felt that

same here

I hate that

The struggles

lol

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.

Yep..

Yep 😂

Mayyyyybe😳

yeah...

Yess

May I get the images?

Um 😐 👂🙀💄🙀💄💍🤘👉👐🤝✌️🤟👈😽🙌🙀👊✊👹😺👎👐👈👹😸👎✋👎👹🙀✊😹😺👎🤞✊😺😹💀👎🤞✋👹💀🤞✋👹😽✋🤞😹👎✊😹👹✋👎🙀😹👎🤞👹🎃👎✋🤞🎃✋👹👎🎃🙀👹🎃🤞🙀✊✋😹👎🤞💀😿👎✊✋😿✊✋👎😽🤞👹😺🙀👎✊😺😽👎👎😺😿👎🤞🤙😿😺🤙👎😿🤞✋☠️✋✊🤞😺🤙👎✊🙀☠️✊🤙☠️🙀👎✊👎✊🤞☠️👎✊😺🙀👎✊🤙☠️👎🤙☠️😺🤞🤙🙀👎🤙☠️😸👎💀🤞💀🤞✊🙀👺🤞💀💀🙀🤙💀👎🤙✊🙀👎☠️🤙🙀👎✊🤞☠️😿✋🤞👽👎🤜🤙😿👽🤡✋🤛👽🤞👊🤞😸🤙🤛☠️😿👎🤙😸🤡🤞🤙👺🤙🤞😿☠️😸🤙🤞🙀😾👎✋💀👹✊✋🙌😺👹🤞✋👺😻✊🤞✋😸😺✊👎✊👐🙀👎😼👐✊✋😿🙌💍💀😿👈👆👏💀👉✋😽🙌🎃🙌👶👧👏🎃🧓👱‍♂️😺😽👱‍♂️🎃😽👧👦🙀😹👤🗣😿🎃👂👧😹👹👨👣👹🙀👨👂💋😺🙀💍👂👂👧😺😽💍👂👧😺😹🤙👧👹💄😺👅👧🖕🤙😺😹👹💄👃👹👾👁👃☠️👹👁🗣👹😸👣👃😺😹👂👃👹😺💋🧠🙀👹👂👱‍♀️😹🙀🧠👣👹🙀👨💄😿😺🙀🧠👱‍♀️🧠🙌☠️🙌👃👃👃👃👃👃👃👃😿🙀👂💀😽🙌✋🖐👏😽🖐👉👂😽👏👆💍👉👆😼👏💍✋💀😽💍👆😿🙌👈✋🙌🙌💀😽👈💍💀👆👏👊👈💀😽👏💀🙌😽👈✋👐👏👆💍✋👈👆👊💍👆💀😽✋👈👆💀🙌💍👆😽

Fran the Gameboy ..what?

LPS DragonLair it is lmao

@Brendin Huynh 560,000 now

💖Happy to hear that!🙂

Silva Hawk please

*its ki-* nvm

That's right , different from our social life 🌞

Sadly we cant digest that. So, sadly not.

oMg ArE yOu FoR rEaL

@@seahorseys6190 sounds like fake news to me. You just want to hog all the free energy for yourself!

@@shock_n_Aweful maybe 😏

Yeah!

Ted Ed is my favorite channel ❤

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.

THIS IS ONE OF MY MYSTHICAL BELIEFS. EVEN LOVE AND CONSCIOUSNESS FOR ME IS AN ENERGY

Its ....................

me too

thx :3

@@MrChentefox np

THNQS PH4G

Thanks. You probably would like my books for kids. www.amazon.com/Joshua-Sneideman/e/B00NMWS9BA

A turbine is a turbine is a turbine. Wind turbines essentially have a huge magnet surrounded by copper coils, when the blades turn the magnet turns, when the magnet turns the electrons in the copper(matalic bonding) are excited by the changing magnetic field and and induced to flow. Hence electricity. Same is true of hydro turbines, same is true of how nuclear and coal plants use steam to turn turbines with magnets!

Turbines are the same as almost all power plants except solar - inside the turbine is a giant coil of copper with magnets spinning around the outside. The spinning blades spin these parts which cause electrons to flow, the faster they spin the faster the electrons move etc etc. Hydro uses the same spinning magnets, coal heats water to spin magnets, natural gas heats water to spin magnets, nuclear heats water to spin magnets etc etc that is what a generator does. Generates electricity through the effect of spinning magnets around tightly wound copper coils.

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

@@TEDEd WHICH DONT DO ANYMORE

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

Thank you - check out some of my books - www.amazon.com/Joshua-Sneideman/e/B00NMWS9BA

@@JoshAsks OH, I just realized you are the educator that came up this this idea. Well done awesome idea to talk about

Great brainstorm, thestrangejames! Thanks for sharing it with us. I would be willing to bet there's an expert (engineer/physicist) out there that can help us answer some of these questions. Maybe they could even do a Lesson for us. Do you know of anybody? If so, you can tell us about them here: ed.ted.com/nominate_an_educator We'd be totally down to think about these questions and work with somebody to help explain them. Also, I thought you'd like this lesson too: ed.ted.com/lessons/biofuels-and-bioprospecting-for-beginners-craig-a-kohn Let us know what you think!

