For preview only. Get it at Amazon.com.

The Future of Energy

2015 ,    »  -   20 Comments
466
6.34
12345678910
Ratings: 6.34/10 from 130 users.
Storyline
The Future of Energy

In the opening moments of the inspiring new documentary titled The Future of Energy, we're provided a guided tour through Greensburg, Kansas, a seemingly typical Midwestern town with a population of just under a thousand. In 2007, a fierce tornado struck the town and annihilated the vast majority of its buildings and infrastructure. Undaunted, the community decided to rebuild by harnessing the same power that was once the cause of its destruction: wind. Today, Greensburg is entirely operated on 100% renewable wind energy. Their shining example sets the stage for the remainder of the film, which urges the necessity for similar progressive actions in every city across the globe.

There are few issues more pressing in our modern society than that of energy. Currently, the majority of the world's energy is produced through the burning of fossil fuels, a process which has proven detrimental to the health and safety of our planet and all of its inhabitants. In addition to the ramifications related to climate change, our unsustainable energy habits place great burdens upon the world's economies, which contribute to the financial instability of families throughout the world.

The answer, according to the myriad of experts represented in the film, is the powerful clean energy trio of wind, water and solar. According to researchers, renewable energies could power the entire globe by the year 2050. The technologies are right at our fingertips. All we seem to lack is the social and political willpower to make widespread renewable energies our reality.

Energy independence is only possible when communities break away from a system which continues to rely upon outdated and pollution-inducing technologies. The Future of Energy take us on a journey to discover how this has been made possible in regions throughout the United States, as citizens have joined together to outfit their homes and businesses with solar panels and a multitude of additional clean energy conductors. With infectious enthusiasm, The Future of Energy shines a spotlight on the many everyday figures that stand at the forefront of the clean energy revolution, and shows us that the capacity for positive change in the world begins with the individual.

Directed by: Brett Mazurek

20 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Steve Crow

    LOVE this video. I wish I made it! Still, I'm going to look for ways to get involved. Congratulations to the producers, crew and supporters of this video and the movement it documents.

  2. Christian Tintin Johansson

    In Sweden the government wants to tax solar energy.. Why tax solar energy? Does someone own it and is it bad for the enviroment in some way? Don´t think so! Everything is about money and power.

  3. Jason West

    "Carbon emissions are the direct cause of climate change." Disingenuous, completely unproven claim. It isn't science until it is and the scientific method hasn't proven anything re: hydrofluorocarbons/greenhouse gases causing climate change.

  4. tuneman

    honestly the music is so bad in this video i cant even watch it, listen to the intro music for Elon Musk on his announcement for Tesla Energy, its like bad ass rock music, either make good score music or just keep that corny music out, i would have actually liked to watch the whole video

  5. ThinkTank

    Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. According to work published in 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[71]
    These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000
    years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[72][73][74][75]

  6. FullFrontalNerdity

    So... we see a mountain, and bring it down to rubble, chopping down forests to make roads. Then we flush it with millions of gallons of toxic chemicals that get into the water table to extract a few pounds of metal. Then we ship that metal across the world at least three times to turn it into solar panels and batteries... TO SAVE THE PLANET.

  7. Jason Cline

    I can't think of any instance in which a mountain was brought to rubble by a mine or an instance of an entire forest being cut to allow a road to be built. Unless your living under a rock with no technology (not the case since you're here) then you use some form of man made energy while ranting and raving about how solar energy is bad for the planet. Stupid or insane, take your pick.

  8. Jason Cline

    Sorry but your 100% wrong. We can and do measure how much carbon nations put into the atmosphere for energy production, factory operation, automobiles, and everything else. We also know scientifically from ice core samples what the carbon levels were in both antiquity and recent times. You people say we need to prove man is changing the climate but in reality YOUR SIDE IS THE ONE WHO BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVING THAT WHAT WE ARE PUTTING UP THERE IS ACTUALLY BEING ABSORBED BY THE ECOSYSTEM AND REMOVED. We know damn well what carbon in the air does, we know damn well how much we are putting up there. Prove our carbon is not building up if you expect your claim to be valid. Only you can't, we have already proven that our emissions are staying in the atmosphere and changing the climate. If you want to sit around claiming the world is flat simply because you haven't taken anytime to travel or understand it that's your right, just don't expect to get a warm welcome when you make such intentional ignorance public.

  9. Laird Beevor

    The link below shows removing a whole mountain for coal

  10. Rita Doucet

    A basic root problem:
    I use my foot mobile (walk) all the time, I stand at bus stops awaiting my ride, what do I breathe in while I'm waiting there on the street?
    I stopped smoking for a year and had to go back to it BECAUSE my chest was hurting and I had no means to expel the junk that I was breathing in (emissions from vehicles on the street) I didn't have the smokers cough which expelled all of this through phlegm.

    Vehicles are your protection from this polluted air.

  11. FullFrontalNerdity

    I commented to show the irony of the situation, and used flippant brevity to convey humor. The internet lacks the ability in many ways to provide the subtle cues that indicate a joke, and it is difficult to infer peoples intentions when they are anonymous and unfamiliar.

    However, one of the premises of my joke is that one would need to be either ignorant, or at best naïve to believe that any current method of producing power does not have significant environmental drawbacks. Please do a Google image search for "strip mining". Of the hundreds (or thousands of results, remember each of these is a different mine, and many don't get photographed and put on Google for all to see. You also cannot argue that "mining roads" are often subsidized by becoming "logging roads". I live in Canada and frequently pass areas of forest that have been clear cut even with our supposedly stringent environmental regulations. I'm talking areas that you drive through for 50 kilometers or more. I travel exclusively on major highways, so there are many more I cannot see with my own eyes.
    Currently available battery technology requires huge amounts of energy input to produce, degrade quickly, are made with non-renewable resources, and constitute hazardous waste when disposed of, all while providing tiny amounts of power that we need to engineer around by using huge numbers of them. I believe that the next really big technological advancement that will provide the widest utility will be an ideal battery that addresses all of these problems.
    I cannot believably argue for my sanity, however.

