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
TDC In this video: https://youtu.be/oVOUE4sFMuw is it explained that there is a way to generate electricity from nuclear waste. It's called a Traveling Wave Reactor, and in theory, it could power the whole country for 700 years.
about nuclear reacor, maybe have a look at the "Dual fluid" fast reactor design, using liquid led: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265297594_THE_DUAL_FLUID_REACTOR_-A_NEW_CONCEPT_FOR_A_HIGHLY_EFFECTIVE_FAST_REACTOR
Fusion: Tokamak designs like ITER in france is very large and to expensive. Smaller reacor designs could make the brake trough. One of my favorite is two-laser fusion, shooting on solid boron. This is a anneutronic fusion approach, means no neutrons, no radioactive waste, it is NOT NIF, the large laser faclity. They use newest petawatt lasers, shottings pulsed laser beams. In this fusion field Prof. Heinrich Hora is leading contender. Search for "avalanche effect" and "block ignition"
powerful high repetive Petawatt Laser at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: https://youtu.be/rDpLT7yTQvA
Petawatt aneutronic Laser Fusion: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/billion-times-improvement-with-laser-nuclear-fusion-using-avalanche-reaction-effect.html
Happy to see so many people discussing Thorium and next generation reactors. Especially molten salt reactors. This is very viable technology that needs rapid development. This could be an interim option until other power sources are properly developed. Not something the oil, coal and gas frackers want you to know about.
NEW HOME SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM : The '20k solar panel system' is coming to an end.
Wall street confirms all share holders are selling hard after this weird cheap solution popped on the radar...
And they have every reason to...
Over 18,000 Patriots are using the system in their homes... (and that's just in the last three months) hey get unlimited energy for less than 80 cents a day...
Without paying one nickel more to their electricity provider!
If you’re skeptical...
Just watch this short video... and you’ll be able to cut
your power bills to almost ZERO in just 45 minutes! WATCH IT HERE : https://bit.ly/2nLYvYt
10. Giant friggin laser in the sky controlled by the goverment, really good idea, btw i belive you want to reduce global warming,not heat the whole place up by lasering the earth
9.The Matrix -srsly?
8. Good idea but too little energy
7.Hydrogen is gotten by electrolysis, which needs electricity produced by: You guessed it. Mostly by fossil fuels power plants
6. Not enough electricity, it is profitable but not enough
5. I agree completely
4.Solar is still too expensive, unreliable, needs goverment subsidies and any technology that needs goverment subsidies is obviously flawed. If it was profitable the technology would spread by itself.
3. Interesting about algae, it's like trapping the solar energy inside of a chemical.Algae grows by itself and collects the energy inside itself as a form of oil. Extract that oil and you can reuse the rest as a food medium for next generation of algae
I'm still sceptical becuse to produce the amount needed would still need a much larger infrastructure than we have today with other types of energy sources.
2. Wind is unreliable and the turbines still needs rare earth metal neodymium to produce electricity, which could be used by better power plants which can turn the turbines with greater force thus producing more electricity
1.While the reactors might work, the technology is not advanced enough and returns enough energy back to be viable for commercial use, it's at least 10 years away.
For now oil is the best fuel source that we got and we should use it to pull people from poverty not put laws that sounds nice but doesn't do any good and let investors invest freely into alternative power sources without goverment interferance and/or aid and let the market decide the best alternative.
This was supposed to be a joke comment but it got out of hand pretty quick.
Hey, You folks never heard of LENR? There's nothing better. Here's the NASA video that brought me around to their way of thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjA5LLraX0 Zawodny and Spaceplanes from NASA
What about "Unicorn Tears"??? What do you do when you find out the REAL Problem is "GLOBAL COOLING" and GAS powered cars could have prevented it...Except the Tree-huggers outlawed all the real cars, so now we are will and truly "F**ked "...
You forgot geothermal, ion power from the ionosphere or ion reflex interaction for ion reactors. Magnetohydrodynamic sources of cells that use ionization sources for fuel. Nuclear batteries or magic acid fuel cell or urea hydrogen storage. Thorium breeders and aneutronic fusion....
I love your videos, very well made, but PLEASE, PLEASE, P L E A S E, lose the flipping music in the background!!! It does NOTHING but distract from ALL of the really great information one is trying to disseminate.
