Firstly, let me say that in no way do I deny peak oil. I think it is an imminent and undeniable danger if not acted upon. But what is misleading about this video and others like it is that civilization will collapse once the oil supply dwindles. In my opinion a solution to avoid a great deal of the pain is to aggressively switch away from petrol-based transportation, primarily the automobile. Switching to mass transit and rail while also changing our lifestyle (ending sprawl) could help.
The only thing that could possibly replace oil in some shape or form would be fusion. That wouldn't replace the versatility of its uses in agriculture or manufacturing but it would be useful. If we're feeling really bold we could try solar panels in space which I hear is far more effective than ground side solar panels. But could NASA pull that off?
5.3 billion people depend on 900 million cars needing replacement in 35 years. That's 5 people poor every second, 130 times faster than people dying in holocaust, 2.7 faster than people die. Skeptical to peak oil? How much better do you think it is? Twice, ten? It's still the largest catastrophe potential in history.
Most energy is from the sun. Fossil fuels = solar energy stored by plants long ago. Wind power = drawn from weather systems driven by solar energy. Hydroelectric = drawn from water evaporated by the sun and precipitated on higher terrain. I'd fund the heck out of non-oil-reliant solar cells to draw straight from the source. They aren't cost effective now, but hopefully when oil is comparatively expensive, they'll hit mass production and mass markets. Killing nuclear-phobia also couldn't hurt.
The 1.8 million tons of easily retrievable thorium in Lemhi Pass in Idaho contains the energy equivalent of 18 trillion barrels of oil. With a LFTR, this energy could be used to synthesize all the fuel, fertilizer and plastics we need. One ton of thorium would cost about $30,000 (the equivalent of 1 cent for 3 barrels of oil). Google LFTR and "Green Freedom"
The ONLY thing I disagree with is that nuclear isn't a serious candidate for a solution. A Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactor (LFTR) can extract the energy equivalent of 10 million barrels of oil from one ton of thorium. We have millions of tons of thorium. Oil is simply hydrogen and carbon. With carbon from air (c02) and hydrogen from water and energy from thorium, we can make all the fuels, fertilizers an polymers we need.
@bigpchamber But to do this will take a national effort on the scale of world war II. We cannot afford the petty squabbles, turf wars and nimby-ism. If we build 2000 gw of LFTRs of the next 40 years, and produce the hydrocarbon synthesis facilities, we can secure energy for thousands of years. On the other hand, China has announced the will be developing LFTR technology, maybe they will save us.
could the reason why supply has plateued because of the inflationary effect on us currency holders outside the US? The difference between $50 and $120 in the U.S. is not that large, maybe $120 in 2008 for people outside the U.S. is as if you had $50 in 2004.. All because the U.S. is the only country who can print USD to keep prices artificially low?
@hitssquad It keeps it low for us for now, but it makes it more expensive for everyone else. In the US, Oil prices are not really based on dollar value as much as supply and demand. Because of this fact, the US has the ability to print money to allow the economy to continue to allow for US companies to continue to supply the US demand (bailouts and stimulus, aka printing money).. In other countries, with US dollar reserves, the value of those drastically reduce in value, driving oil cost up
@hitssquad oil prices arent only effected by inflation, prices also reflect supply and demand and taxes. You arent realizing that people holding US reserves are getting hit much harder than the US right now. I never said you prevent inflation from printing money, its the opposite. Printing money causes inflation, but allows the US to continue importing the same amount of oil as it did 2 years ago. Like I said, supply and demand.
@fr0ber I am not sure. I know Tesa was a threat to profit and oil is the international trading currency as well as a mechanism of control of the populous. When oil gets to 200 a barrel there will be talk of drilling in the US...
Europeans reluctantly switched to coal from wood out of desperation due to the reckless level of deforestation they had caused. Everyone hated the foul smog and the polluting nature of it. The royalty did not want people to use it but their society would have collapsed if they didn't. When the coal issue got tricky they discovered a whole other abundant half of the planet carefully managed by responsible stewards. That probably won't happen to us!
If you look at the graphs of coal and oil production and human population you will find that we are an oil, and coal based species. Further you will find that we are a very violent and self destructive species.
I would prefer we start to dedicate many barrels of oil to create huge stockpiles of solar panels. It will take a lot of hydrocarbon energy to create a large solar base stock where actual manufacturing of solar stocks can start to become self sufficient using solar power as the energy source. Better use of taxes than what we are currently doing in my opinion.
