and prepare a think tank. Ive got a job that allows me to pay for my experimets so i can fund my own research. Ive made a minature molten salt reactor. Its. Amazeing. But the molten salt could do a better job. Ive used up all my fuel and have decontaminated it by locking in a multi layer lead safe burried 10 feet underground. Along with the blueprints. Of course I have a copy but better safe then sorry
Basically what im saying is that get your smart friends and people you know and think. Never stop thinking. The world needs smart people. People who understand what we say. We ate the inventors of tomarrow. We reverse engineer for fun. Yet we are divided.
@marcelo amaral when they say mosy its because the moon if full of it. On earth we got a lot too. But Fission doesnt really need Helium 3 when it can be created in the reactor. By useing thorium. With thorium you throw a 1 tube of fuel in and you end up with 2x the amount of fuel given the decay process sure it needs some uranium to get started but after that its all clean and will burn up more fuel and be more efficient.
@Alireza Mehrnia The MSR reactor allows you to control the energy. Its safer then nuclear and would provide 2 times as much energy if need be then a regular fussion reactor. If we can get enough people to sign a petition we can make nuclear fussion reactors dissapear and make way for the Fission reactors of the future they are cleaner less bulky. Light enough to be in an airplane. Actually tested by the united states Air Force and are safe enough that they wont blow up and melt down. Because Salt doesnt really melt. It just goes molten like water and hardens like salt at room temp. Because its allways frozen at room temp.
Alternative energy means paying china to make panels whilst the panels use 2.5 times more coal to make the panels over their entire life time than it takes to just BURN COAL... why do we need to give them jobs and make their rich people richer whilst they have 1.2 billion poor people earning $250 a month working 12 hours days 6-7 days a week...??? piss off alternative Communist energy.... Socialists suck weener.
LOL Space X ever becoming cheaper LOL What a crock of hard sell advertising this crap is... Solar isnt even marketable at 46% efficient yet and Coal is at 40% and getting cheaper in 2 years time as well as more 98%efficient hydro plants.... gee
This video should have stopped after it listed the number one source of energy in the future ... fusion. Energy sources 2 through 10 all have one and the same problem, they are rediculously expensive and can only be utilized by forcing people to pay vastly more for energy than for conventional energy. This would result in massive decreases in the quality of live for all people. Only fusion power offers the promise of virtually free, clean, and non polluting energy. Advances in fusion power development mean that fusion power generation will be a reality within the next decade. Twenty years from now the world will be dotted with dozens of fusion power plants producing essentially free electricity and transforming the world in the process. Previously uneconomic industrial processes, such as water desalinization, will become cheap and easily doable once electricity becomes free.
The flip side of free electricity produced from fusion is that virtually every other energy source will not be able to compete. Twenty years from now the world will be dotted with the rotting hulks of hundreds of thousands of windmills, solar farms, and other green energy boondoggles that produce fine electricity but at a price 1000 times higher than the price of fusion electricity. 100% of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in green energy boondoggles will eventually be written off as the price of maintaining windmills and solar farms becomes more than the electricity can be sold for. They will be abandoned to rot and will serve as constant reminders of the foolishness of government mandated technology development.
Fortunately for the world at large, free fusion energy also means that nobody will want to generate electricity from oil, coal, or gas anymore. All carbon based electrical generation will cease almost overnight as soon as fusion power plants come on line. Electric cars will rule as they will be almost free to operate. The only place that oil will continue to be utilized is for lubrication and for specialty applications such as airplanes and ships that do not lend themselves to using fusion generated electricity.
100 years ago the world converted from using horses for transportion to cars within a decade. There was no massive government program to convert from horses to cars. 30 years ago the world converted from analog computation to digital computers within less than a decade. Again, no massive program to force technological change. The moral is that when the economics are there then massive change can occur. The time is right for the change to fusion power.
Ok, this is great but when you say sustainable do you mean also for the land and the people around that land where you are building these new energy sources? Sustainable for who Amerikkka or is it going to require continuous exploitation and colonization of the global south?
We could harvest static electricity from our pavements our pavement could be made of copper/nylon pressure mats which when compressed create static electricity which could then be directed into a huge battery underneath the road which also picks up the static electricity from the pressure inflicted upon the road from the traffic cars vans lorries etc . I haven't really lookedattheproblemproperly yetthisideais justoffofmy head and needs a little tweeking but it's workable
02:05 emotion of the ocean sounded like big bang..err i mean..the bloodhoung gang the bad touch lyrics&here i quote"Let me be Pacific, I want to be down in your South Seas
But I got this notion that the motion of your ocean,
Means small craft advisory
So if I capsize in your thighs, high tide, be minus five,"
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that the Man-made CO2 climate change theory is wrong and every computer model predicting global warming, based on CO2 has been proven to be wrong. Just to cope with the world's annual INCREASE in energy demand will require a windfarm the size of the UK!!!! What a travesty! The Greens are ruining our economies on a hoax designed to get those socialists into power. Wake up world!
