In this blog post, we’ll take a scientific look at the energy crisis that arose after humanity blocked out the sun in the movie “The Matrix,” and explore possible alternative energy sources and solutions to air pollution in a world where sunlight is blocked.
The World of “The Matrix” Without Sunlight
The movie “The Matrix” had a profound impact on audiences. The premise—that human freedom is an illusion and that humans are actually being raised as energy sources for machines—remains deeply shocking even now, well over 20 years after the film’s release. The movie explains that, to win the war against the machines, humanity polluted the atmosphere to block sunlight—the machines’ primary energy source—and that, after the machines won the war, they began raising humans to harvest their energy and solve their own energy crisis. In the film’s actual premise, humans darkened the sky to prevent machines from utilizing solar energy, resulting in a situation where machines found it difficult to harness solar power. If you paid close attention to this part while watching the movie, you might have wondered what kind of solutions could exist for the energy problems that arise when sunlight is blocked.
I believe there are only two major solutions to this situation: either developing a completely new energy source that did not previously exist, or resolving air pollution—the root cause of this crisis. This conclusion is based on the assessment that, within the limits of humanity’s current technology, there are insufficient direct methods to sustainably endure a situation where sunlight is blocked for an extended period.
What energy sources do not depend on sunlight?
Some might think that even if sunlight were blocked, there would still be plenty of energy available for humanity to use. They might argue that even without sunlight, there are plenty of “fuels” we can use, such as oil or uranium. However, I would argue that this is an overly optimistic claim that anyone who has given even a little thought to energy issues would find difficult to accept.
Apart from the oil and uranium mentioned earlier, other energy sources include natural energy such as wind and waves, as well as biomass energy derived from living organisms. One thing they all have in common is that they all depend, directly or indirectly, on solar energy. The baroclinic forces that generate wind are closely related to the process by which the Earth’s surface is heated unevenly by sunlight; waves are primarily generated by the wind; and ocean currents are also influenced by various factors, including solar heating and the Earth’s rotation. Of course, it goes without saying that plants—as primary producers—play a crucial role in biomass energy, a method of energy production that relies on other living organisms. Considering that plant photosynthesis depends on sunlight, it is clear that biomass cannot serve as a sustainable energy source in situations where sunlight is blocked for extended periods. This is also why, before humanity began using fossil fuels on a large scale, natural energy sources such as biological resources, wind, and water were utilized as the primary sources of energy. So, if both oil and uranium were to be depleted, what energy sources could we use? Unless new energy sources are developed, our options would inevitably be severely limited, and it is easy to see that, in a situation where sunlight is blocked for an extended period, many of those options would also be difficult to use sustainably. Therefore, even now, when sunlight is available, the depletion of energy resources is a serious problem; it goes without saying how much more severe the situation would become if sunlight were also unavailable.
So, what energy sources would be viable in the absence of sunlight? First and foremost, it goes without saying that we must rely on energy sources that do not depend on sunlight. More importantly, these must be energy sources that can be used semi-permanently. Entrusting the future of humanity—in an extreme scenario devoid of sunlight—to finite resources with limited reserves, such as oil, is an extremely precarious proposition. Finally, we cannot overlook the fact that these sources must be capable of generating sufficient energy to sustain modern civilization. While geothermal and tidal energy are sources that can be utilized over the long term without directly relying on sunlight, they are limited in terms of available regions and scale, and thus cannot fully replace the total energy currently consumed by humanity. Considering just these three points, we can conclude that the alternative energy sources available in the absence of solar power are insufficient—at least in terms of the methods currently in widespread use.
Can we create an artificial sun through nuclear fusion?
If so, what kinds of energy sources are currently impossible but could potentially be realized in the future? The first solution I’d like to propose stems from a simple shift in perspective. If there is no sun, we can simply create one. In other words, we would directly replicate nuclear fusion—the energy source that currently powers the sun. While the sun primarily generates energy through hydrogen fusion, hydrogen isotopes such as deuterium and tritium—in addition to ordinary hydrogen—are essential for achieving nuclear fusion power generation on Earth. Deuterium is widely present in water, whereas tritium is not abundant in nature and therefore requires a separate production process. Of course, energy is required to extract deuterium from water or to prepare fusion fuel, but fusion is a reaction with the potential to release enormous amounts of energy. However, as of 2026, fusion energy remains in the experimental stage, where significant achievements are being accumulated; it has not yet been established as a power generation method capable of reliably supplying large-scale electricity on a commercial basis. Therefore, if we can resolve technical issues such as the stability and economic viability of fusion reactions, fuel supply, and power generation systems, and secure sufficient net energy and power generation efficiency, fusion could become an important alternative capable of supplying energy over the long term even in the absence of the Sun.