Peak oil already will destroy 5 billion of the world's population by simple mathematics and the law of thermodynamics. All the other talk of "the economy" is moot. The economy=energy. Not money, gold, nor products, etc. Without sufficient hydrocarbon energy our planet must go back to the amount of sunlight that humans can capture per year to support our species. What is really developed that can realistically do that at this time?
@jjstoney1 "I would prefer we start to dedicate many barrels of oil to create huge stockpiles of solar panels."
Go ahead. What's stopping you?
.
"The economy=energy."
Then why is energy currently trading at the equivalent of less than one cent per barrel of oil (BOE)? And how could the energy intensity per dollar of GDP keep dropping over time?: seekingalpha. com/article/181818-u-s-economic-energy-efficiency-1950-2008
Our society runs on cheap easy to get at transport fuels. They are no longer cheaper or easy to get at. The alternatives aren't cheap transport fuels. Alternatives lose the net energy battle as well.
Peak oil is a "price perception myth." Nobody knows what the future price of oil will be because there are far too many variables. For example, at what price will Americans start car pooling? What happens if we have a bigger economic collapse? What happens if a disease kills 1/5th of humanity? There are many things which could alter the projections of AVAILABLE oil and the PRICE of that oil.
What are the Russians the #1 producer today? WHo predicted that? NOBODY!
Then we have solid proof that life does exist on other planets since methane is found on them also. Long held beliefs are hard to let go. The earth is flat and the solar system orbits around the earth. People had a tough time with these concepts. The Chinese and Russians have also hit oil inside basement rock which could never have held fossils. Science dictates keeping an open mind since the books are always being re-written. If it's from fossils then oil should be every where.
Oil is being drilled far deeper then any fossil remains are found. It's a product of magma. There are wells pumping out more now then when they were first drilled. Wells that were supposed to long pumped dry are still producing.
Peak oil is being perpetrated by OPEC to continue to manipulate the price up by using scare tactics. Oil supplies were supposed to be depleted by 1973. Read about this on your own, follow the money.
The other problem with Nuclear power plants is that they require grid power to stay cool even if they aren't producing ANY power themselves.
that means, if the grid is down for more then a week for any single reactor, the spent fuel ponds would boil off because the pond water can't circulate. This eventually leads to the spent rods burning up and discharging radioactive ash to the air since the ponds are covered by a tin roof not concrete.
@mjs48130 good points, I'm pretty sure the cooling pools are required to have diesel back up generators and diesel fuel onsite.. great point though... it takes a lot of oil to mine and transport uranium.
@MrEnergyCzar Agreed, but generators are just a stop gap until grid power returns. If the anticipated crisis is deep enough to stress the grid and impact the availability of diesel, this risk is very real. Just something to watch for as things progress. For me here in the Midwest, the impact of this risk would be devastating since I am surrounded by the buggers..
Hey people. I've decided that I'm only going to live as long as there are frozen pizzas for me to eat. If running out of oil ends those tasty frozen pizzas, then I'm outta' here.
Can we make just one thing absolutely clear everyone. Peak oil DOES NOT MEAN we are running out of oil. We are running out the cheap oil that is easy to extract. There is a shitload of oil, but if it's not profitable to extract for the corporations doing so, it won't be done. It is the profitable oil we are running out of, NOT oil itself.
Why did we stop using ethanol again? That WAS the first fuel...
Ironically you create more CO2 making bio-fuels like ethanol than just through processing pre-existing petro and burning it. Also abiotic oil & gas is a real thing, not all of it came from fossils. this abiotic oil & gas replenishes it'self since it comes from gas and volatile organic compound emissions from the Earth's mantel, for us to say that there will be a day when we have no oil is to misunderstand theEarth's cycles.
@WoodlandRavah "you create more CO2 making bio-fuels like ethanol than just through processing pre-existing petro and burning it." You're using 'create' to mean two different things, neither of which accurately correspond to the physical reality.
It's more useful (for scientific accuracy not politics) to compare how much net CO2 is added to our atmosphere per unit of energy usefully extracted from fuel. Biofuels can easily work with no net CO2 output. Fossil fuels never can.
