A guide to the energy of the Earth - Joshua M. Sneideman

  • Added:  2 years ago
  • View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/a-guide-to-the-energy-of-the-earth-joshua-m-sneideman

    Energy is neither created nor destroyed — and yet the global demand for it continues to increase. But where does energy come from, and where does it go? Joshua M. Sneideman examines the many ways in which energy cycles through our planet, from the sun to our food chain to electricity and beyond.

    Lesson by Joshua M. Sneideman, animation by Marc Christoforidis.
  • Video CategoriesEducation
  • Runtime: 4:44
  • Tags for this video:  Joshua Sneideman  Marc Christoforidis  energy  energy cycle  Earth  Earth science  energy creation  energy source  TED  TED-ED  TED Education  TED Ed  

Comments: 197

  • Richard DeSilvey
    Richard DeSilvey 5 days ago

    When you turn on your electric stove top and feel the heat, that heat is indirect energy from the sun. That is if your source is from coal or oil.

  • Stephen Gravley
    Stephen Gravley 1 month ago

    #yousuck

  • Kenny Keating
    Kenny Keating 2 months ago

    So is it possible to use the rotation of the Earth as a source of energy?

  • LukeOfficial14
    LukeOfficial14 3 months ago

    Good video!

  • Bryan Smith
    Bryan Smith 3 months ago

    The arrow in the bottom right between Decomposers and Producers should not be there (2:10 - 2:35). Decomposers DO NOT provide energy to Producers. +josh sneideman

    • Bryan Smith
      Bryan Smith 3 months ago

      Yes, however, this video is about energy and specifically in the diagram that I am referencing the narration is about the average percentage of energy that is passed to the next trophic level. I maintain that the arrow pointing towards the producers should be removed as producers get their energy from the sun.


    • Godzilla McDolan
      Godzilla McDolan 3 months ago

      Bryan Smith they do provide minerals such as nitrogen to plants as they break down unreactive nitrogen into nitrates


  • Superwar 3795
    Superwar 3795 4 months ago

    The water turbines are genius.

  • Superwar 3795
    Superwar 3795 4 months ago

    If only the biosphere was replaced with the <fancy-word-for-fire>osphere. Then the ancient Greeks would be right. Sort of.

  • Alana Brunson
    Alana Brunson 5 months ago

    (Not to be a hater or a no at all) but there is only one person that can create and destroy energy that's God! He made all..... you may not believe but I do not to say you should but you should believe or you will end up somewhere you don't wanna be,..,🔥🔥🔥 this is a difficult process to learn clause I don't really exactly expect the the fact that this stuff is some fake stuff ..... God is the one and only and his creations are real!

    • Alana Brunson
      Alana Brunson 3 months ago

      Bryan Smith your not helping me at all your Making me irritated! Just because you use "big" words don't mean anything!! Leave me alone! Please I'm pretty sure you have more important stuff to do then act ignorant on the internet:/ or maybe you don't but as far as I know you need to leave me alone.... 💯


    • Bryan Smith
      Bryan Smith 3 months ago

      a) I comment back to help you think about what you are writing in order to help you come to conclusions that are internally consistent. b) On the internet, you do not need to be commenting at anybody. When you post out in the internet, anyone can comment. It is an important idea to understand.


    • Alana Brunson
      Alana Brunson 3 months ago

      Bryan Smith omgh dude just drop it stop! When I commented 2 Months ago I wasn't even directly coming at you! I'm pretty sure your not the only one that seen my comment... so why do you have to go and act childish enough to comment back? If I'm so ignorant then why are you still commenting back? Over and over I'm pretty sure I know my bible I don't need some person to tell me what i do or do not know. If you wanna act childish then go ahead be my guest! But I'm done 🛑💯👋🏾plus I don't even know you😂


    • Bryan Smith
      Bryan Smith 3 months ago

      Do you mean that Jesus created everything in that Jesus, as a 'member' of the Holy Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Ghost) was involved in the creation of "everything"? Otherwise you may be mistaken as God is specifically mentioned as the creator of everything, Jesus came along later, because of all the sinning. I realize that you did not ask for, and clearly are not interested in my opinion, but well, when you make ignorant comments on the internet then you might just attract a well meaning troll.


    • Alana Brunson
      Alana Brunson 3 months ago

      Bryan Smith just forget it ok.... I'm done Jesus created everything. how about dat:/ I don't care about science right now I respect your opinion But I never asked for it I'm not dumb (never said you called me dumb ) but still there just leave it sir


  • Itz SlothM8
    Itz SlothM8 7 months ago

    Fist

  • GoGETTAMAN12
    GoGETTAMAN12 10 months ago

    GREAT VIDEO!!!

  • Vermithrax Pejorative
    Vermithrax Pejorative 10 months ago

    Kinda noticed he didn't say anything about using nuclear power to generate electricity. Still liked the video, tho.

    • Quarky Quasar
      Quarky Quasar 10 months ago

      Nuclear power plants generate Radioactive waste which is much hard to dispose and even detected. While on the other hand Solar power (Also, nuclear power where are nuclear reaction are happening is sun, so we don't have to care about waste) is totally environment-friendly.


  • benox50
    benox50 1 year ago

    Or making less babies

  • Fabri Rojas
    Fabri Rojas 1 year ago

    hola a los de octavo

  • Austin Sonner
    Austin Sonner 1 year ago

    what about the geosphere?