  12. cosicosi

    This does sound awful, but is has nothing to do with your initial point! Compared to coal a thick silicon solar cell needs much less total material for the same amount of power, let alone a thin film device. I calculate that solar needs roughly 100 times less material mined in total for the same energy output than coal.

  13. FullFrontalNerdity

    With coal there are coal "veins" which are large concentrations. Coal, you can extract it and burn it right there on the spot. With silicon for solar panels, and lithium for batteries, you need to process large amounts of material to refine tiny amounts of these rare minerals. Not only that, but the material is extracted in Canada (for lithium) and processed and refined in China because of lax environmental regulations, before being shipped to the US or Europe to be turned into batteries or panels, then shipped out worldwide to their respective markets. Granted, however, there is less of an environmental impact using solar than coal.
    Coal had its place in the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago, and it's pretty embarrassing for the US to be dependent on that still. Some people whine about not having hoverboards or holodecks in 2015, but where are our fusion power generators or really, any source of clean, cheap power? 7 billion people (and counting) all need vast amounts of power and solar and wind are not viable alternatives yet. Wind power is limited in efficiency by its nature to roughly 20%. It is simply not possible to extract better efficiency than that. Solar and wind are also not viable in different parts of the world due to environmental conditions.
    Man, I wish I had a better answer, I'd be rich, famous AND smart, and I am none of those. Maybe my sarcasm will encourage someone who is smart to come up with a better way to solve our troubles. Thorium reactors look pretty promising to carry us the 50 - 100 years until fusion power becomes physically and then economically viable.

  14. cosicosi

    A few points:
    1. Silicon solar cells mainly consist of glass, silicon and aluminium for the frame. Silicon and the SiO2 are sourced from sand, which is mostly SiO2: no small concentrations here. The silicon does need to be refined, but that is more of an energy cost than a material inefficiency. The aluminium actually has the highest mined-material:final-product ratio.
    2. Lithium batteries are unlikely to be the long term solution in my mind (30+ years onwards). Sure a bunch will be made in the medium term, but I wouldn't worry about lithium reserves.
    3. The maximum efficiency for wind turbines is close to 60% not 20%: perhaps you are thinking of capacity factors in older turbines, which is their average output compared to their maximum. Regardless, when comparing technologies, the efficiency is not that relevant, as some sources are cheaper to collect, the delivered price is the only thing that matters for adoption.

  15. FullFrontalNerdity

    See what I mean about not being smart? lol I should really research before I post. You are correct that Betz's Law states a maximum cap of 59% efficiency on wind turbines regardless of design or materials. I was wrong. However, bear in mind this represents the theoretical upper limit. What I mistakenly remembered instead is the following:

    "The latest horizontal-axis wind turbines typically have efficiencies in the range of 35-40%, so clearly there's no conflict there between theory and practice. If electricity generators and distribution are taken into consideration, then efficiency drops to the 10-30% range." - Symscape Computational Fluid Dynamics Software (Virtual Wind Turbine Breaks Betz' Law, 2008)

    Anyway, thanks for the correction. I think I will respectfully bow out before I further demonstrate my ignorance. You have given me food for thought. Thank you.

    BTW- "the delivered price is the only thing that matters for adoption" Nothing could be more true - the "golden rule". Unfortunately, that's the basis of the argument for continued use of coal. Hopefully someday we can find something cheap that doesn't wreck the environment.

  16. TheUprising

    Some people believe any impossible garbage on hearsay alone, so long as it carries that "science" tag.

    In fact those ice core samples (varve layering) are theoretically based, and assume many things to draw those conclusions you buy hook line and sinker. The truth is those "samples" provide about as much evidence for how much carbon was in the air thousands of years ago as current collected oil in barrels proves how much crude was in the ground thousands of years ago. Fairy tales and artist's conceptions merely dropping the name "science", with all the adherents of a fanatical religion to boot.

  17. Nikhil Danak

    I have commented on “God and The Scientist” just few minutes
    before. Now this film brings dimension of GOD in creative (KARMA) action, the strength
    of human itself prove the power of nature and its pragmatic optimization gives
    an amazing source of energy for whole humanity in the most democratize fashion.
    Worship of Sun & Fire we have been witnessed since ancient time, however
    invention of human brain compel us to accept Nature as GOD! And when I heard
    Joanna Macy, Eco-Philosopher; I stayed in awe-feeling about her wisdom of society
    with such a beautiful transformation. I am certainly in for this cause to give inspiring
    world to our children that bring quality of life for tomorrow. From Management
    Leaders to Engineering Experts to Effective Accountants to Legitimate Lawyers
    will have to change their standards of practicing in near future. The rule
    books are dramatically redrafted with new code of implementation. World is
    shifting from fossil fuel burning to renewable energy for sure. Divestment is
    the priority for smart investor to get maximum ROI. It’s worth watching even
    for Business Entrepreneurs too…

  18. JC Tripp

    The most inspiring moment was when the kids were talking. They are so wise and it's their future we're creating. The one boy's statement that if you do something wrong, but you don't know it's wrong. But if you know it's wrong and continue doing it was brilliant. We know we are destroying the systems that maintain a stable climate, thus life. Either we change or we're history. Shouldn't be that difficult a choice.

  19. JC Tripp

    He said it far more clearly than I. Smart kid.

  20. Hadiqa

    why is this video private ? please make it for public

Leave a comment / review: