The World in 50 Years: Global Community

2007 ,    »  -   10 Comments
208
6.18
12345678910
Ratings: 6.18/10 from 83 users.
Storyline

The world's oil reserves are severely and irreparably depleted. The ensuing debacle inspires a militarized rift between the United States and China. The world stands on the precipice of war. The only factor standing in the way of catastrophic global conflict are a pair of scientists - one from each of the two warring nations - who race against the clock to realize the full capabilities of their latest discovery, and thus put an end to the ongoing energy crisis.

The setup might read like the latest Hollywood disaster movie, but the logic behind it is anything but. A highly informed peek into the future utilizing both dramatic narrative and fact-based scientific research, The World in 50 Years: Global Community follows these scientists as they desperately pursue a sustainable energy alternative. The result is both academic and exhilarating.

We already witness the growing paranoia of the Earth's dwindling energy resources today. In the next five decades, this crisis will become even more pronounced and will drive an increasingly urgent call for solutions that are clean and limitless. In anticipation of this inevitable dilemma, scientists and researchers are currently investing significant time and dollars in harvesting the potential of one such source: the sun.

The film contains insights from the top figures in the scientific field, and introduces us to several of the real-life researchers who are currently working toward a future where solar energy powers the world. The biggest drawback to their efforts involves the logistics of travelling and working in space. In response to this challenge, teams of space scientists are developing revolutionary nano-particle technologies which will allow them to easily transfer materials into orbit, and absorb usable energy from the sun's endless supply in a consistently cost-effective and efficient manner.

Their work could cause a seismic shift in improving geopolitical relations, world economies, our daily way of life, and the sustainability of our planet. The third episode of a highly acclaimed series, The World in 50 Years: Global Community is a gripping reminder of the dangers that lie in waiting, and the creative solutions which may ultimately serve as our salvation.

More great documentaries

10 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Christian Petersen

    'What is the greatest challenge in the future'? (Energy to fuel cities and cars)

    I guess the following is nothing compared to keeping the lax life style of today;

    * Overpopulation
    * Ecological devastation
    * Clean drinking water

    Hell no, lets focus on luxuries, and in the pursuit for that it doesn't matter that we are screwing up the planet /palms!

  2. dan

    10 billion people and little oil means everyone will huddle in the tropics and the entire population of the world will live like the poor in india....

  3. DR Branicap

    It is nice to see that Russia does not egsist in the future.Nation with largest reserves of anything .and most sophisticated space program has vanished.bla bla bla...
    world population will stabi;ize on 9 bilion people and no we we they( will not live like poor in India...

  4. CarimboHanky

    i just hate this type of documentaries that try to show how things would playout in the future when we dont even know how stuff would playout a week from today, let a lone 50 years into the future.

    at the end of the day there are bigger issues than energy, like drinking water, food and contamination.

    people are turning this place into a wasteland!

  5. Todd

    Terrible Negativity to control the masses through fear. Total Garbage!

  6. Pro

    So ..
    18% of sun's insolation is little?
    No it's not efficient, but think...

    1 million km2(the surface area of for example of Egypt) would produce at a power output
    of 230 teraWatts, for a total of at least 800.000 terawatthours per year, or more than 3 times the current global energy requirements of the world.

    While having a solar cell with 60% efficiency is desirable ,nothing stops us from beginning tapping into the solar output if it was matter of life and death. Of course it would be expensive and it would be a long process probably lasting one or two decades, but so what?

    Efficient batteries are also needed having the capacity and output equal about to oil or ~10 kWhrs/kgr; it would be a pity to only store 1/3 of the energy output of our inefficient solar cells, but we would more than survive.

    Plus we lose too much by using inefficient transport means. A regular car reservoir(gasoline) contains about 500 kwhrs and is good for about 600-900 km. A 85 kwhrs battery in an electric car is good for 400 km. There is just no comparison. Burning oil is inefficient as hell; it's just that we have a ready infrastructure that it took more than 100 years to be built and it was surely much more expensive to build than the poor solar cells that we have to build in order to bring down our dependence on oil to less than 10%.