  • Adrián Lozano
    Adrián Lozano 1 year ago

    I would love dubbing this video to spanish. Is there a way to add other languages to sound here in YouTube? Would you be interested in releasing a spanish-spoken version of this video?

  • Maryam
    Maryam 1 year ago

    Loved this video, and the animation!

  • I Tre Discoli Bernab

    😉😉

  • Daniel Goodman
    Daniel Goodman 1 year ago

    The ring structure shown is D-Altrose (a stereoisomer of glucose). For the proper structure of glucose C2 hydroxyl should be down, C3 hydroxyl should be up, and C4 hydroxyl should be down.

  • Mythra13
    Mythra13 1 year ago

    Needs more Tesla.

  • Conrad Thomsen
    Conrad Thomsen 1 year ago

    Just build a nuclear power plant already

    • Quarky Quasar
      Quarky Quasar 10 months ago

      And kill everyone from radioactive waste? No, thanks.


  • Daniel Goodman
    Daniel Goodman 1 year ago

    The structure of the glucose molecule is wrong! :(

    • Daniel Goodman
      Daniel Goodman 1 year ago

      +Lara Orane The ring structure shown is D-Altrose (a stereoisomer of glucose). For the proper structure C2 hydroxyl should be down, C3 hydroxyl should be up, and C4 hydroxyl should be down.


    • Carbon Queen
      Carbon Queen 1 year ago

      Really, prove it.


  • josh sneideman
    josh sneideman 1 year ago

    200,000 views WOW - amazing - thanks for watching y'all

  • Dinomode
    Dinomode 1 year ago

    Great video thanks

  • Ca Ab
    Ca Ab 1 year ago

    Respiration is combustion.

  • Ian Prado
    Ian Prado 2 years ago

    What about #nuclear?

  • I. C. U.
    I. C. U. 2 years ago

    There are no "renewable" energy sources as most people understand them.  Solar cells aren't picked from a tree, the material must be extracted from the earth and those materials are certainly not in abundance nor easy to access.  And for all the "renewable" energy sources, the devices and structures must be manufactured, fabricated and transported and maintained.  It's not like you can put up a wind turbine and it not break down eventually.  All the "renewables" are developed within the context of a fossil fuel economic system and we have no replacement for oil, coal and natural gas.  Nuclear is a joke--we might as well shoot ourselves in the head with that risk...Chernobyl or Fukushima anyone?  

    This is a nice video.  It explains things well.  And like all convention education it frames the picture.  It assumes life as we know it is the given and humans can continue to shape and mold nature to meet our myopic vision of the future and reality.  Unfortunately, nature does not really care what we think and it will continue to show us its limits, as if we haven't learned anything at all from the failures of past dead civilizations.  After ours is gone, I hope the next civilization will be less ignorant and learn from our failure because we aren't going to stop until we reached the point where we are forced to stop and that, my friends, is going to be a bad day for us.

  • Myoungkyu Lee
    Myoungkyu Lee 2 years ago

    역시 TED예요!

  • pablo castañeda
    pablo castañeda 2 years ago

    homework

  • Ike Evans
    Ike Evans 2 years ago

    There isn't a single reference to nuclear energy in the entire video.

    The most wonderful open secret out there is that the greatest, most awesome form of "green" energy is that of nuclear energy.  Wind and solar energy surely tend to make the main-stream environmentalists happy, but only because they ignore the horrible engineering fallacies of these energy sources as they (sort of) contribute electricity to our grid.

    Go green.  Go nuclear.

    • Ike Evans
      Ike Evans 1 year ago

      +Julia Lerner I'm not at all opposed to thorium, though there is a bit of a bait-and-switch that I see when we compare throrium to uranium.

      I have often noticed that when people compare the two technologies, they often compare uranium technology from 40 years ago to new thorium technology today.  Both technologies have come a long way from a couple generations ago.

      We have figured out what to do with the waste a long time ago.  This isn't at all a technological problem.  It is a political one driven by pundits and politicians who hyperventilate for a living.

      You are sort of correct about the cost associated with nuclear.  The start up costs are enormous because of the burdensome regulations that the industry has to deal with.  However, once a power plant is built, almost no other source of energy is cheaper. 

      It is also worth noting that the nuclear industry has an unparalleled record of safety that no other utility can come close to beating.  Yes, I am aware of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and yes, I still stand behind the previous statement I just made.

      Go green.  Go nuclear.


    • Julia Lerner
      Julia Lerner 1 year ago

      +Ike Evans So far, it doesn't seem to be a cost effective solution, not in its current form. Massive subsidies are required and as they age, they become problematic and dangerous, leaving ridiculously hazardous spent fuel rods for untold generations of people to deal with later, once they figure out how. Perhaps thorium based nuclear would work better?


  • josh sneideman
    josh sneideman 2 years ago

    Awesome lesson for students: HOW MUCH ENERGY DO YOU CONSUME - http://www.energy.gov/articles/how-much-do-you-consume   

  • Urs Bolt
    Urs Bolt 2 years ago

    Great animated infotainment. But given the hugely increasing energy demand I miss today's biggest source of reliable and scalable clean energy. #Nuclear energy is a major source of clean power globally. Far ahead of solar and wind. It's energy density is unbeatable compared to coal and even more against diffuse renewables.

    • Mihir M
      Mihir M 1 year ago

      +Urs Bolt the problem with nuclear power is that the nuclear companies demand enormous money for generating power, making it very costly


    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      The insanity of thinking--or worse--claiming nuclear energy is in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER "clean" is similar to saying rape is an act of kindness.  

