Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

The Energy Problem And What We Can Do To Solve It

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
11,430
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Oct 8, 2007

Google Tech Talks
February 28, 2007

ABSTRACT

Among America's most serious concerns are (i) national security, which is intimately tied to energy security, (ii) economic competitiveness, and (iii) the environment. These issues transcend our national boundaries and have serious implications for the world. At the core of these problems is need to secure clean, affordable and sustainable sources of energy. Solutions must come from a combination of improvements on both the demand and supply side, and science and technology will be an essential part of the solution. After briefly describing the energy problem, the remainder of the talk will describe areas of research that may lead to transforming...

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 2 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • this guy is a nobel laureate. a physicist. he is as well the acting secretary of energy in the states.

    more reneducation needed?

  • The exhaust from compressed air is cold air. It doesn't add heat to anything. Where did you go to school?

see all

All Comments (37)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Misleading headline.......... I was thinking about someone talking about renewable/ efficient energy not Global VooDoo

  • Solar and Wind power are not the way to go- they are too diffuse. They may work for residential power where the power requirements are less dense. In any place where you have population densities like those found in a city, there simply isn't enough "area" to gather the power. That means something like Nuclear or Hydroelectric (If there is a river nearby). Resource to build a powerplant actually favor a Nuclear plant of the LFTR variety.....

  • @harrymook . if you cut oil consumable 20% then some one losses at least $50 billion. some body is piss at you .i know technology and system . understand i would like to bring 30 to 50 years in the future technology in to presents day . really it doses not brake the law of physics most people would not understand why you get more out then in and dose not brake the law of physics.

  • @harrymook You cannot go over 100% efficient. maybe true in the fact some people will show up ,that you do want at your door, what do think would happen if you made free energy ?would piss a lot of billionaires off . oil is a tax on the poor .You cannot go over 100% efficient. that is not true, i have broke a lot of laws you can add this to my list You over 100% efficient. is possible . some time thing out side of the box is not it . there is no box . the box is prison for the mind.

  • @harrymook there are easier ways. cut the use of energy by 60% easy in 10years . generators are made wrong i grantee it . they can 2x more power. that could cut another 50% . .no life changes we can live on 20% of the power we do today .

  • @pikechris1 Nobels aren't worth a lot in some areas anymore..........given the pre-awards and obvious "live up to it" awards. Fortunately Physics is not one of those. This is some real good info. but regardless of reputation of anybody the GIGO pardigm is still valid. The NOAA expert refused to sign off on the hurricanes, his opinion is that the hurricanes are peaking on a natural cycle. I have seen enough controversy over the UN council graph that I cannot trust it as a reference.

  • He gives a good overview of a lot of good facts, but global warming is pretty much flopping around dying a messy death. We may6 have an effect on the environment, but much more study is needed and it must be observational data, not a modified and unavailable dataset put into some computer system. When your main reference graph fails to show the Medaevil (sp) Warming Period- it is obviously flawed.........

  • @ainventor1 wouldn't be as efficient, the density of the water/ steam has more push than the same quantity of hot air. If you are saying use steam to compress air then use the air to turn the turbine, that would be even worse..........

  • @ainventor1

    And where are you supposed to get the compressed air from?

    It will take more energy to make the compressed air than the air will produce.

  • @harrymook What can you do with 20 cents?

Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more