You first say that "the only reason we are not powering the entire world with hydrogen is because it only exists on our planet in combination with other elements", but then you completely ignore this issue and go directly to talk about cars and planes powered by hydrogen. How is this hydrogen extracted? Doesn't it cost more electricity to extract the hydrogen than the electricity you'd get back from whatever amount of pure hydrogen you've managed to collect?
1. Fusion does create nuclear waste 2. The most promising source of energy is Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium. No nuclear 'waste', just elements essential for the treatment of cancers which are very expensive to find and produce. Indeed the present store of nuclear waste can be destroyed to generate energy as a supplementary fuel in a MSR. The MSR was designed and built by Alvin Weinberger who designed our current nuclear reactors. He preferred the MSR because it generated very little plutonium. Not liked by the military industrial complex so it didn't get funded.
No 7 Hydrogen - you got some of it wrong.
1. It produces literally 0 pollution, not almost. (unless you count water as pollution)
2. It is not the reason why nasa is using it. They use it because it is the most efficient fuel to power the rocket, not because it is cleanest. It is lightweight which means the rocket weighs less which means it can go further.
3. Hydrogen existing in combination with other elements is only one of the reasons its not used. More importantly the rest of the world don't use it because it is extremely combustible and dangerous, also because it is very difficult to store. Hydrogen is the smallest atom and H2 is the smallest molecule and it will therefore slowly "leak" through the walls of any container. Much like helium filled balloon will deflate in a few days.
None of this is predictable due to the nature of technology. We can only use what we discover and that is an incremental process - one thing leads to another then another. It's why there is always so many surprises in technological innovation - we never know where or what the next breakthrough will be, only that is will occur. Just a few years ago all we heard was "the end of oil" and how doomed we were. Then fracking came along, then natural gas and we're moving to a new platform.
As for nuclear power, the research into Thorium should never have been stopped but it probably was because a Thorium reactor cannot produce weapons grade material ! If you doubt that check out the truth about Calder Hall, Britain's first nuclear power plant that was pitched as generating electricity so cheaply, it would not be worth charging consumers for it ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uStFvcz9Or4
I was wondering if someone was working on the walking to charge the cell phone. I would think they would at least be able to extend the battery life. I sure there are math reasons or something, it's more complicated than I think.
It wasn't the cheap oil that stopped the model T from running on alcohol,it was the Rockefellers and standard oil company they were the ones who pushed the woman's temperance movement and the 13th amendment of probation of alcohol.
The solar power plant in California that is mentioned at about the 7:26 mark is one of the most expensive energy power plants, that if it was not prompted up by the government, would have been shut down by now or never would have been built. It is the perfect example of how we can build something as a proof of concept, and then we should learn that it was a bad idea and never do it again. It cost about 10,000 times more to buy electricity from that power plant than it does from more traditional solar power plants. It is also important to state that solar is still the most expensive way to generate electricity. Also, growing by 500% or f times is saying that solar went from .26% of the U.S. energy production to 1.3% of the U.S. energy production, which is not a bad thing, I just think that we should be honest with the solar growth. I cold discuss many other points in this video, however, it is best to say that there are many cool ideas out there, however, the technologies are not ready for massive implementation.
Nuclear fission is way cleaner then fussion you mixed up the two. The msr reactor is better if combined with thorium your wrong. The "fast reactor" is not safe. The Molten salt reactor is better. Yet its being swept away from the market due to oil lobbying.
@Charles McMillion I understand but you cycle those unsafe products through the reactor again so it can burn it as fuel till its goes down to a safer element that can handle it. Such as bismuth 232. Thats used in pepdobismo in small dosages in order to work. We can also use it to target and insta kill cancer cells. When its half life that is only 4 hours is up it will eject and that will be all but if we can attach it to a white blood cell and program the cell to go after cancer cells. It will attach the cells and stick to them and when the bismuth is about to die off it will eject into the nucleas of the cancer cell and kill it instantly. Pretty good for what it can do. I understand fusion is also good. But not perfect given what its done in the past.
