Crash Course: Chapter 17b - Energy Budgeting by Chris Martenson

[littlelea86]

I love how the number of views goes down for each video as we progress on with the crash course, lol

[christo930]

I don't understand why hydrogen is bad. Suppose we put giant windmills in the ocean and used the excess electricity being generated to manufacture hydrogen from the water? In other words, we don't have to directly use the source of energy if we have excess energy to waste extracting more usable forms of energy. We could also use windmills to pump oil out of the ground at an energy loss because we value the liquid oil more than the electricity generated by mill.

[bakshijoon]

@timgranville, the existing network of filling stations can't transport hydrogen. There is a huge difference in transportation of complex hydrocarbon molecules vs. molecules of hydrogen which are very volatile.

[jmitterii2]

@bakshijoon If the grid was energized (over powered via nukes, solar, wind, etc.) they could just tap the grid and make it at the station via electrolysis between water to get the hydrogen. That would also save on costs of transport.

[goedeck1]

@bakshijoon It is my understanding that H2 leaks much more from storage than hydrocarbon gas. Due to the molecule size maybe?

[papawx3]

Explain this: During World War 2, Germany was cut off from the last remaining oilfields under it's control {they were in Romania} by the advancing Soviet armies in the Summer of 1944. They had no oil reserves to speak of either. So how did they manage to fight another ten months? They still had plenty of coal fields in Germany, so they converted the coal to liquid and used it to power everything. We have 300 yrs worth of coal reserves here in the USA. CLEAN IT UP AND BURN IT. Problem solved.

[fr0ber]

@papawx3 Lol idiot. 

[papawx3]

@fr0ber Whats the matter parrot, you want a cracker?

[Huttate1]

@papawx3 Idiot. Your "300 years worth of coal" is typical headlining of figures without factoring in the realities. Have you really watched all these videos and yet learnt so little?

[phreakyprofessor]

@papawx3

Yes, 300 years at current levels of use. Imagine how long it will last if you replace oil by coal (which is inefficient to begin with). Then maybe those 300 years are only good for 3-4 decades. And factor in exponential growth of the economy, transportation, etc. Then maybe you have 1-2 decades' worth of coal. And to afford the infrastructure to transform that much coal that quickly, you'd have to generate a source of income, so you'd have to sell some of it off to other countries.

[josmala]

Huttate1: I understand the exponential growth and that it cannot continue forever. But I also know one solution to keep current energy use or increase it with some reasonable multiple and keep it there, for  million years which is plenty of time to perfect nuclear fusion ;)

But there are TWO key changes required.

A) Transform society to use ELECTRICITY as primary transportation medium for energy.

B) Go for most efficient nuclear cycle available and maybe cut some red tape around it.

[Huttate1]

@josmala So in your utopia we just need to built 50 nuclear power stations every year for 50 years; to replace fossil fuel power plants. And find the uranium to supply them. Job done!

And think about the energy required to extract uranium from seawater before trumpeting that as a solution.

[josmala]

World CURRENT energy use is ~10 billion tons of oil equivalent per year.

With fast breeders, one ton of natural uranium equals of 2 million tons of coal. Annual energy needs are worth of ~5000tons of uranium.

Current cheap uranium reserves ~5.5million tons. A bit more expensive uranium 4.6 billion tons from seawater.

Let me restate "Get fast breeders instead of the crap they sell us as more proliferation proof reactors, that only use tiny percentage of uranium."

[wordpresswidget]

Does hydrogen store energy better than current batteries?

[josmala]

Uranium shortage fallacy is based on that those reserves are counted in which

~0.02% of uranium:s energy is worth way under cent. The US has historically banned use of 99.98% of that due to fact that those processes have high potential for nuclear weapons use. I'm pretty certain that USA has enough nuclear waste to fuel its next generation reactors few decades. With that LOW quality sources of uranium are abundant enough for last thousands of years with current energy consumption.

[Huttate1]

@josmala "with current energy consumption." Did you not understand exponential growth, or oil replacement?

I suggest you Google "A cubic mile of oil" and you will see how much uranium we would need to replace fossil fuels.

[8serinaj]

"shooting barrels of oil into space"LMFAO!!!

[MrEnergyCzar]

There is no cheap replacement for cheap oil liquid transport fuels which our society depends on to function......some will claim there is....

[enotdetcelfer]

I was really hoping you would put the nuclear and some other options on the chart at the end. Also I was hoping you would touch on the nuance with how the solar and wind efficiency is calculated. Namely, the return on investment over time within the confines of wear for solar as well as the reliability losses in efficiency and utility for weather based energy extraction. On a whole I am immensely appreciating this course ^__^.. thumbs.

[ehswan]

Bush knew all that. The point of his policies were depopulation. As he said, "This sucker is going down". The "sucker" being us.