Natural History would say that the need for less CO2 is shortsighted and ignorant as f@#$. During the Jurasssic period we had pole to pole rain forests yet we feel the need to perpetuate the thought that a polar bear trumps a rain forest, sorry buddy but im for geo-engineering and the betterment of planet Earth, if that means at the risk of momentary infrastructure loss and habitat fluctuation then so be it. Li-tards have no view for the distant future, I do, so screw em...
@WoodlandRavah "yet we feel the need to perpetuate the thought that a polar bear trumps a rain forest," What are you talking about? Search your skull for bumps or wet spots, I think you're concussed.
I think you're retarded because you have no clue what I meant, despite me clearly writing it out. The Earth shall be remade in our image over and over again through the eons, and only life shall be the benefactor, throughout the cosmos, environmentalists are short sighted and foolish.
@WoodlandRavah Your words were clear enough, it's their lack of objectivity and failure to relate coherently to established physical fact that I take issue with.
"The Earth shall be remade in our image over and over again through the eons" Evidence? (And no, "because it sounds cool" or "the voices told me so" are not types of evidence.)
Have or have we not moved mountains, created lakes bigger than some states, dug to where the air is too hot to breath and the pressure is stiffling? Have we not gone to the moon or learned the properties of matter? What are all our efforts up to this point, just farts in the wind? Your just a defeatest and a co-intel pro... Objectivity is awesome, I did'nt say do this crazy s@#$ overnight, just over time, we do slowly gain power over nature as we study it you know?!?!
My advice is stick to flowery phrases and pretentious declarations, and leave accuracy to people who give a fuck about it. Still, that's your lookout. Goodbye.
If we could only somehow eat oil at 1:1 conversion we'd have enough energy to feed a 4-person family for about four centuries on a single barrel of oil.
Nuclear is not bad; it is improving. There is a reactor design that can't melt down, for the hotter it gets, the slower the nuclear reactions take place, releasing less heat.
dude very good series, people should watch this so they KNOW instead of BELIEVE whats on cnn or fox. Its just arithmetic. However i must not that peak oil does indeed not mean you are running out of oil, but while consumption goes up (plastics use, chemicals, complex medicine) discovery does not. Some deep water , antartic supply will not offset the asian increased demand so relative supply will decline. Unfortunately solar/wind energy is just not up to standards for economic exploitation
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them.
what about antartica and africa and australia ... surely there ought to be lotsa oil there? so many lions and elephants and kangaroos and penguins have been dieing form such a long time.. we should drill the shit outta those 3 continents
What a wonderful thing to happen around the same time as an already declining economy. At the VERY worst, it could lead to the decline of America. Ancient Rome had similar problems (declining economy, famine, leaders could do nothing about it). At best we turn into an Amish-like country, where we ride around on bikes (which could also somewhat solve the obesity problem America has?) more actual labor would be used, and a few people would move to other countries. Hm.
Well... There is an other side of the story, not tabooed by "this is a fact-only series". I firstly do not believe, that everything explained in this series happened by chance, like it was a coincidence, that most of the "bad stuff" that happened, was to remedy an old problem (that is insinuated). Secondly, there are a lot of holes that seem to be "not to be asked, because these are facts", yes, they are SELF-INTERPRETED facts. But I like the series very much anyway.
Societey today is all about who owns more... think of a big business CEO, they have many sophisticated slaves... that make money for them in exchange for money... just like the old times where they would work for food and shelter... same thing. Slavery is not over... the diff is that slaves have rights now... think about it... theres ppl who does all the work and theres ppl who just live out of our work.. no whater what that job is. WERE ALL SOPHISTICATED SLAVES OF CAPITALISM.
I don't know if it was mentioned in the video but one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 23,200 hours of human labor. Look around at our society and realize oil is what makes all of this abundance possible.
thank you for making this video. It is an excellent and necessary service to pretty much anyone.
The only problem now is to free people from distraction so that they can re-prioritise their lives. The culture industry of distraction isn't really helping matters here.
I think that it is possible to replace oil. we could find some other sources of energy, but only if all countrys stand together and support each other with money, ressources and scientists while researching on this topic.
my fear is that short term gains are for those in power more important than everything else. that's the problem. those who could make the change are not willing to do so..
What this video, also indirectly demonstates, is the energy inefficiency of the automobile, compared to the bicycle.
The reason the car is so inefficient is that a vast majority of the energy used transports the car, NOT its occupant, with the bicycle the reverse is true.
This is another reason that in a world of decreasing more costly energy, we should embrace cycling as transport. With trains for long distance.
The powers that be, international banksters also own and or control oil production and supply much the same as they own and or control the military industrial complex. Listen to Lindsey Williams explain The Energy Non-Crisis.
Over a hundred years ago JP Morgan cut off funding to Nicola Tesla's work and successful prototype for distributing free energy to the world. When Morgan came to understand that he couldn't put a meter on it to charge people he cut off all funding.
Since then many more energy harnessing technologies have been shelved. Same with health rejuvenating and cures for most every disease and ailment.
It is not just energy in ay form that we are talking about here. It is a liquid fuel. Besides, geothermal has some problems. I have heard that a project in California was shut down after tremors started to occur after drilling... also, geothermal, solar, and wind may supply electricity and heat but it is unlikely that they can be made to replace liquid fuel like gasoline. Maybe liquid ammonia.... but to make enough of that would be a huge task.
1. Make a steady HIGH oil price so that it wont come over it in 10yrs. This way other energy sources will be promoted
2. Stop spilling energy and oil.
3. Making food more locally.
4. 100% nuclear/wind/solar energy so that there will be enough oil left for other uses
5. Electric cars. And increased public transportation. Electric cars only may be used to drive short distances. Public transportation can be used for longer distances
@slash3rr Public transportation may only help by limiting demand through being less convenient.
US railroads claim 45 miles per passenger gallon. Trains weigh 1.5 - 2 tonnes per metre.
Buses weigh around 10x a small family car, and under good circumstances have an average occupancy of 15. Take an efficient small car with 2 occupants and you will exceed the raw fuel efficiency of public transport.
Also consider public transport might take you a circuitous route.
Firstly, trains can take more people for a given space then cars, and they use less fuel, per person if they operate with enough people, then a car. It is only that trains are not used extensively enough.
Point 2, Much of the energy used in a car is in transporting the car, with very little of the energy used transporting the actual occupant, and cars & trucks require the most road space per person, then any other form of transport.
The point about trains using less fuel (per passenger mile) when full is equally valid for cars.
Whether they are used extensively enough is a value judgement.
Both trains and cars use relatively little fuel transporting the weight of the occupant. The vehicle is relatively heavy compared to occupants in both instances.
Space, is very much a point. By requireing lots of space to work effectively, This is why many cities devote 40% of their space to infrastructure for cars. it means that you need to increase distances to make the car travel effectively. So where you could have had people living close enough to things to travel more by bicycle, you now have larger spaces to accomodate cars which require cars, forming spiralling car use.
Thats a reasonable point. You certainly dont need the kind of road network in place now that primarily serves private motor vehicles.
Perhaps SOME building requires motorised vehicles, but much of commerce involves selling goods and services to the individual whose money is just as good wether they arrive by car, or by bicycle. With less reliance on moter vehicles the corner stor would once again flourish. How also do you explain the commerce in town centres where cars are not allowed?
@KrunchyJD Without roads, how will the goods get to the shops? Without roads, how will the heavier goods get to the customer's houses?
My mother is disabled. She cannot cycle, cannot use public transport. How does she and older infirm folk fit into your vision? Without car, she is house bound.
Read my last comment, you would need SOME roads, but not to the same extent as we have them now. Diabled people and truely infirm people could be given free taxi access. Cargo bikes (as in the onesthey use in Coenhagen) could serve to carry mid range things.
I am not talking of getting rid of roads all together, just a reduction, with NO PRIVATE moter vehicles in cities. Just look everyday inside cars as they go past, most are single occupant with people quite capable of cycling.
Sometimes though the infirmness of people is overstated, and I have seen 70 year olds on bicycles. If your mother is capable of driving, why is she not capable of catching a train?
Rickshaw type bicycles could take people on non time critical errands as well. But see my other comment. I am not saying to get rid of ALL roads.
It is not valid for cars, and no cars take up more space per person when full then trains, and that is a fact. Trains run on electricity meaning you have a problem with supply of electricity and not much of a problem for oil.
It is not a value judgement, because cars are simply inefficient at moving many people from place to place because of space reasons. How much space does a train with 500 people take up compared to 500 people in cars, even if the cars are full!
Trains also allow more integration with bicycles, which are useful because most of the power used goes to propelling the occupant not the vehicle.
we have to stop using oil for energy. And transportation. That way we can continue to make plastic things for a lot of years. If we dont change it now. We wont be able to change the engery infrastructure before oil runs out that bad that their will be war or something else thats bad. And we wont have enough oil to make the products to change the infrastructure! They need plastic to!
VeryEvilPettingZoo, at $8.00 a gallon, it is game over. When it takes more energy to extract the oil than you get out of the ground you get a net loss of energy. You can't break the laws of thermodynamics no matter how hard you try.
You are so right. It is taking 10 calories burnt to provide us with one calorie. The end result is inevitable failure. Get ready to take a step back 200 plus years in the near future.
u have to look at the big picture... this would affect pharmaceuticals, hospitals, plastics, sithetic fibers, transportation etc... how are u planning to transport tons and tons of food with bicicles?
@JuanJoseFaOrTi I am aware of this, but reducing dependence on cars gives us at least more time. There is no real reason, that we cant re- design cities with higher density living, and less reliance on cars, if we act now. We should be encouraging people to ride a bike more often, this all helps. It will not harm public health either.
@KrunchyJD yeah, but what about food? u need actual land to grow food and harvest... if we over populate the world, where are we going to be able to do that? even if we ride bikes... we would starve to death. We are starving right now... our brothers from africa and asia... hey dont have enough "FERTILE" land to grow food. because we use water so we dry rivers and then it turns into a desert wich we cant harvest.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Africa has more than enough land to grow food. Its the richest continent in natural resources on the planet. Its economic woes are due to its lower than average IQ, which is a result of evolving in a warm climate with very few evolutionary pressures.
@SuddenCatharsis WOW really?! now you say IQ is related to warm climate? hahahahaha get out of here!!! africa's land is like 2% fertile... a person with a 20 IQ can grow food... its not rocket sicence... it all because of water supply and soil fertility... and please dont come over and state such ignorant things... Warm weather, few evolutionary pressures = low IQ?!! hahaha they should be the most eveolved because only the strongest survives... come on now..
@SuddenCatharsis hahaha, evolution is all bout being able to adapt... not how hard is the weather... and then u say warm weather = low IQ! where did you learn that... so i never send my kids there... evolutionary pressures? hahaha, that means something that reduces the reproductory succes... not the weather... please investigate some more.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Freezing temperatures and scarce resources are the evolutionary pressures which permitted only the intelligent and altruistic to survive.
@SuddenCatharsis dude please stop... go back to school, get a degree, learn some more about evolution... evolution has nothing to do with altruism, or freezing temperature... just listen to yourself... theres no such thing as a more advanced race in the evolutionary chain or nothing like that... you are making a fool of urself... evolution is all about survival over long time periods... Millions of years... Good luck... please dont drop out of school... it'd be shameful for you. like it is now.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Evolution is adaptation through genetic mutations which increase the likelihood of survival in given conditions. Our apelike ancestors progressed towards the state of human through genetic mutations. Its nonsensical to assume that evolution stopped once the point of humanity was reached. The vast physical differences between people from different regions on the planet is evidence of evolution, people who have adapted to their environment. The differences transcend physical.
@SuddenCatharsis EXACTLY, now that you googled it you got it right. we evolve in various ways depending on our environment.... that doesnt mean that some dont evolve and some do it faster... you get someone adapted to cold weather and wont be able to adapt to a warm weather and vice versa... maybe they adapt but its harder... please forget those ignorant statements about cold= evolution warm = devolution. hahaha you made ma laugh.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi I never said any people evolved faster than others and I didn't google something that is just common sense. But we can clearly see evolution created differences among mankind when you look at the various racial groups. A cold climate where resources were scarce and the conditions harsh would favor intelligence and altruism over a warm climate where food and resources were abundant.
@sethreber The 2nd law applies to closed systems, gah! <.<;, it takes more energy to grow crops than we get from eating them by your interpretation. And it's true, but yet still here we are, not starving and some of us morbidly obese; wonder how that works? Same way you get more energy out of using oil, solar power, hydro-power, or whatever you want.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What follows "when demand exceeds supply" isn't shortages (as the video suggests), but rather price increases until supply and demand again agree. That's a minor and easily neglected little economic principle called "The Law of Supply and Demand." At a minimum, a fuller discussion of the elasticity of global oil demand was in order.
Oil demand is very inelastic. The law of demand and supply won't save the economy from collapse, since oil is the fundamental basis for the modern world.
In the short term, yes, but over several years? In the USA, if gas goes to $8 a gallon, many will switch to public transportation and carpools to commute to work. More trips will be by train rather than plane or car. Business will find it more economical to ship by rail than truck. All cars will be hybrids. Petroleum-based products will become more expensive, lessening the amount produced. Etc. This is a loss of prosperity, for sure, but it's not "when demand exceeds supply you'll get shortages"
Also, the supply will change with price in a new way after passing global peak oil. When oil really becomes scare, it'll become profitable to spend LOTS more to extract it from poor fields.
Ultimately, there's only so much oil, so economies must change. The question is the relative speeds between this transition and the diminishing supply. An economic collapse is far from obvious, though a loss of prosperity is.
My examples were for the USA. I don't know about the global situation
@Indrius Yes but the already know a substitue for oil... the problem is that the oil tycoons have always pushed it back because they want to make as much as they can from it.
Basically you are right. But the problem is, that when production is going down 3% a year and demand does not stop growing 2% each year, there are 5 % missing on the market each year which leads us to prices exploding geometrically over the next decade until the "Law of Supply and Demand" finds its new equilibrium e.g. at $250.
"elasticity of global oil demand" When pricing oil in gold you will see it has fallen in price at least 3000%. Gas is a product made from oil. There is plenty of oil for 1000s of years. Lets say that oil peak is real. HEMP. We can provide all the fuel required with less effort than you might think. Do the math.
Hemp is a way to turn sunlight and farmland into oil, but it is not efficient. High-lipid algae can produce about 20x as much per acre; however, extracting and processing the oil is not efficient. If someone found an efficient process, it would take some 900,000 square miles - about 1/4 of the US surface area - of algae to match global petroleum production. But algae doesn't require farmland. I've heard the stuff can even grow in oceans. We need algae researchers, not UN "global warming" hacks.
we have something like 10,000 times the required annual energy consumption tap-able right now with current technologies in the form of geothermal power, energy is a million times as abundant as arable land on this planet
@sparkloweb algae covers the surface of the water and doesn't allow uv rays to penetrate the water, thus killing the species that live in the water. Algae is bad and is often a result of chemical and petroleum run off into bodies of water from industrial scale farms when it rains,.
@jhopndontstop Those farms (e.g. corn for ethanol) can displace as much or more life than an algal bloom from nutrient runoff. I haven't heard of petroleum causing algal blooms...maybe. But life in the ocean (above the dark floor, which already receives no sunlight) is far more mobile than that trapped in lakes or rivers. Also most of the harm from algal blooms is from the decaying matter - not an issue if we continuously harvest it. A valid concern might be the change in ocean currents, if any.
@sparkloweb Except we can't use the oceans in that way. Turning algae loose in it in those quantities would be ecologically devastating. Confining them to "floating greenhouses" of some sort would be equally bad in those amounts. As always, there's no single magic bullet to the energy problem. It will require multi-vector energy production, and radical changes in usage attitudes. It's unavoidable.
@OriginalTharios Easy to claim that ocean greenhouses or contamination would be devastating, but to my knowledge no such studies have been done. Studies HAVE shown that the high-lipid algae are weak and easily contaminated by robust wild species. So a bigger question is how to protect algae farms, not how to protect the ocean. Another option is to pipe seawater into deserts and build ponds there, possible creating arable soil from the waste (also needs research) and slightly reducing sea levels.
@sparkloweb Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell with such a ridiculous statement. To make biofuels from algae a viable singular alternative to oil, or even a substantial alternative, it would be necessary to cover the majority of the ocean's surface one way or another. If in the open sea, the algae might be weaker but could overwhelm the natural algae, or they could spontaneously mutate. Aquaculture would starve out surface plankton by blocking sunlight.
It seems very unlikely because any oil company that left the pact and just made more oil anyway would earn much more money than they would by staying in it.
I'm also going to dispute you're interpretation/representation of the graph at 13:00
1.) the graph has 2 things on one axis this is a no no it allows it to be deceiving.