Fast reactors are interesting but dealing with liquid sodium is no walk in the park. Super hot sodium that instantly combusts on encountering air and basically explodes. Needs a lot of work to sort out thousands of issues. Light water is inefficient but relatively simple.
Geeze. Techno-Optimism. Fun stuff to talk about, but what the most of the planet is currently up to it's shoulders trying to do is nothing less than saving civilization - little left to fiddle with things as complicated as fusion (we can't even make fission work reliably). This effort to save civilization is embodied in the CoP-21 in Paris. Then the US pulled the plug. Now we're scrabbling for what we can.
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe". Yep, that's true but SO WHAT?! Is anyone going to fly around the Universe to round it up? No? Then, what difference does it make? A true but totally irrelevant fact.
I explain perpetual motion in an underwater wheel called a gravity harness... and people hear turrets or some other thing im not saying. (or writing) To those who can read this as words...
To work on bringing down that barrier
go to youtube "degrasse lectures" 5/12/2011 and read comments by me called "Baby steps # 1 to 6" and understand whats been going on. It's sort of a time bomb ... tic ... tic ... tic
And it will all NOT benefit the common person because it's less expensive than the crap companies have made billions from. Then again, they might ramp up the costs without justification and make their money that way from the next generations.
Well done but notably missing is Liquid Salt Thorium reactors. 95% efficient fuel use. No need for enrichment as primary isotope is used. 400x as much fuel grade Thorium vs Uranium. Much lower operating pressures. No chance of melt down. Much lower evolution of weapons grade by-products. Extraction of valuable Deutrium can be extracted from the liquid as a by-product.Safer, cheaper, more abundant nuclear reactors that can be run with fewer security restrictions. Also, Thorium in US is frequently found with Rare Earth elements that are "contaminated" by Thorium and therefore expensive to extract as Thorium must be safely disposed of. This would reverse with Thorium a product and Rare Earth element mining in US and other countries would flourish where currently suppressed.
It's absolutely REDICULOUS. There will be NO Solar panels in space. RUBBISH. There will be NO HUMAN POWER, REDICULOUSLY inefficient. Wave power is already completely obsolete compared to other techs. Hydrogen Fuel Cells are in their infancy in the market and there is significant new technology now that can eclipse everything that is on the market today in electric cars. Geothermal will be phased out completely in time also. Sodium Reactors will be one solution to reduce some of the massive amount of the radioactive waste that Bill Gates is campaining that we put in every neighborhood with kids these days to kill them all like in Japan. Solar windows will be good for a while and then ultimately mothballed and dead. Biofuels also will be dead as there is no reason for burning anything, however the oil can replace plastics from black oil. Wind will be completely mothballed. God those blimps are ugly as hell. The video maker is COMPLETELY WRONG about fake heat based fusion which lawrence livermore labs as of this year 2018 on their websites state that it will be 30 YEARS MORE before they even have any ability at all to be able to fuse anything, MAYBE, and they have no idea how "hot" they need to make the plasma in order to fuse, heating the plasma to 15x more than the core of the sun's "temperature" and still having fused absolutely nothing. They have NOT achieved any energy gain as real actual fusion does not give off any significant energy nor is there any reason for anyone to ever think that it would do such. Its an absolute con job of the most epic proportion in all of human history.
Wired.com - Good Read - Good beginner's article - Gov't & Dept of Defense silenced over 5,000 energy patents - "petro-dollar" cannot disappear quickly without causing serious uncertainty to many powerful groups or people. https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/
The French have been working the Super-Pheonix system for more then 50 years now which are super-generators fast breaders. They were supposed to bring one unit for each classic reactor site whereby reducing the dangerous waste by 80 %. But very effective lobby and environmentalist pressures actually killed everything making worry that the green activists are actually defending the petrol agenda.
10. Forget it. No one wants a deathray out of control.
9. Good idea, Human power wont make much of difference but good for heath :)
8. Good idea.
7. Hydrogen is no energy source. It's a energy carryer!
6. Risky and unstabil I believe.
5. Forget it. Extreemly dangerous and very expencive.
4. Not proven and probably inefficient. Roof solar is good idea.
3. Good idea. Get rid of Trump and koch bros. who will try stop it.
2. Complex, but cool idea.
1. Forget it. Very dangerous for and super expencive.
Add BIOGAS. Run CNG-cars, -buses, -trucks and gasturbines.