@Theninety My point is that it's *fusion* that's clean. The result is Helium. It's fission that leaves you with dangerous radioactive daughter elements that are dangerous for thousands to millions of years.
@Charles McMillion xD you right. People dont understand science. I know my grammar is not up to par. But what i know about reactors. I can put the ball a bit. This guy doesnt understand what to look for and is all into getting monitized rather then being correct. The sad part is that people will stick with what he says rather then looking up correct info.
These problems have already been solved since the 1920s but sadly our government re-education camps known as public schools keep regurgitating all of these systems you mention in this video to each generation as just around the corner.
I won't hold my breath waiting for any of these.
Drilling very deep is well understood.
So why can't pressure (or temperature) at depth be a source of power-generation?
Getting our consumption under control is a better way to manage demand.
Floodlit buildings, idiotic and makes me wonder why I bother trying to save energy when this is going on.
Using pressure to make electricity is called Piezoelectricity and it'd been used for a LONG time. Piezoelectric Plates are cheap , and used in pressure sensor ... It's crystal power !
"Piezoelectricity is the electric charge that accumulates in certain solid materials (such as crystals, certain ceramics, and biological matter such as bone, DNA and various proteins) in response to applied mechanical stress. The word piezoelectricity means electricity resulting from pressure and latent heat."
Solar powered balloons 2 cords and you can gather energy rain or shine best design can fuel 45000 homes change that so you can have 100% energy with no bird killing and placed over the ocean a good design and they can last 100s if not thousands of years and be a constant energy source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPI8G6COc8g&t=3s
#1 "wirelessly beamed collected energy to earth
with either microwave or laser beam"...we can't send energy through space...not now...not effeciently or I could get rid of all the copper wires around here.
this is a crock of crap advertising for Climate change... think if climate change were real why are insurance companies investing not divesting in islands.... Rich people know how to tug ur wiener dude... enjoy that hope coz its foreplay.
Bahahahaha.... no really Gerorge Bush Jr, got senate approval to build a solar collector and beam the energy back to guam. Then Russia complained about space weapons, and democrats shut the program down.... LOL, LOL
I enjoy democrats. I think they are most hypocritical people on Earth.
3 battery production why haven't we attempted to make batteries that can fit on a silicon wafer just like a silicon transistor we could easily use the processes that make a semiconductor transistor and build microscopic or even nano-scale voltaic piles instead of copper and zinc we could use graphene and lithium and make a energy density that would increase tenfold
First why does everything have to be a farm wind farm solar farm at this point anything that's a farm take up space very inefficient if you really want to farm make a couple of Tesla magnifying Transformers FaceTime in the middle of Africa or around the equator where lightning strikes happened pretty regularly throughout the year and capture 21 gigawatts of energy that comes blasting through the Earth
The Power Efficiency Guide is a step-by-step guide showing you EXACTLY how to create your own "home power plant" TODAY... cutting down by 60% or more your electric bill in the next 30 days.. check how it works https://bit.ly/2Ue1CKU
A trigger is a named PL/SQL unit that is stored in the database and executed ( fired ) in response to a specified event that occurs in the database.
Overview of Triggers.
A trigger is a named program unit that is stored in the database and fired (executed) in response to a specified event. The specified event is associated with either a table, a view, a schema, or the database, and it is one of the following:
A database manipulation (DML) statement ( DELETE , INSERT , or UPDATE )
A database definition (DDL) statement ( CREATE , ALTER , or DROP )
A database operation ( SERVERERROR , LOGON , LOGOFF , STARTUP , or SHUTDOWN )
The trigger is said to be defined on the table, view, schema, or database.
A DML trigger is fired by a DML statement, a DDL trigger is fired by a DDL statement, a DELETE trigger is fired by a DELETE statement, and so on.
An INSTEAD OF trigger is a DML trigger that is defined on a view (not a table). The database fires the INSTEAD OF trigger instead of executing the triggering DML statement. For more information, see Modifying Complex Views (INSTEAD OF Triggers).
A system trigger is defined on a schema or the database. A trigger defined on a schema fires for each event associated with the owner of the schema (the current user). A trigger defined on a database fires for each event associated with all users.
A simple trigger can fire at exactly one of the following timing points :
Before the triggering statement executes.
After the triggering statement executes.
Before each row that the triggering statement affects.
After each row that the triggering statement affects.
A compound trigger can fire at more than one timing point. Compound triggers make it easier to program an approach where you want the actions you implement for the various timing points to share common data. For more information, see Compound Triggers.