      You can hardly be more ironically wrong.

      What do you suppose we do with the nuclear waste?  How might we store it?  Where might we store it?  How long is the waste radioactive?  What happens when such radioactive waste contaminates an environment as it inevitably will do so?  How do you safe guard nuclear reactors against, oh, say meltdown?  How do you prevent oh, say, a tsunami from hitting a reactor?  An earthquake?  A "whatever disaster that will continue the line of thousands of years of engineering disasters that teach us what we still don't know" event?  

      The fact is, as long as nuclear reactors exist and are operating THERE WILL BE accidents.  This is 100% certainty.  Without a doubt.  Predictable.  And proven true.  
      We have not somehow magically reached the point of science, engineering and technology development where we have rendered accidents extinct.

      Approximately one level 7 INES (major accident on the  International Nuclear Event Scale--Chernolyb, Fukushima) every quarter century along with however many smaller accidents.  

      Can you please explain to me how this is clean?

      Also, how are reactors made?  Do you need to mine material from the earth?  Is mining a clean process?  What powers the mining operation?  Is that clean?  Did you know the production of cement accounts for something like 8% of global greenhouse gases emissions and is highly energy intensive.  Cement is used in concrete and concrete is used to building many things, including nuclear reactors.  Is that clean?  What powers the plants that make cement?  Is that clean?  What powers the building of nuclear power plants?  What powers all the transportation involved in building a plant?  

      And this energy analysis can go on and on when you ACTUALLY do the energy accounting up and down the entire chain of reality involved in building and operating a nuclear power plant.  This analysis can apply to other so-called "clean" energies or "alternative" energies or "sustainable" energies too.

      However, yes, it is energy dense, yes it is reliable (except when it is devastating a continent or ocean) but the propaganda put out that it is somehow "clean" is absolutely indefensible, based on a unjustified belief and dishonest.


  • Jacob John Jeevan
    Jacob John Jeevan 2 years ago

    Hmm, no mention of nuclear power?

    It's efficient, clean and perhaps the best source of energy available to us (Solar and Wind are great, but with the current technology, they can't match the production output of Fossil Fuels).

    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      The insanity of thinking--or worse--claiming nuclear energy is in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER "clean" is similar to saying rape is an act of kindness.  

      You can hardly be more ironically wrong.

      What do you suppose we do with the nuclear waste?  How might we store it?  Where might we store it?  How long is the waste radioactive?  What happens when such radioactive waste contaminates an environment as it inevitably will do so?  How do you safe guard nuclear reactors against, oh, say meltdown?  How do you prevent oh, say, a tsunami from hitting a reactor?  An earthquake?  A "whatever disaster that will continue the line of thousands of years of engineering disasters that teach us what we still don't know" event?  

      The fact is, as long as nuclear reactors exist and are operating THERE WILL BE accidents.  This is 100% certainty.  Without a doubt.  Predictable.  And proven true.  
      We have not somehow magically reached the point of science, engineering and technology development where we have rendered accidents extinct.

      Approximately one level 7 INES (major accident on the  International Nuclear Event Scale--Chernolyb, Fukushima) every quarter century along with however many smaller accidents.  

      Can you please explain to me how this is clean?

      Also, how are reactors made?  Do you need to mine material from the earth?  Is mining a clean process?  What powers the mining operation?  Is that clean?  Did you know the production of cement accounts for something like 8% of global greenhouse gases emissions and is highly energy intensive.  Cement is used in concrete and concrete is used to building many things, including nuclear reactors.  Is that clean?  What powers the plants that make cement?  Is that clean?  What powers the building of nuclear power plants?  What powers all the transportation involved in building a plant?  

      And this energy analysis can go on and on when you ACTUALLY do the energy accounting up and down the entire chain of reality involved in building and operating a nuclear power plant. This analysis can apply to other so-called "clean" energies or "alternative" energies or "sustainable" energies too.

      However, yes, it is energy dense, yes it is reliable (except when it is devastating a continent or ocean) but the propaganda put out that it is somehow "clean" is absolutely indefensible, based on a unjustified belief and dishonest.


  • Juan Pablo Zm
    Juan Pablo Zm 2 years ago

    It's just an amazing animation and research work. Everything seems very clear and easy to understand, even for a young child. Excellent video.

  • NamretsO
    NamretsO 2 years ago

    I really like this video, one of my favorite concepts to think of.

  • Watchmen-Nehemiah 4:20

    There is a whole nother side to the equation. Cold energy. This is where the breakthroughs have continually happened and are continually being stamped out by the status quo. Plasma, cold electricity, lightning, brown's gas torches all available, but not allowed. SHALOM!

  • James O’Loughlin
    James O’Loughlin 2 years ago

    Why not mention wave and tidal power?

    • Julia Lerner
      Julia Lerner 1 year ago

      +James O’Loughlin Gravity is another source of energy that is just now being explored.


    • captaincarl1
      captaincarl1 2 years ago

      Conspiracy!


  • Earroten
    Earroten 2 years ago

    I designed the Hydrolyspheres which take in ocean water pressure. That pressure is first converted from potential energy into kinetic energy with generators. Those generators produce electrons which then go to splitting the water itself into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then burned in generators to produce electricity and water. There you have it a way to produce endless amounts of clean green energy using the oceans. I did it all by myself with no college only a lap-top the internet and determination. I need help building a proof of concept prototype. Anyone?

  • phoenixkhost
    phoenixkhost 2 years ago

    You forgot nuclear...which is both sustainable and relatively clean.  For wind energy to equal one nuclear power plant you would need to clear cut an area of Rhode Island.  The aversion to nuclear power is irrational.

    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      The belief that nuclear is sustainable and "relatively clean" is insane.  Do you believe nuclear power plants just naturally grown out of the ground?  The materials to build and power the plant are mined materials--not sustainable.  The radioactive waste is the symbol of non-sustainability and death.  Perhaps you've heard of Chernolyb or Fukushima?  And please, help me understand the irrationality of storage of nuclear waste?  How do you suppose we get around that little step since it hasn't been accomplished by any nation with nuclear power plants to date.  Do you really believe humans can construct a device or structure to contain radioactive material that will last air-tight, water-tight, radioactive-tight for over 10 thousand years or longer?

      It is irrational to actually believe nuclear power is anything but a death trap for the planet.  But don't worry, with or without nuclear power, I'm sure we will continue clear cutting Rhode Island patches of forest for the foreseeable future at a health (or should I say unhealthy) clip.


  • Julio Rovi
    Julio Rovi 2 years ago

    Thanks for the video. I wish to volunteer to either translate of help you dub it into Spanish. How do I go about that?

  • Gian Reyes
    Gian Reyes 2 years ago

    So, what happens to the heat energy after our bodies eat and burn the energy from food?

  • Silva Hawk
    Silva Hawk 2 years ago

    after watching this, I realized I really didn't understand what energy was all along until now

  • Steven Rosa
    Steven Rosa 2 years ago

    Interesting

  • roidroid
    roidroid 2 years ago

    No mention of Nuclear :(.

    2:29 primary producers do not harvest "100%" of sunlight. It's more like 1%, photosynthesis is very inefficient.
    Compare to man-made solar panels which get upwards of 30% efficiency, step up your game nature.

    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      Roiddroid, I believe you are misunderstanding the claim in the video.  It says producers get 100% of their energy from the sun, it says nothing about how efficient or inefficient photosynthesis is.  This is the standard model in ecology that assigns the energy transferred from one trophic level to the next in the food chain.  

      Google search "trophic pyramid" and you will see a fundamental component of the science of ecology.  Plant absorb 100% of the sunlight that they absorb.  That's all it says.  What is important is that only 10% is transferred to the next trophic level.  Only a very small fraction of sunlight is absorbed by plants compared to the total amount of sunlight which hits the earth, yet producers are the gateway through which energy enters into the biosphere.  Basic ecology.


    • roidroid
      roidroid 2 years ago

      +vanarcken113 Sadly what i said is indeed true.  Algae farming (& biofuels in general) and solar power are competing interests of mine, a few years back i was closely following a fair few algae projects _(as my old videos attest to)_, and i still occasionally tinker with algae-tech ideas to this day.
      Algae is the fastest growing plant on the planet, it's the best, but photosynthesis isn't particularly efficient compared to man-made tech.  It's great for producing liquid fuels though (ie: for vehicles), very simple.  That's why there's so much buzz about algae, exciting stuff.  But everything has it's limitations.  It's more than just great for fuel, but also for food, and even carbon sequestration.  This stuff has a lot of uses, but it doesn't do everything.

      If you search for *Algae Thermodynamics* there's a fair few articles which will catch you up.
      But as a quick explanation: Think of how much land is required to produce X amount of biofuel for combustion cars (wikipedia has some good biofuel yeild numbers, algae is the best).  Then compare to the same land-area covered in solar panels charging electric cars.  It's almost no comparison, the electric cars come out way in front, mostly because the thermodynamic limitations of photosynthesis just can't be routed around :(.  You can easily charge your own electric car from the solar panels on your roof, but to grow enough biofuel to fuel your own car takes a relatively gigantic amount of land (i'd have to dig through my old notes to give you the exact land-size required), the yields are super low.


    • vanarcken113
      vanarcken113 2 years ago

      You might want to fact check that.. I believe that chloroplasts are actually the most efficient energy-harvesting unit known to man. We try to replicate their efficiency in labs by inducing artificial photosynthesis, and we still can't get it as efficient. 


  • pokee9
    pokee9 2 years ago

    Problems solved, we just have to build. it's that simple.

  • Akshay Saini
    Akshay Saini 2 years ago

    Awesome video

  • Pedro Fonseca
    Pedro Fonseca 2 years ago

    In minute 2:29 is the answer for the Paleo Diet, eat producers is to eat lower on the food chain. 

    Thanks for the video.

    • Pedro Fonseca
      Pedro Fonseca 2 years ago

      +Bryn Walker yap, my bad, but let me eat a little of primary consumers in the paleo :)


    • Bryn Walker
      Bryn Walker 2 years ago

      That would actually be a vegan diet. Eating only producers.


  • eric Sandersfield
    eric Sandersfield 2 years ago

    Mark Pataki its the energy that makes up the universe, now this may end up becoming a scientific breakthrough but I'm pretty sure the earth is a part of the universe. So the energy of the universe should be in the earth.

  • KING ISSAK
    KING ISSAK 2 years ago

  • ibarrettall
    ibarrettall 2 years ago

    this is a great video.

  • Lance Lot
    Lance Lot 2 years ago

    I plan on living to 100 years old.. It will be 2090... holy fuck shits going to change so much.