    Plus having 8 billions to move just doesn't mean we have to produce 8 billion vehicles , because this is what we do right now. If we turned to sun and were more reasonable on the transportation front we would reduce our current energy consumption(~140.000 teraWhrs) by at least 50.000 terawatt hours.

    So, while research is good it is not needed to address an independence from oil , but extend it to thousands of years into the future. A solar cell with 60% efficiency and a battery with oil energy density would allow us to spend 10 times more energy and still have more to burn.

    It's good to propagandize and indoctrinate the masses by making beautiful documentaries but the thing is , there's another change, coming of the progress of the civilization that creates foci within the population able to reject such preposterous claims(energy crisis, difficult research and so on.. yeah whatever you say doc!)

  7. Jay

    They have an energy crisis but they order coffee up to a space station like its pizza on the corner.... and the guy looks pissed that it cant happen lol

  8. jimu

    Unlimited non-polluting source of energy as depicted is what our planet requires. I hope scientists successfully discover the above and soon.

  9. DustUp

    Refuse to watch such garbage. Of course their only answer is something expensive that will need to be financed with yet more debt, just like oil drilling and nuclear reactors. And if you refuse the supposed only alternative is war. War being another win for the bankster owned defense con-trak-tours.

    The problem with propaganda is that too many people believe it. Turn off the fake news and fake information boob tube and do your own checking. The major media is NOT independent. Most all of TV, Radio, and Newspaper media is owned by a handful of families overlapping and cooperating with the central and large bankster families who view you as sheep to be fleeced and then slaughtered. There are several docu's on this website which cover that.

    The usa has enough on shore discovered energy for the next several hundred years. Likely other countries do as well, Canada and Russia for instance. Russia is building a large pipeline to China. Then if countries mine near-shore undersea frozen methane like Japan began a few years ago, probably another several hundred years or so.

    However, NONE of that is needed, nor the large corporate price jacking thugs and their bankster brothers that are typically involved in any such big money energy projects.

    Most anyone can make Ethanol from NUMEROUS sustainable sources, including growing offshore algae if needed, which it isn't. It can run your car, your stove, your power plant, carbon neutral, and if it spills, usually not a big deal as it mixes/dilutes well with water. There would be NO need for pipelines since it would be produced locally, involving locals = local jobs nationwide with the money recycled locally enhancing the economy instead of the profits going to multinationals with off shore banks.

    Or you could hop skip that an move to 100 year old Nikola Tesla technology or some of the many patented tech since then.

    Logically any tech which could have kicked oil to the curb, would have, right?

    Not logical at all #1. Ethanol has been around since dirt was invented. Henry Ford said it was the perfect automotive fuel but made his cars dual fuel at one time since gasoline had as much availability. It took Rockefeller to fund the Prohibition ladies to see his waste products from oil refining(gasoline) take over. Now, many decades after Prohibition did you go back to Ethanol? Would you pay $2/gallon for Ethanol if the oil companies dropped gasoline to $1.50 ? Likely not and why I never invested in it and won't until people pull their heads out of their backsides and quit being slaves to oil, quit sending their children to die in wars over oil, which we don't need AT ALL.

    Not logical at all #2. If you didn't give a rip about much but money and power ...and your industry cartel stood to lose hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and you personally stood to lose hundreds of millions per year, would you see to it that serious tech that would obsolete your money machine be monitored and the inventors bought off or killed? If you do a bit of checking you will find that a number of scientists and inventors have suddenly woken up dead. Others who have had a bit of news suddenly become quiet. You can read a few willing to tell how they were prosecuted in our lovely courts for attempting to shut them down. Then threatened. Some silly ones will claim that is just an easy out to claim for failure. Did they look up the court case? No. They either are useful idiots who can't possibly believe any industry group would spend 10mln a pop to shut inventors down so they can continue to make their billions. Or kill them if they refuse. It can't be that hard to believe, money talks. Look what happened to the most prolific inventor of his time; JP Morgan shut down Nikola Tesla then used the(arguably his) media to smear him.

  10. DustUp

    Delete the "for" twixt courts and attempting, in the middle of the last paragraph above.

Leave a comment / review: