Energy Crisis Holistic Analysis

[ZopteY]

Note that (from my understanding anyways) photons are note transformed into electron but give electrons energy. I don't quite understand what you mean by L.E.Ds that convert one electron to one photon...one photon can have many levels of energy depending on its wavelength...can you clarify?

[neotoy]

@ZopteY It's just metaphorical in this case (the transformation). The reference is to a 100% efficient LED that emits 1 photon for every 1 electron sent through the circuit. Was in the tech news a few years ago, has since dropped off the map.

[boxa888]

look up the tesla radiant energy device, captures cosmic radiation anbd changes it into energy, i made a small scale model that anyone can make as a simple example. again tesla wireless power harnessing hydrothermal or hydro electric would solve all of your problems listed! its that simple, and very safe!

[CrossoverManiac]

70% of France's energy needs are provided by nuclear power. If it was half as dangerous the anti-nuke cultists made it out to be, France should be a nuclear wasteland. Just goes to show that most of the arguments against nuclear are outright LIES!

[neotoy]

Via NPR: "France's nuclear energy program is deeply flawed, with major cost over-runs and safety problems that have been covered up by the French government." Overlooking the safety concerns for a moment, the real problem with nuclear power is that it's not economical; and everyone in the energy industry knows this.

[CrossoverManiac]

Anti-nuke cultists love to make a federal case out of every tidbit of 'bad' news that occurs within a five-mile radius of a nuclear power plant and scream how unsafe it is. Oh, and NPR is a leftist propaganda machine that produces partisan ads despite being funded at taxpayer expense. What's next? Are you going to show me studies from the IPCC about global warming. You know the IPCC: the ones got caught in the act of falsifying global warming data.

[neotoy]

Troll detected.

[2ndKnight]

Although solar energy is promising and we should invest in it I see no large breakthroughs in solar technology. The main problems that remains are how to store energy when the sun does not shine and how to transport the energy. Most of the proposals for capturing more of the spectra such as the use of nanoantennas violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and are fuitle.

[neotoy]

"Most of the proposals for capturing more of the spectra such as the use of nanoantennas violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and are fuitle[sic]."

I think you mean the 1st law, the second law states: "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe." Which doesn't directly relate.

Discrepancies aside your statement simply isn't true.

You see no large breakthroughs because you're not looking. Try some of the links in the sidebar.

[2ndKnight]

@neotoy No, I mean the 2nd Law. Useful energy can be extracted from a system only if their is an entropy gradient. Many hare-brained schemes propose converting high entropy "waste" heat into useful energy. See my comments on YouTube's "flexible nanoantennas" site.

[2ndKnight]

I don't buy your argument against using geothermal energy. The Earth already radiates away the heat that makes it to the surface. Using a bit of it along the way to gain some free energy will make no difference to the overall ecosystem.

[neotoy]

Harvesting incidental radiation is one thing, actively extracting thermal energy is another. You do realize that it requires exceptionally deep drilling, and that the process of thermal extraction results in cooling many magnitudes beyond normal? It is not passive by any means, nor "free" as you suggest.

Also you are not thinking long-term or at an appropriate scale given the projected increase in global energy demand.

[2ndKnight]

Why worry about cooling the depths of the earth by a insignificant amount? All heat on the surface eventually is radiated away to space in any case so there is no effect on the environment. By the way, by free energy I meat it in the scientific sense, that is, Gibbs Free Energy, Such free energy drives ecosystems around thermal vents in the oceans.

[tomyloveu]

First i want to thank u for this clip.. 2nd thing is why u show ur half face i don't understand it.. and thx for sharing and giving us info.. well i am very new to all this. me was searching for a panels which be cheaper to install coz i needed 20kva system... for my home and i am so confused can u explain me whats this nanosolar panel and plastic with ink one i am all confused i want to be green but dont know what to get it i think ur right person to ask for the new technology should have.

[neotoy]

1. Face is only shown 1/2 to prevent indexing by face recognition software. I try to keep a low profile.

2. Nanosolar is nascent technology, I doubt you will be able to easily acquire it commercially for a few years, probably longer.

You will be stuck with conventional silicon solar for now, or thermal if you are more ambitious.

[manicmetropolis]

cant you adapt the energy source to the eco system?

[neotoy]

Perhaps, but first you would need to understand the ecosystem, holistically and apart from technology that interferes with its functionality. Organic systems have been in production and refinement for billions of years, working with them in harmony seems to require advanced intelligence that our species doesn't yet possess.

[manicmetropolis]

the problem with holistic metrics are that they back the options into a corner

[neotoy]

A very honest response, I appreciate that. It's a profound moral conflict that each generation struggles with on some level.

Seems pretty clear that humanity will always choose personal freedom over visible corners, even if it means destroying the very systems that support human life.

I'm not even sure if my own mind is made up, which is the better option? Ultimately each individual just has to do what they think is right for themselves, what they can live with.

[manicmetropolis]

i would choose freedom. i only got one life and i want to live it comfortably. thats my bluntness talking.

[neotoy]

I can't fault it.

Even for environmental extremists, the result is the same.

[manicmetropolis]

watch george carlins video called "saving the planet" if you want a very different perspective on things

[hitssquad]

96,000 terawatts of solar power reach the Earth's surface, on average:

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File: Breakdown_of_the_incoming_sola­r_energy. svg

Your "800 terawatts" figure is wrong, and you sometimes use it nonsensically as an energy figure. Watts and terawatts are not units of energy.

[neotoy]

I'm looking at the chart, but it says 89PW. Where are you getting the 96K TW from? I think the 800 TW was a figure derived from an annual average, possibly including only land mass. Thanks for pointing this out.

As for my inconsistent use of energy and power quantifying/qualifying words, you are totally right about that. This is due to my poor semantics. Although it is energy consumed over time, so the difference is not extreme as long as the same units are being compared.

[hitssquad]

"I'm looking at the chart, but it says 89PW."

Yes. 89PW = 89,000 terawatts. That figure is only for solar energy "absorbed by land and oceans". The chart also says that 7PW are "reflected by earth's surface". That reflected 7PW should be available to man-made solar-energy collection devices, so I added it to the 89PW for a total of 96PW, or 96,000 terawatts.

[reyty2]

excellent points.

[reyty2]

Excellent! U make sense indeed. hope scientists & industrialists look at the validity of your arguments. Keep it up!

[czarwright]

to late for me right now but fav for tomorrow.i agree with most of what you said i do look at all of the impacts of the sources. everything has a positive and a negative side to it but greed knocks us all off balance.

Does not require fuel , then no energy. like eating we just need more balance to keep it going for long.

Great vlog

Peace =)

[FeelFreeToArgue]

I fail your challenge. I guess that means we get to spend all our R&D money on solar.

Excellent analysis - though as you point out, very little is actually needed to come to the clear winner. Unfortunately, stupid inefficient techologies have lots of benjamins to pass around (on us, really, since they're subsidized) so they can save their sorry asses.

Meanwhile, enough power to fuel everything literally falls from the sky, uncaught because we refuse to make a bucket to catch it.