  • zcholan
    zcholan 2 years ago

    I'll hypothesis that every single animals on Earth at one point only ate vegetables and fruits, and according to biologists. Humans are animals, so this means we only ate plants and fruits, never meat of any animals. Btw humans aren't animals, they can call themselves whatever they want. I'll call myself man.

    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      zcholan, why would you hypothesize that every single animal on Earth at one point only ate vegetables and fruits?  On what basis would one even consider that a possibility?  Also, you may want to realize that humans are one species of mammals, which are, in fact, a type of animal.  Animal in the biological definition, not the slang word for animal.  If you don't believe you are an animal, you also don't believe in science...but wait, what are you typing on, a computer?  Brought to you by science?


    • vanarcken113
      vanarcken113 2 years ago

      first of, most Biologists take evolution and adaptation pretty seriously. If you look at the teeth of carnivores compared to herbivores and still try and convince me that carnivores only eat plants, you're just plain wrong.


  • D MatLeo
    D MatLeo 2 years ago

    0:15 First mistake. Particles appear and disappear in the vacuum of space all the time.(watch a Stephen Hawking documentary)

    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      +D MatLeo No peer-reviewed article published by a professional journal about the death of The First Law?  


    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      +D MatLeo What you do in forums is completely your issue not mine, try to stay focused.

      Please link to peer-reviewed paper by a professional journal, which conclusively states The First Law is dead.  My position is based upon the fact that physics professors, at this very moment, are teaching The First Law all across the planet at all universities and colleges.

      If you can't link to a professional journal, there is zero point of our discussion because unlike what you seem to think, this is not personal.  I don't really care what you believe or don't believe because scientific principles are not tied to you.  I'm interested in science, not you.

      If find it funny, if not typical, that some dude is breaking revolutionary scientific news in the forum of YouTube video.  Ideas of vacuum energy, virtual pairs, hypothesizing of gaining free energy from capturing a single partner of a virtual pair trace back to the 1940s.  

      Of course you realize suggesting The First Law is dead approaches the same magnitude of change within science as the Copernican revolution, right?

      Yet you are breaking this news, here because you have recently watched a Stephen Hawking film.  You know how long some of his books and films have been around, right?  

      You are hardly the first person who has watched a Hawking film or read Hawking book considering he's one of the most widely read and popular physicist of the last half century.

      Welcome to the party.  I suggest you check out what folks are doing in String Theory.  That's interesting stuff too.

      Remember, link to a professional paper otherwise it's just us talking at each other.

      Btw, do you have a physics degree?  Are you currently a physics student?  Do you have a degree or are you self-educated?


    • D MatLeo
      D MatLeo 2 years ago

      Only in animation videos do i come across people like you. I have given a fact above (casimir effect) witch proves what i stated in the first place. I give you real examples yet you all think, with theory upon theory, you have proven me wrong. If it is not based directly upon reality, whatever theory exists, is to be discarded not only that, but the phenomenon directly disproves the "law".


    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      +D MatLeo Being a keyboard warrior doesn't really work young one.  You can believe whatever you want to but just because you choose to stand in disagreement with the consensus of the global scientific community of The First Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most tested and confirmed of all scientific laws, doesn't mean you are immune to rebuttal.  

      If you believe you are prepared to share the truth, you must equally be prepared to handle the possibility of being corrected...unless you want to appear to be a hypocrite (since you are correcting the creator of the video, it doesn't really help your cause if you can't handle a disagreement with your claim by swinging your dick ) along with being a chauvinist pig--why the need to invoke a sexists slur?   

      However, all that aside, you can also believe in people living deep under the earth's crust...there's a documentary about it.  

      Btw, Jon Jones just made a sarcastic remark, how does that impact his masculinity?  And I also disagree with you that I was passive aggressive--I was just sarcastic to point out the absurdity of your line of reasoning.  I'm quite comfortable with being direct.  Your inability to handle a disagreement is more a reflection of the insecurity of your thoughts.

      But I thank you for sharing your perspective because you took the time and energy to respond and even if you don't understand things now, maybe you will in time and more study of physics.


    • D MatLeo
      D MatLeo 2 years ago

      +I. C. U. 1! no actual facts to sustain your claim. 2! sarcasm and  passive aggressiveness does not prove your point, it only proves you're a pussy.3! You might want to check your facts like law's year when the ultimate technology was the boiling pot engine, so you might wanna get back into the fossil records where you belong.


  • Michael Sneideman
    Michael Sneideman 2 years ago

    nice work!!

  • 918388918388
    918388918388 2 years ago

    Great animation, but one thing bothers me. In 3:07 there is cooling tower with a furnace inside and as far as I know that is not how the cooling towers operate?

  • Br!an Delta V
    Br!an Delta V 2 years ago

    Thorium, Thorium, Thorium.

    Problem... SOLVED!!!

  • zac zjuerg
    zac zjuerg 2 years ago

    Why no discussion on nuclear energy options?

    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      +zac zjuerg Yup.  My bad. not intentional. Thanks for watching the video. 


    • zac zjuerg
      zac zjuerg 2 years ago

      +josh sneideman hey fair enough, just wasn't sure if there was a specific reason for the omittance. Thank you for the timely response!


    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      Zac Zjuerg, I take responsibility for that. Somehow in the excitement of writing the script it really didn't occur to me that I had missed Nuclear.  Then in all the edits same.  On the day it was released I looked at it and hit myself in the head and said I clearly missed the mark on that.   Unfortunately the train had left the station.  It absolutely should have been part of the discussion. 