The second solution is similarly one that comes to mind with just a slight shift in perspective. If the problem is that the solar energy we need is blocked by the atmosphere, we simply need to go beyond the atmosphere. This involves launching satellites into Earth’s orbit to generate electricity from solar radiation and transmitting the energy back to Earth in the form of electromagnetic waves. In fact, space-based solar power is currently being researched as a concept that involves collecting solar energy in space and wirelessly transmitting it to Earth via microwaves or lasers. Microwaves, in particular, have the advantage of being able to transmit energy through the atmosphere when using the appropriate frequency band. Of course, this approach also presents challenges, such as the need to construct and maintain massive space structures, as well as the need to address issues like energy losses during conversion and transmission, safety, and economic feasibility. However, in the future, once technology has advanced sufficiently, these problems could be resolved, making this a viable solution for supplying electricity using solar energy even in situations where sunlight cannot reach the Earth’s surface.
Is it possible to directly remove air pollution?
Of course, the best solution to the problems we’ve been discussing is to prevent such a dire situation—where the atmosphere is so polluted that sunlight cannot reach the Earth’s surface—from occurring in the first place. However, once that happens, we will inevitably have to resort to a second-best option, and that option lies in directly addressing that dire reality. In other words, we would need to eliminate the substances blocking sunlight.
However, removing every single pollutant floating in the atmosphere seems extremely difficult. Given the immense spatial scale of the atmosphere, building a massive air purifier capable of filtering it out is realistically very challenging, and one might even think it’s impossible to directly treat the atmosphere several kilometers above the Earth’s surface. However, contrary to this common perception, it cannot be said that altering the composition of the atmosphere is completely impossible in principle. Nevertheless, since the movie does not specifically explain the exact composition of the substance that darkened the atmosphere, it is important to note that it is difficult to propose concrete countermeasures without knowing exactly which substance needs to be removed.
You’ve probably heard that there could be life on Mars. This is because Mars possesses an environment that is crucial for studying the possibility of life on planets other than Earth, and in this context, countless movies and novels have been created based on the premise of extraterrestrial life on Mars. Furthermore, plans are even being considered to transform Mars into an environment habitable for humans. But have you ever heard of a plan to make Venus a habitable planet? At first glance, this might sound absurd. The surface temperature on Venus reaches approximately 467°C—a temperature high enough to melt lead. Venus’s thick carbon dioxide atmosphere creates a powerful greenhouse effect, and the surface atmospheric pressure is approximately 93 times that at sea level on Earth. Consequently, few people would readily accept the idea that such an extreme environment could be made habitable for humans. Nevertheless, various measures have been proposed on a theoretical level. One such approach involves introducing photosynthetic microorganisms or algae into the upper atmosphere of Venus to convert carbon dioxide into other substances and alter the composition of the atmosphere. While proposals of this nature have been made in the past, it has become clear that, given Venus’s currently known atmospheric density and pressure, simply dispersing photosynthetic organisms would be insufficient to transform Venus into a planet similar to Earth.
The air pollution problems discussed so far can also be solved in a similar manner. Of course, decomposing pollutants does not necessarily require living organisms, as in the previous example; one could also consider using catalytic substances activated by specific wavelengths of light or other energy sources. In this way, we can explore methods that involve introducing small amounts of material or energy to trigger a chain reaction that breaks down specific substances in the atmosphere. However, for such methods to be practically feasible, we must have specific knowledge about which pollutants exist, at what altitudes and in what concentrations they are distributed in the atmosphere, and through which chemical reactions they can be removed.
Can we find scientific meaning in a hypothetical scenario?
The issues discussed so far are based entirely on a hypothetical reality in which sunlight is completely blocked. For that reason, this discussion might seem meaningless. However, science is a discipline that identifies the principles underlying phenomena to devise solutions for real-world problems, and naturally, there is no rule stating that these real-world problems must be situations we are already familiar with. Might we not also cultivate our abilities as scientists by honing our capacity to address situations we do not yet understand?