Let your propane stove feed of BIOGAS, (mods may be needed).
What is BIOGAS? It's methane - not drilled, not fracked, just farts from bacterias.
How to make it? Many guides on the tube. Collect any biodergradable stuff like:
Food waste, farm waste, animal waste, human waste, (sure, poo is energy!), and more...
It's scaleable from household of one to huge city size plants.
What to do with waste from BIOGAS plant? Fertilizer.
Lmao, do you know how much oil will be required to build all this garbage? Think a little deeper about the machines that will be required to make the parts to build this crap. It’s a myth that oil is a fossil fuel, oil is a byproduct of decomposing organisms making it a constantly generating resource.
The hidrogen it the most comune element here of this planet all the seea have inside over 40 procent from this element when we could have used this element we could have enoug energy for many milenien years!
The type of fusion only mentioned is hot fusion.
While private companies fund into hot fusion, cold fusion has got a little more success than hot fusion.
There are however criteria that remain ignored which regard how this really works
Thank you for saying how bad biomass fuels are. Killing about 100'000 people a year by starvation including helpless and innocent children.
Forget solar, wind, waves and so on, this is just a drop in the bucket. And the sum of a few almost nothings is still almost nothing. It's a waste of attention, energy, resources, money and so on. We need to stop this, we need to stay focused.
A good example to see that is solar in Germany. Yes, some years on one day of the year it produces a lot. But on average over the year it does not produce more than 1% of German primary energy. So Germany has spent over 500 billion on renewable energy. and what is the result? It is burning more fossil fuel. Solar or wind are intermittent, so you need backup power plants running on hot standby, burning fuel to kick in when solar or wind cease. Without solar or wind Germany would be producing less CO2.
So instead of increasing CO2 with wind and solar Germany could have build 100 nuclear power plants with those 500 billion. That would have dramatically reduced CO2, and it would have made all electricity Germany uses and leave some for export or to replace heating by oil with electricity. Germany could have been made 100% independent of imports of fossil fuels. Germany could be saving 100 billion every year if it did not import all the gas and oil and coal.
Like China is planing to do, you can even make car fuel in nuclear power plants. Let's go for energy abundance using nuclear power. Let's build Generation 3+ and 4th Generation ultra safe and clean nuclear power plants. And let's develop molten salt reactors and fusion reactor and build those once they are market ready.
The future is nuclear, fission and someday fusion. We need to start building lots of nuclear power plants now to end poverty. People need energy. So let's aim for 100'000 nuclear power plants by 2100.
Humanity will have a great future if we go all in on nuclear power.
Nikola Tesla figured out free energy and it was cheap to do. The elite suppressed the tech because they couldn't make money off of it. He got the idea from the Egyptians. You can pull unlimited clean energy out of the ionosphere that's why there's pyramids and obelisks all of the earth. The best kind of slaves are people that don't know their slaves. Wake up people
Geothermal....YOU missed it. NOT using magma...but individual houses can use a heat pump to heat/cool their own houses. The earth has a constant 55 degree temp. The cost is only slightly higher as normal heating/cooling systems.
Beaming tera watts of energy down from space? Yeah that's a great idea! NOT! What do yuo think will happen to any birds that fly through that beam? And what about the small aircraft piloted by independent pilots? They'll be downed and killed. From a safety standpoint beaming high energy down form space is a bad idea. Tidal enrgy? If you want to build a high mantenence system that's theway to go. Sea creatures like barnciles and oysters are going to attach themselves to the units and interefe with movement. Also tidal surges from storms and unusualually large waves could damage them. Hydrogen is viable and I don't know of any drawbacks yet. I'm sure the hydrogen will be teken from water producing oxygen and hydrogen. What I don't know is whether that willl lead to shirnking water supplies on earth. I guess we''ll have to do to find out! Won't that be fun? Geothermal. Yeah that seems practical, but those plants need to be placed in areas where the magma is close to the surface. Those areas suffer from volcaninsm. Hawai just lost it's geothermal plant to a volcano. So unlessd you can ssure that the area will be stable for a long time it's not really a good idea. Fast reactors? Yeah won't they just melt down faster? I can see some real safety issues with nuclear power. Even now they're too dangrous and too unstsble to be safe. Why not thorium reactors? They are safe! Solar windows and solar pannels are definitely viable and safe. Biofuels! Methane is a biosfuel. So is Natural gas. Methane can be produced from biowaste. Plant or fecal matter rotting in covered tanks and a vapor extraction method to remove the methane. Not exactly safe, but it could be done with some resonable amount of safety if you know what you're doing. Methane is highly explosive you know. Algae! that's intersting you know. Perhaps algae is the real source of the oil depostits under the earth. Something to think about. Since most oil depostis lie below salt deposits and salt deposits form on sea beds. It's reasonable to assume that oil deposits formed under what was once a sea bed. Hence algae! Flying wind farms? I don't think so. Too much technical difficulty. What about extreemly high wineds? What will happen whe the tethers break? How much wire will it need to deliver the power to the ground? What about maintenence. Let's do some research. Build some prototypes and run them for twenty years. Then we'll know wether it's viable. One problem we will have with flying wind turbines is aircraft. There will be pilot errors. standing wind mills will suffer the same fate. Fusion. Well that remains to be seen. Will it be safe? Will it be expensive? What kind of waste will it produce?
Thanks for this great video. it's been fun and informative.
THIS VIDEO SHOULD BE CALLED “ TOP FUTURE GOVERNMENT ALLOWED ENERGY” TRUE ENERGY SOURCES HAVE BEEN BURIED BY THE GOVERNMENTS “ FREE ENERGY COMES FROM THE UNIVERSE AND HAS BEEN BURIED WITH OUR TRUE PAST! Wake up people
Rockets use hydrogen because it has the highest amount of Specific energy (i.e. it has more chemical energy per kg than any other substance). I have never heard of nasa using hydrogen because they worry about polution.
Also you cannot use hydrogen as an energy souce unless you find naturally ocuring pure hydrogen which, as far as I am aware, only exists on earth in limited supply. Almost all hydrogen on earth is bonded to other elements. Therefore at most you could use it to store energy. So what im getting at is that hydrogen fuel cells ARE NOT A ENERGY SOURCE, they are technically more like a battery.
This is so full of holes, particularly efficiency. Any power source of the future will need to be more efficient and cost effective over its component life than existing technologies to be an energy source of the future. So let's see what we got here:
1. Hydrogen fuel cell - No way to efficiently create, nor store, nor use the hydrogen. Every step is fairly inefficient and all put together just awful. Plus in a car you are sitting on a tank compressed to 10,000 PSI of rocket fuel as hydrogen is literally the rocket fuel used by rockets such as the Space Shuttle, which also once blew up mid launch due to a hydrogen fuel leak (Challenger 1986). Bad. Current battery electric vehicles are 6 times more efficient as in 90% vs 15% of hydrogen and don't erupt into a massive explosion when you crash. So battery wins, hydrogen fuel cell loses. The final nail in the coffin already happened years ago once the Tesla Model S was released and now we are to the Model 3, further putting this bad fuel cell nightmare to bed.
2. Fast breeder reactor - Ever heard the song "We Almost Lost Detroit" co authored by Gil Scott Heron? I suppose the story has been whitewashed in recent years by the Monroe Historical Society but yeah this fast breeder idea was tried in the US and phrases such as burning a hole to China came out of dramatic failures in these experiments along with Sodium fires that could not be put out because sodium violently reacts with moisture in the air and explodes when in direct contact with water. I guess you did not pay attention in Chemistry class, but yeah could have picked something safer than sodium as the thing you cool a nuclear reactor with. Plus the real purpose of molten sodium fast breeder reactors was to make weapons grade plutonium for thermonuclear bombs. This is pretty much the most insane dangerous reactor design ever conceived with some of the worst intentions behind it. If you want to promote fission power, maybe LFTR as that uses chemically inert fluoride salts, breads abundant thorium into short lived U233 and cannot be used to make nukes while burning all of the nuclear fuel in a continuous cycle with the waste decaying to background radiation within 300 years vs billions with light water reactors. Plus runs hot enough to drive a jet engine, who's exhaust can then pass through a radiator and boil water, driving a steam turbine and maybe even desalinating sea water, especially as there is plenty of physical separation between reactor and water at that point making it completely safe to do. The worst thing that could happen with a LFTR reactor is you could have some molten salt leak out and clump and solidify on the floor. Then when you fix the leak, just scoop up the solid clump and put it back into the reactor. No real harm done. No chance for it to go boom. No worries about nuclear proliferation. Waste is tiny and reasonably manageable. So yeah, you could have promoted something arguably good, but instead you promoted a terrible idea.