  • Casey Tuesburg
    Casey Tuesburg 2 years ago

    God is energy, and energy is our god. The human soul is nothing more than pure energy, and through it the gods speak to us all. Dimentional entity consisting of energy. If you think about it when you pray, all you're doing is projecting your thoughts, via the soul, to the gods. Though as energy they power your every movement, the idea behind it is your own free will. If this makes sense to anyone else we can talk about it.

    • vanarcken113
      vanarcken113 2 years ago

      I'm a Christian, and a scientist. It's one thing to maintain faith within reason, and another to blindly ignore large accumulations of data. Believing in God and being ignorant should not be the same thing. 


  • Lawrence Ma
    Lawrence Ma 2 years ago

    energy*

  • Daniel Lopez
    Daniel Lopez 2 years ago

    To bad the gov won't support this because the make so much money from oil and stuff and america is all about the money

  • Ngan Nguyen
    Ngan Nguyen 2 years ago

    Thats pretty much the summary of what i learned in my grade 9 science :)))

  • PF Gram
    PF Gram 2 years ago

    The next major question is how do we use energy coming from renewable resources in a greater quantity. It will have be be an economic and political move back by those who believe independent producing America, environmentalists, and industries.

  • Mark Pataki
    Mark Pataki 2 years ago

    How did the energy that makes up the universe get here in the first place?

  • Desert Loner
    Desert Loner 2 years ago

    i bet you want subscribers, if you tell me on the discussion what your channel is about i will subscribe to you (with a couple exceptions)

  • Uber Megustador
    Uber Megustador 2 years ago

    0:55 isn't sound a vibration :/

    • I. C. U.
      I. C. U. 2 years ago

      Yes, and vibrations are waves and waves are energy. 


  • reddir
    reddir 2 years ago

    Can you say something about "Rotational Energy" being an internal energy source for the earth? Do you mean wind and tide....or something more?

  • US Energy Sciences
    US Energy Sciences 2 years ago

    Interesting and fun animation!

  • Michael Butor
    Michael Butor 2 years ago

    Reduce the population. Stop using technology advancements as a crutch. NOT genocid! But two child limit globally. The planet can only sustain about 2-3 billion people with industry, resource extraction for the supporting environment that is NEEDED for life to exist. The planet cannot sustain 7 billion nor the 9 billion that's projected by 2050. By the end of my life time the population issue on this planet are going to be at severely dangerous levels.

    • The Rogue Seraph
      The Rogue Seraph 1 month ago

      luckily ill be dead or dying by then


    • captaincarl1
      captaincarl1 2 years ago

      I agree about over-population, but I don't agree about the child limit. Forcing people to not reproduce is difficult to enforce and may violate individuals' understanding of natural law. Instead, why not just promote family planning, contraception, and subsidize these programs?

      We could take away the reproduction incentives, and promote proper sex education in the US. Melinda Gates has some good ideas about reproductive health in the developing world. There's an injection that can prevent pregnancy for a year! 

      Child labor needs to be enforced. Maybe we could pay men and women to get their tubes tied ... that's just a hastily thought up idea.


    • Bill Wilson
      Bill Wilson 2 years ago

      +Michael Butor Yes thats totally how you prove your right to someone else.

      Guess what, aliens built the pyramids and who were those aliens, thats right the reptile jews.

      look it up, do your research, its all over google. Like I'm going to post evidence.


    • Michael Butor
      Michael Butor 2 years ago

      +Timmy Turner look it up. Like I'm going to post a cited research document in the google comments.. Get a life.


    • Bill Wilson
      Bill Wilson 2 years ago

      +Michael Butor I liked how you didn't post any valid sources or evidence for your claim.

      Great argument, I'm very sure it would hold up in the most finest and highest of scientific institutions.

      You should go and claim your nobel prize.

      Alex Jones would be very proud of you.


  • S_almenhali
    S_almenhali 2 years ago

    Wow nice vid ,
    But where did all this energy , organization and systemization
    Came from is it only the Big Bang and evolution or is it the highest probability the one creator just think of it

  • GaborBartal
    GaborBartal 2 years ago

    What an excellent animation/presentation!
    It was a pleasure to watch

  • Wiavs9Luzomgo
    Wiavs9Luzomgo 2 years ago

    37

  • Kamizushi Akinari
    Kamizushi Akinari 2 years ago

    I'm surprised that this video hasn't received more down votes considered it touches the science behind the politically controversial topic of global warming. It also gives ammo to the ever so unpopular vegans thesis by stating that eating producers (e.g. plants) is more efficient than eating consumers (e.g. animals).

  • Charles Lighthipe
    Charles Lighthipe 2 years ago

    Consider Thorium Energy.
    Learn more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_Energy_Alliance
    And https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIdM7ABQ8b9FI495vbsHkA
    Contact your representatives and tell them to learn more and to support
    Bill: S. 2006 "The National Rare Earth Cooperative Act".

  • Arturo Fernandez
    Arturo Fernandez 2 years ago

    what about tidal?

  • TED-Ed
    TED-Ed 2 years ago

    This is for Nathan Hadland.  He was asking bout solar energy:  http://ed.ted.com/lessons/why-aren-t-we-only-using-solar-power-alexandros-george-charalambides  Let us know what you think!