[hearts0ngs]

Some farmland with good soil, a clean and reliable water supply, and a horse & cart, is looking better and better...

[AnEarthPilot]

Perhaps a 3 to 1 return on energy invested is sufficient if the general population doesn't have to carry a leisure class?

[jackgoldman1]

Humans are a global problem. There is no limit to the fuel, money, greed, fears, and desires of Western world humans. Now they want to spread their disease to India, China, and others who will devour the world. Big mistake. The solution is to have less, live on less, do less with less waste. Waste is a status symbol in the West. No human is worth more than one million dollars a year. We have to control our fears and desires. We have met the problem and he is us. Live on less.

[FeelGoodinc91]

Where did you get the numbers for EROEI?

[TooCheapToMeter]

With nuclear, we have abundant energy available, yet we tie ourselves to burning oil one way or another. Coincidentally (not!) both are condemned by environmentalists Don't get me wrong, global warming is real, the destruction of the environment is real and the need to take precautions with nuclear is real. But there is no shortage of energy unless we choose to stifle the supply through listening to misleading propaganda.

Sorry if you have to re-write your course now, Chris :)

[TooCheapToMeter]

The *other* thing with nuclear power is that it doesn't replace oil as fuel in internal combustion engines or as industrial feedstock. But hydrogen and batteries will, not might, replace the gas tank very soon, so transport is not an issue.

In any case, GM algae grown under artificial light from cheap nuclear power will provide carbon-neutral biofuel and will be a regular part of any oil refinery before the mineral oil crisis hits - but only if we adopt nuclear.

That's one E down, two to go.

[TooCheapToMeter]

Peak uranium? This is a fiction. Oil will physically run out sooner or later. Uranium won't - not for millions of years. Currently uranium is very cheap. Obviously in a competitive market, it has to be mined inexpensively, but as demand goes up and the price goes up the effect on energy price will be negligible because the cost of the raw material will still be a tiny fraction of the overall cost of production. Get hold of a tame physicist and do the maths! It really is mind-boggling.

[artyfarty3]

isn't hydrogen something like 20% of air we breathe ? and water , isn't that oxygen and hydrogen ? surely there must be some way to extract it relatively cheaply from those sources . I heard there is one company in USA that makes hydrogen cars - how do they get their fuel source and how much does it cost to make ? I think the oil barons are keeping a tight lid on those technologies and will not share the true results until the oil runs out .Only then will they switch to new industry.

[vizulfun]

@artyfarty3 hi . . seen your ? . . look up hydrogen booster for car engines on utube . a car engine makes the hydrogen with the excess electric current from the alternator ''maybe its called a generator in U.S.'' . i live in Scotland . . we call it a alternator here . well anyway - you pass a current through a container that has water and bicarbonate of soda in it . which then makes hydrogen . its then just feed into the carb with the air intake. watch some utube vids to understand 

[1776independent]

@timgranville The thinking now is that off-peak base-load power might be used for hydrogen (via electrolysis). Wind power generally goes to waste in the evenings and investors are looking for all sorts of efficient storage. Hydrogen is OK for that and of course provides a reasonable energy density for replacing liquid fuels.

Unless we innovate nuclear (Liquid fluoride Thorium or travelling wave) traditional light water reactors are going to face big problems as uranium is getting scarce.

[spamsam15]

Chris, cant we produce hydrogen from water? so then use hydrogen to make more hydrogen????? and Exponentially increase the mount of hydrogen to surplus levels?????

im interested in learning more about this stuff because im a conservative but im always open to new views and ideas to continue to educate myself and adapt to more sensible views

[MrTh1rteen]

Hey, let's build a dyson sphere! that'll solve all our problems =P

[Thornirie]

My sum up to the entire thing? We need to hurry up and find alternative means of energy. Today or thirty years from now, it dosn't matter. If we have thirty years, good, we have a little bit of time to start searching, because oil WILL run out eventually (economically).

[Thornirie]

This all makes sense, and not to insult you, but you repeat things occasionally a few to many times (though it does help it make sense). I was wondering what your thoughts on Fusion power was? (vs. Hydrogen fuel). This video really makes sense, states nothing but facts, then you help to sum it up while still stating facts (the values that make a great teacher.

[zonsb]

Social complexity is built ion surplus energy.The international banksters Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc. have used that fact to control and recondition needs based people starting about 1920 to become consumers. Followed by further conditioning people and societies to be debt based.

They created the lifestyle for you in order to keep the free-range livestock from leaving the farm enmasse.

[zonsb]

One ten thousand the sunlight that hits Earth is required to meet all our energy needs. Solar energy PV panels/cells production out put is exponential. Doubling each year for the past 20 years while reducing cost of production in half -- despite inflation. In ten years the production output will be enough to meet all our energy needs and the cost will have been halved dramatically thanks to nanotechnology research and development..