3. Space based solar power - Even if you do build this, you need landing zones for microwave power to come down to. You are probably only going to get a handful of places around the world permitted for this far, far from any population center or any part of the planet that is really alive at all. This leads to the need for HVDC (high voltage direct current) HTS (high temperature super conductor) power grid spanning countries and continents. You get to this point of massive levels of power transmission over vast areas and you finally have a way to link all of the intermittent ground based renewable resources such as wind and solar and storage systems such as pumped hydro and battery systems together to even out things quite a bit.
4. The real problem with corn Ethanol and a lot of similar ideas the oil industry likes to back - Too inefficient. As bad as it is pumping dino-juice out of the ground and doing many environmentally damaging things along the way to making our cars and trucks move around, there are actually less efficient ways of doing things that ultimately end up burning more dino juice in the end. For example corn ethanol uses petro burning tractors and petro burning pumps and many petro intensive processes to grow the corn. Then the harvesting with petro powered machines, shipping with petro powered machines, and refinement with coal powered facilities, only to ship again with another petro powered truck to your local ethanol gas station burns a lot more petro than ethanol you get out of the process and could never break even. The whole food waste issue is also bad, so this was all bad, no good unless you were a farmer, then you loved whether Republican administration peddled this idea. You should get a brain on this channel and start spotting when the oil industry starts peddling crap. The reason they do this is to distract from potential real solutions such as advanced batteries (which they have been known to buy the rights to and shut down) and solar (which they have also gone out of their way to put the brakes on such as taking the solar panels off of the White House and killing the 6 GWs of solar by 2006 project in the US Southwest back in 2001 as soon as Bush got into office) so you either have false hope from this carrot being dangled just out of reach or get so inundated by bad ideas they promote that you miss the ideas that would work and ultimately lose hope.
5. Grid stability - Did not really address this. Really if you want to talk about the energy of the future, you have to talk about how to go about making a stable, sustainable grid. So much could have been said, but you didn't bother.
6. Renewable availability, where, and how much - If you really want renewable you gotta be honest about what is practical where and how much is available. If you ramble on about ways to get a few MW highly intermittently here and there is demand all over the world for 10's of TW of reliable power following particular patterns around how humans go about there day pretty much completely disconnected from the natural world you are talking about harvesting, you are not talking to me about the energy of the future in the grand scheme of things. That 10's of TW of demand is going to be filled somehow globally and it is not going to be predominantly filled by highly intermittent spits and spats technologies that just give you a little bit in a few spots. Instead it is going to be filled with what works on the larger scale.. I have come up with you can tie a wide variety of things together for form a green grid, but you never got into anything like this.
If stock market fluctuations keep you awake at night, it would be better not to throw yourself into buying stock.
Investing to pay for higher education for your children, to finance a sabbatical or your retirement involve different investment strategies .
To invest in the stock market , it is strongly recommended you have an investment horizon of at least 5 years .
Tools and tips.
2. Define the analysis method.
A variety of analytical tools are available to gain a better grasp of the plethora of economic and stock market information.
The quantitative method analyzes some economic variables to detect trends.
Complementary tools exist as well. Contact your financial institution to find out what tools are available to you.
Tools and tips.
This video introduces the analysis tools and methods you will need to make informed investment decisions.
3. Formulate an investment policy.
This involves setting a direction for your portfolio. The direction is based on 4 principles.
Diversification means a decline by some securities is offset by an increase by others.
Tools and tips.
This video will provide 4 key tips to managing your securities well.
4. Evaluate and monitor your portfolio.
Some events may prompt you to change your portfolio to keep it in line with your investment policy.
Tools and tips.
5. Improve your knowledge.
The investment world is changing constantly, which means you must update your knowledge continually. Rather than being satisfied with what you already know, keep on learning .
Tools and tips.
Investment Portfolio Management.
Investment Portfolio Management is the art of putting together and managing various investments to meet specific goals. We will examine management strategy choices, asset allocation and investing strategies, and management of risk as they pertain to management of an investment portfolio.
Passive management is for investors willing to accept market returns. Using a fixed asset allocation with a portfolio comprised of index funds would be examples of passive management.
Asset Allocation Strategies.
Strategic Asset Allocation.