    • RoScFan
      RoScFan 1 year ago

      Limited? Yes, but HUGE! Just the Sahara Dessert gets hundreds of times more energy în the form of sunlight than humanity consumes! That's just one dessert and it's just sunlight. There's also Wind, geothermal, Tides, ocean currents etc. But we can also get a lot of energy from nuclear sources. Fusion has probably the greatest potential. But even modern uranium fission îs great. Uranium fission îs UNJUSTLY demonized. But there are other kinds of fissions, like Thorium.


    • Nathan Hadland
      Nathan Hadland 2 years ago

      Thanks! That video on solar energy was very helpful! 


  • Iyuda
    Iyuda 2 years ago

    Wow Ted, you sure are ramping up the audience interaction!

    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      TED-Ed is here for our community, +TRIMISIS!  We're glad you noticed.  Thanks for stopping by.


  • MuffinDemons
    MuffinDemons 2 years ago

    That was lovely.

    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      Thanks, +MuffinDemons!  We're glad you stopped by.


  • Jackie Oakley
    Jackie Oakley 2 years ago

    +TED-Ed

  • Jackie Oakley
    Jackie Oakley 2 years ago

    I don't think but I know that my mother and all my friends have different believes such as buddi god etc. I think that this topic is a question to everyone and we all could help

    Basically anyone with a religion could help ,we all believe in a different god , but what they don't know is that we were all worshiping 1 god.


    • kurtilein3
      kurtilein3 2 years ago

      +vanarcken113
      you are ignorant. there is no reason to have faith in science, because science is evidence-based, so it is a matter of knowledge or ignorance. there is no evidence any of your stupid gods exist, none at all, so there can be no knowledge in religion, all you have is your stupid faith in your stupid mythology. the main teaching of every religion is that you go to hell, or get re-born as a worm, if you dont believe in their nonsense, fear as a substitute for evidence.

      do not place your faith in science, and unless you are an idiot, do not put it in religion.


    • vanarcken113
      vanarcken113 2 years ago

      don't listen to kurtilein3, being an athiest is not the same as being an educated scientist. Faith in a science book is no different than faith in a Holy Book. Place your faith where you as a person believe it should be. The main teaching of any religion should be to do right for yourself and for others.


    • kurtilein3
      kurtilein3 2 years ago

      its simple. all religions are wrong. and all religions worship different gods. the catholic version of god punishes all non-catholics with eternal suffering. the muslim god punishes all non-muslims with eternal sufering. so they are not the same, you are deluded, religions are in fierce competition andhave different gods.

      you really only need to know that all religions are stupid, all religions are wrong, and they are all incompatible with each other and fighting for domination.


  • Daniel Shooshtari
    Daniel Shooshtari 2 years ago

    Sound is vibration???

    • Daniel Shooshtari
      Daniel Shooshtari 2 years ago

      well, I think it must have something to do with the molecules. The molecules in water are closer together, thus it's easier for the molecules to excite adjacent molecules. sound is even faster in iron and that is why you always hear the train through the rails before you hear it through air when you're waiting for the train:)


    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      +TED-Ed  Correct Daniel Shooshtari.  Sound is a mechanical wave and can only travel through the vibration of a medium. That is why sound does not travel in space, there is nothing to vibrate. Interesting fact sound travel faster in water than in air.  Why?


    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      +josh sneideman Could probably chime in here!  He's one of the educator's that  helped work on this lesson.


  • Jackie Oakley
    Jackie Oakley 2 years ago

  • Nathan Hadland
    Nathan Hadland 2 years ago

    So essentially if we harness the power of the sun in a more effective manner than solar panels or something similar, (as they are not efficient enough to power entire modern societies), then we could have an almost unlimited energy source. Another possibility is to create our own sustainable"star" if you will, such as what a fusion bomb does except find a way to keep the newly formed "star" stable enough so we can harness its energy. How practical are these ideas?

  • João Gouveia
    João Gouveia 2 years ago

    Very nice and neatly explained lesson. Thanks :) 

  • Jackie Oakley
    Jackie Oakley 2 years ago

    Please
    Please
    Please
    Please
    Please

  • Jackie Oakley
    Jackie Oakley 2 years ago

    Dear ted ed ,
    Can you do why we have different beliefes ? I would appreciate It ;)

    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      +MarcianusImperator Great idea!!  What do you have in mind?  Tell us here: http://ed.ted.com/nominate_an_educator


    • MarcianusImperator
      MarcianusImperator 2 years ago

      +TED-Ed
      Yes, TED. And perhaps a dab of philisophy once in a while. ;)


    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      That's a great idea, +Jackie Da Girl Gamer!  Do you know anybody who can help us explore that topic?  If so, tell us about them here: http://ed.ted.com/nominate_an_educator

      Also, you might like this lesson about the five major world religions: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-five-major-world-religions-john-bellaimey  Let us know what you think!


  • thestrangejames
    thestrangejames 2 years ago

    So, I have a question:
    We all know that most of our society's electricity is induced through the burning of various fossil fuels (unless you're Germany -- kudos to you). The most efficient energy production mechanisms however are not mechanical combustion engines, but instead are the biochemical reactions that drive life. We "spend" electricity in our society with just about everything modern, and sometimes we spend electricity so that we can exercise.
    Why isn't this the other way around? People want to exercise, which is great, but why aren't fitness studios designed to introduce energy back into the system, rather than expend it? I've seen some ballpark estimates put this at about 100 W from a bicycle generator. I'm curious why this isn't "a thing" -- is there a practical reason this hasn't been done? I'm not an engineer/physicist so I don't know the practicality of these sorts of ideas.