[zonsb]

After the wandering hunter gatherers man progressed to stationary agricultural communities, it was at that point that a few realized that since man can produce more than he consumes it was worth the effort to control or outright enslave people.

Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix: watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

and

Statism is Dead - Part 4 - Free Range Empires:  watch#v=02rvMwSlAu0

[zonsb]

The author completely misses the most important social element for the suvival of a civilization. The delicacy to sustaining and increasing abundance is not delicate at all. The robust character and fortitude of human beings is what brought civilization this far -- not government or banksters. The delicate part is on the shoulders of the powers that be to keep hidden from the populace the Ultimate Solution.

Still sneaking up on the Ultimate Solution.

[RonaldKovacs]

Hydrogen? No. Forget the energy requried to produce it, infrastructure, etc. The exhast from a hydrogen vehicle is water vapour, right? Harmless? NO!Water vapour is the most prevelant and most significant GREENHOUSE GAS in the atmosphere. By adding to it may actually cause a REAL problem.

[livinspoonful]

Frostlander is correct when he says it all comes from the sun. Everything CM is commenting about has it's origins in solar insolation. The most relevant question, imho, is how are we utilizing the sun?

Petroleum may have gotten us this far, but I don't think anyone seriously believes it's sustainable. So what's left?

All of the obvious alternatives have pros and cons that warrant scrutiny. But in particular, it seems that CM is unaware that he is regurgitating the spin of...

[kikrlbs]

Hydrogen power? I hope your all kidding. Where are you going to get the resources to build the infrastructure in order to obtain this clean energy? Oil, and when it's not there, it can't be built. Not to mention, you need oil not only for gasoline, but proper lubrication on moving parts, such as the machinery you need to build the clean energy infrastructure which can't happen because not enough oil will be available in order to do so.

[Kalahridudex]

HOW FUCKING HARD IS THIS?? hydrogen CAN replace oil, sure, its return is less than 1, but, if you put it in combination with solar and wind, it can EASILY replace replace oil and be used in cars and stuff in which you need an on-the-go energy carrier.

[Kalahridudex]

here is the scientific aspect of it: you take the electricity provided with the wind and solar, and take a tank of water. you charge the electricity into the water to split it into oxygen and hydrogen. than you can use the hydrogen just like oil. when you burn it, it goes back to being water and you can use it again, and again, and again, and again until the sun burns out. really, is it that hard, ik its expensive but its the ONLY good option.

[Frostlander]

Hydrogen as an energy storage medium sounds like a practical method for vehicles seeing its energy density (whole system), compared to say current capacitors and batteries. However the cost of making a hydrogen battery system is quite great in comparison to most other systems especially when one includes integrating an entire infrastructure for it. My suggestion would be capacitor/battery because they are easily integrated with existing infrastructure.

[Frostlander]

Of course this also warrants increasing infrastructure power capacity to include transportation. This, as we know, is a great expansion and may be very difficult if the mass production and distribution portion of the system is not upgraded in efficiency by a great magnitude. My suggestion would be making energy production a more local task. An example would be having generators per neighborhood, or maybe one at each home integrated together. But this is a large change to infrastructure.

[Frostlander]

And finally the obvious power source is solar. There is no other source of energy that is quite as sustainable as solar. "But it only works during the day." To that I say, "So just because you're not making money right now doesn't mean you're broke." Simply put, use higher power generation capacity to harness when light is available with an accompanying storage medium. Properly designed with the areas average sunlight in account it would function (backup power option sold sperately).

[DirectQuestion]

I liked the second house! Who the hell would want too live in the horrifying plastic "mansion"?

The firm, the enduring, the simple, and the modest are near to virtue.

[jsffive]

I know a lot of people think that Hydrogen is the sexy choice for our liquid fuel needs, but are we neglecting that the Hydrogen molecule is the smallest molecule known to Man? You put the space shuttle on the launch pad, fuel it up, and if it sits there for more than three days, they have to refuel, because it loses about 2-3% every day. And this is NASA we're talking about! THEY haven't figured out how to contain the Hydrogen molecule...

[anynamewilldo808]

This is true, and why I have come to the conclusion that if Hydrogen is going to become a viable energy source/conduit, it has to be generated on demand. In the case of a car, it would require mixing water and a aluminum/gallium alloy that produces hydrogen when it they come in contact with eachother. The aluminum eventually becomes spent, which requires reprocessing at a regional solar, wind or nuclear facility. Why this idea hasn't been moved forward, I just don't understand.

[ccricers]

Synthesizing oil is possible but with current technology it will not have a net return in energy. Why do I bring this up? Artificially made oil polymers might have a future not in energy, but to use it to make some basic needs like fertilizer and rubber. We might not be able to produce lots of it but at least some of it would still exist, for vital purposes.