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...

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. 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.

I asked an energy expert to weigh in. Here is his response. Some do - see for example 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 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 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.

AND THE GRAVITATIONAL ROTATION ITSELF IS ROTATIONAL ENERGY WHICH IS INTERNAL

Ever figure it out?

hey its been a year have you figured it out

It’s been 2 years have you figured it out? Or YOUR STILL IN IT (if you’re even alive at this point

its been 3 years did you figure it out

its been 4 years you good bro?

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

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

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.

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

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

Please do a new one including Nuclear :)

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

Glad you liked it - thanks - www.amazon.com/Joshua-Sneideman/e/B00NMWS9BA

not funny

@Cody what do you mean?

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

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?

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:)

it's to do with the compression of particles in the air. Our ears pick up these compressed particles as sound. No air particles in space to be compressed - therefore no sound

Yes, and vibrations are waves and waves are energy.

in a way, aren't winds and hydroelectric energy a consequence of that ?

@@dragos8839 THANK YOU

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.

@@fierce-green-fire8887 woah woah calm down lol he or she probably didnt read into the topic enough

@@fierce-green-fire8887 guess they never heard of the fukishima incident..hmmmm clean, lol clean an island off the map..

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

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

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

I really think that is a horrible request for a Ted-Ed video. This series should be rooted in fact, not fiction. Belief is taught and learned, not something we are born with and religion (because, and let's be honest here, that is what you are asking to have explained) has no place being involved with science or facts. Religion is based in belief and only belief. You believe what you do because that is what you were exposed to while you were growing up. You get the major set of formative beliefs from your parents and during your educational years. Mom and Dad teach you right from wrong, what religion to follow, and all of the societal expectations (like laws) to follow when you go out in the world and you pick up the rest as you have experiences during your life. If you speed while driving, for example, the police will pull you over and punish you for breaking a law (and yes, a law is an agreed upon belief). Philosophy, on the other hand, is an examination of rationale and logic to try and explain those beliefs. You need to ask why the different philosophies exist, not about beliefs. Going back to the speeding example, why do the police care? Because we all agreed that it is safer to travel at a certain speed when we are driving. If we suddenly stopped enforcing laws, it wouldn't cause the world to end...it would just be a lot more dangerous to drive around because most people won't be safe in their cars. That's the rationale behind speeding laws. It's a belief, but its one that can be explained through logic and reason. Religion has no basis in rationale and logic and therefore no place in philosophy. We use religion to help us understand why things are the way they are and to keep people from panicking because we don't understand the origin of our universe, why we are born, or why we die. It's like Aesop's fables or Grimm fairy tales. Sure, it is entertaining and can teach us morality, but it has no place in an intelligent society.

Conspiracy!

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

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.

Hate to tell you this, but you are WRONG. Without the materials that decomposers cycle into the soil and atmosphere, plants could not perform the processes during photosynthesis that help them produce their own energy and sugars. Potassium, magnesium, and nitrogen are all provided by decomposers breaking down dead/decaying organics, cycled into the soils that plants use, and are directly responsible/involved in the energy creating steps of photosynthesis. In fact, some of the phosphates obtained from the soil as a result of the activity of decomposers is involved in the processing of ADP to ATP as plants perform their own metabolic processes. So, yes...the arrow is where it should be. Let me know and I can provide you the scientific papers and text that show this. I teach this to my Botany and Cell Biology classes every year.

@@Turtle3379 If the arrows are intended to represent ENERGY, they should not be there. The narration at the point that i referenced is all about energy moving through the food chain, not MATTER. If the arrows are supposed to represent MATTER then yes, there should be an arrow from decomposers to the producers. This video is about energy, not matter. Also, your statement "produce their own energy" is factually incorrect. Plants get and store energy from the sun through the production of sugars, they don't MAKE or PRODUCE energy. Additionally, one could argue that the arrow should point from producers to decomposers because of the interchange of sugars and nutrients between soil bacteria and plant roots. The energy goes from the plant roots to the decomposers and non-energy storing materials like nitrogen and phosphorus are passed to the plant roots. I agree that materials are passed back and forth between producers and consumers, but in a video specifically about ENERGY, and that has narration about ENERGY over the section with arrows, I believe that it is misleading to have an arrow implying energy is passed from decomposers to producers.

Bueller?.. Bueller?.... How big are we talking?

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.

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

Is the energy stored or rather absorbed by the atmosphere of earth ultimately released to universe

@@fierce-green-fire8887 GIRL NOT THE ESSAY NO ONE IS READING THAT.

@@fierce-green-fire8887 YOU'RE RIGHT THO

Cream

@@paradoxwastaken wut

Same. Now watching for exam

Sprazzmatic, Pyrosphere? I think that’s it..

Magmaspehere? Lavasphere? Fortiasphere?

@@lilliant.82 YES Pyrosphere precisely.

Really, prove it.

+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.