    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      +thestrangejames  again my energy expert friend says "If you want to give some hope, I would say that human power can probably be useful for at least two applications I can think of - lighting and personal electronics. LEDs are so efficient that they are easy to power with a small solar panel, but could easily have a hand pump backup for off-grid applications (some flashlights work this way). Small electronics like cell phones tend to require very little real energy so there's no reason you couldn't charge them by hand, especially when travelling. These products already exist, though I have no idea how good they are. In general, very low power applications may be great for this. But the big energy users - heating, cooling, transport, cooking, major appliances, hot water, etc. - will probably never be human powered directly."
      :


    • thestrangejames
      thestrangejames 2 years ago

      +josh sneideman
      Thank you very much. I can say without doubt this is one of the highest quality responses I've ever received about something scientific.

      It's too bad it wouldn't work, or at least not very well. Still, I wonder if human power could ever be put to (ethical) use in other areas of society where combustion or electrical machines now predominate.


    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      I asked an energy expert to weigh in.  Here is his response. 

      Some do – see for example http://www.thegreenmicrogym.com/electricity-generating-equipment/ 

      But, the main problems are scale and cost. Mostly, humans just can’t make all that much power on the scale of our use, and electricity is cheap. 100 W is reasonable for moderate exercise (see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.4960130809/pdf)

       – cycling is generally in that range. But let’s say an execbike is in use for 8 hours a day at that level (probably a high estimate, but for example) – that is 8 hr * 100 W = 0.8 kWh. That’s about 8-10 cents worth of electricity from eight hours of cycling. So even over a year, we’re talking about a couple bucks of electricity per bike. So no matter how cheap the electronics to make the feedback work so you can put it into the building or the grid, it is hard to imagine that costing out. You could (and I believe some bikes do), however, use the energy to run the bike interface system and TV, which is more possible because you can then avoid some other power electronics (and maybe not plug it in at all). But again, we’re not talking about much real avoided energy. When people ask me about this, I tell them there are many, many better ways to spend money and effort than trying to capture human excercise. This is unfortunate – because it does have great appeal!

      This reminds me of one interesting way to try to have intuition for this fundamental fact – that humans don’t produce very much energy on the scale of our use – is to translate energy use into the equivalent of people on bikes. A typical household uses 11,000 kWh per year, or 30 kWh per day. This is the equivalent (based on the conversion above) of about 38 people riding exerbikes in 8 hour shifts every day at 100 W (not easy or fun!) to power every home! That helps with the intuition – imagine your home (this doesn’t include your car, your job, any of that) being powered instead of by the grid, by a large group of excercycles, and you realize how much value we get from cheap, cheap electricity – that day’s worth of electricity costs $3-4, not the thousands you would have to pay people to ride all day. Plus, this doesn’t include the food those poor cyclists would have to eat, and the energy to produce that.

      Another thing to be careful of is the declaration the biomechanical processes are efficient. They actually aren’t that efficiency from an energy conversion perspective. Photosynthesis overall is generally calculated to capture only about 0.5% of light energy, and every time an organism metabolizes something up to 90% is generally estimated to be ‘wasted’. So if you compare growing a crop to run a power plant vs. growing a crop to feed us to make power, the power plant will win every time. That is of course not a reason not to exercise – just a reason that “people power” will probably never power the world directly! Of course, we can put “people power” into creating smarter energy systems that avoid most of the problems created by energy use.


    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      Additional issues would be the COST to the fitness studio to purchase the required technology.  Energy is still relatively cheap and the cost benefit isn't quite there yet.  You have seen the soccer ball light?  There are shoes that can be used to plug in your cell phone as they create energy as you walk. http://www.gizmag.com/in-shoe-energy-harvester/19623/ So the future is bright for creative ideas, there just needs unfortunately to be a cost  benefit associated. 


    • Grey Squirrel Games
      Grey Squirrel Games 2 years ago

      Probably because the amount of energy produced by something like a fitness studio would be trivial enough to not be worth mentioning.  100W is nothing compared to the several megawatts a power plant produces.  Also electricity needs to be produced in just the right amounts needed at the time it is being used since it's difficult to store.

      A better solution would be for people to stop getting out of work, taking the elevator down to the ground floor, and getting in their car to go to the fitness studio where they then use the stair-climbing machine and exercise bikes...


  • MrYlad
    MrYlad 2 years ago

    First

    • josh sneideman
      josh sneideman 2 years ago

      +TED-Ed  before watching the video I have always said the egg had to have come first, evolutionary it is the only way it works. Mutation in genes at inception and then bang new creature in an egg.  Besides eggs were around long before chickens were. So the egg in that sense is not a novelty. 


    • alxuria
      alxuria 2 years ago

      +TED-Ed haha well played


    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      Speaking of firsts, check out this TED-Ed Select and decide which came first -- the chicken or the egg!  http://ed.ted.com/featured/jOuJyFNt


  • ThinkTG
    ThinkTG 2 years ago

    :D!

    • ThinkTG
      ThinkTG 2 years ago

      Thx I love watching EVERYTHING from +TED-Ed 


    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      Right back at you, +ThinkTG!  Since you're so smiley, I bet you'd like this TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/ron_gutman_the_hidden_power_of_smiling


  • Nenkos
    Nenkos 2 years ago

    Neat.

    • TED-Ed
      TED-Ed 2 years ago

      Thanks, +Grilled Salt!  If you have other ideas for lessons, you should tell us about them.  Check out our open nomination form: http://ed.ted.com/nominate_an_educator


Analyse website