[ccricers]

Though of course, we should use exclusively renewable energy sources to produce the oil polymers, because having an oil-making factory run on oil is totally pointless.

[kurtsteinner]

This concept of energy(in)/energy(out) is commonly used by scientists and abused a lot. Be carefel. I remember many professors at mit talking about it to suit their personal agenda...If you think cheap energy is a god given right, you must smoking pipe.

[kurtsteinner]

The section on hydrogen is not correct. He talks about energy(in)/energy(out) in dealing with various fuels. However, the rate is not a constant. It is high in the beginning, but over time it goes down. like building an infrastructure for gasline cars. Natural gas is used in taxis and delivery trucks in Japan. Hydrogen cars were already built in 1970 and it will be in general use if price of oil rises over the breakeven point. Any high school student knows H gas is easy to make usind electrodes.

[wsxcvb23]

No, Martensen is exactly right to compare hydrogen to a batterie, because unlike oil or the sun, it doesn't give us any energy whatsoever. Hydrogen can only STORE energy that must be provided by some other source like coal, oil, wind etc.

[AcheronFlame]

The percentage of surplus energy means nothing. only the amount of surplus energy matters.

[GunDream]

Can someone explain the calculations for net energy? I can understand that 100 output / 1 input is 100% net but how is 100 output / 4 input equate 95% on the graph? And how does 18-10:1 still equate 90% on the graph?

[ydrohoos]

It does not make sense to me either.

The graph looks wrong to me, unless there is something i am missing.

Can someone explain... ?

[FranceParisian]

ask the author of this presentation

[kolarshooter]

The numbers at the bottom are the ratio while the numbers on the left represent the "surplus energy." So, 100/4 = 25...notice the numbers at the bottom - that's how he gets 95% (at the top) where the green and red meet.You'll notice that the graph hits zero at 1:1 ratio. The confusing aspect of this graph might be that the bottom axis does not extend to 100, although he shows a note regarding 100:1 in the top-left corner of the graph. Nice graph.

[simon7878]

Basically the green part is equal to 1-1/x, where x is the energy produced for each unit of energy used. As x gets smaller 1/x gets larger. But that is not due to exponential function as he said, but rather 1/x is a convex function.

[enderwiggin42]

Net energy only matters when there is a hard cap stoping you producing more (Which there is but you dont cover)

[2001Global]

Good analysis - lots of flaws. Chris - you need a 101 course in nuclear energy. Only 2% of U235 atoms are used in a reactor the rest is still in the "waste" fuel". That like finding a barrel of oil and throwing 98% if your find away. Nuclear breeder reactors (technology already developed) produce more fuel than they use. Thorium reactors based on CANDU design can run on Thorium 233 - in abundant supply. There is no energy shortage just a shortage of vision.

[rrcatto]

Dude, the problem is building the infrastructure to harness the existing sources of energy. There is a shortage of that, and the reason doesn't matter.

The world's economies are totally geared to exploit oil. Switching over to other sources requires time, investment and the will to do it.

It's not getting done at a fast enough rate.

[FranceParisian]

this is something to ponder on

[bocckoka]

You see it absolutely right. And there are accelerator based transmutation of waste with spallation neutron sources to keep subcritical systems going, and there are plutonium 239 producing breeders... nuclear could be harnessed much more effectively than it is done today.

[2001Global]

Good analysis but your are quite wrong about Uranium. First only 2% of U235 is used in a depleted fuel bundle meaning 98% of the energy content still remains in the used fuel. U235 is NOT the only nuclear fuel. CANDU reactors can run on Thorium which is plentiful. Nucklear reactors can produce hydrogen which can be made into methane. There is no energy shortage. Just alot of dumb people who think oil is the only source of it.

[ChrisMartensondotcom]

Unfortunately, nuclear power has limitations of its own. Uranium is the main fuel, and if production is ramped up to power cars, etc., then we will more rapidly deplete existing reserves - i.e. peak uranium. Other technologies have been a decade away for decades.

[1776independent]

@ChrisMartensondotcom Hi Chris:

Love your course. Liquid Fluoride Thorium and travelling wave (Bill Gates presented at TED) are about the only sources I've read about to get us out of this pickle. Cheers.

[SNap15]

@ChrisMartensondotcom

It is true that uranium reserves are limited, but uranium represents only 7% of the total cost of nuclear power. If uranium becomes 4x more expensive than it currently is (due to depletion of uranium mines), the uranium can be extracted from seawater (reserves are basically limitless). That (seawater uranium) will represent only 30% of cost of nuclear energy.

[666sigma]

A good common sense view of energy. The one connection not made yet is the developing world's consumption of energy, which will only increase versus the US's over reliance on importing increasing amounts of energy and using debt to support its purchase.

You would think that we are nearing the end of pigish consumption of energy and not producing anything in return - other than paper money,