2.)you represented the graph as the total amount of one sector being the difference between the two data points this is not how this type of graph is read. but rather as the difference between the data point and 0
if you want to represent percentages you use a pie graph not a line graph.
if I were to TRY to read the graph my guess would be that the part that is a line rather than a shaded range applies to one of the y-axises, while the shaded areas represent the other y-axis either way the usage isn't represented by the amount of the shaded area showing.
if you want to keep this argument I'd advise you replace this mess of pixels with a pie chart that properly represents the percentage as you didn't address the change over time in the argument anyway.
Extraordinarily well done. The most troubling point is that this will happen regardless of discussion. When I teach this, it's most simply understood as the point where there is too many people (demand of energy) and not enough stuff (supply of energy). While it's impossible to provide increased supply of a scarce commodity, it is all too possible to decrease the demand. If I can't have more stuff, I must have fewer people. Either through an act of nature or an act of man, we'll get there.
Peak oil maybe years off with huge oil finds off of Brazil, Mexico and in the Bakken in North Dakoda. BP recently reported that they can pump 600,000 barrels of crude oil a day from their Carribean findings alone which is what Saudi Arabia does in a year. I don't want to down play this video and its message but the timing of events maybe off by many decades due to these enormous finds.
Don't buy that SUV yet. Finding is a lot different than extracting and refining oil, it could take up to 10 years before these new oil discoveries hit the market. By then, we would have depleted our reserves.
really informative and interesting
willbirful 2 days ago
love the video man
grisgrisy 6 days ago
some really good stuff here
staranjela 1 week ago
Firstly, let me say that in no way do I deny peak oil. I think it is an imminent and undeniable danger if not acted upon. But what is misleading about this video and others like it is that civilization will collapse once the oil supply dwindles. In my opinion a solution to avoid a great deal of the pain is to aggressively switch away from petrol-based transportation, primarily the automobile. Switching to mass transit and rail while also changing our lifestyle (ending sprawl) could help.
poltoja 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
christo930 1 month ago
The only thing that could possibly replace oil in some shape or form would be fusion. That wouldn't replace the versatility of its uses in agriculture or manufacturing but it would be useful. If we're feeling really bold we could try solar panels in space which I hear is far more effective than ground side solar panels. But could NASA pull that off?
Standuble 3 months ago
5.3 billion people depend on 900 million cars needing replacement in 35 years. That's 5 people poor every second, 130 times faster than people dying in holocaust, 2.7 faster than people die. Skeptical to peak oil? How much better do you think it is? Twice, ten? It's still the largest catastrophe potential in history.
bvssvni 6 months ago
Most energy is from the sun. Fossil fuels = solar energy stored by plants long ago. Wind power = drawn from weather systems driven by solar energy. Hydroelectric = drawn from water evaporated by the sun and precipitated on higher terrain. I'd fund the heck out of non-oil-reliant solar cells to draw straight from the source. They aren't cost effective now, but hopefully when oil is comparatively expensive, they'll hit mass production and mass markets. Killing nuclear-phobia also couldn't hurt.
ericwdhs 6 months ago
i wish to translate this to hebrew. is there a transcription on dotsub or something ? any help would be appreciated. tnx ahead.
klumnik 6 months ago
The 1.8 million tons of easily retrievable thorium in Lemhi Pass in Idaho contains the energy equivalent of 18 trillion barrels of oil. With a LFTR, this energy could be used to synthesize all the fuel, fertilizer and plastics we need. One ton of thorium would cost about $30,000 (the equivalent of 1 cent for 3 barrels of oil). Google LFTR and "Green Freedom"
bogusnachos 7 months ago
The ONLY thing I disagree with is that nuclear isn't a serious candidate for a solution. A Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactor (LFTR) can extract the energy equivalent of 10 million barrels of oil from one ton of thorium. We have millions of tons of thorium. Oil is simply hydrogen and carbon. With carbon from air (c02) and hydrogen from water and energy from thorium, we can make all the fuels, fertilizers an polymers we need.
bigpchamber 7 months ago
@bigpchamber But to do this will take a national effort on the scale of world war II. We cannot afford the petty squabbles, turf wars and nimby-ism. If we build 2000 gw of LFTRs of the next 40 years, and produce the hydrocarbon synthesis facilities, we can secure energy for thousands of years. On the other hand, China has announced the will be developing LFTR technology, maybe they will save us.
bigpchamber 7 months ago
could the reason why supply has plateued because of the inflationary effect on us currency holders outside the US? The difference between $50 and $120 in the U.S. is not that large, maybe $120 in 2008 for people outside the U.S. is as if you had $50 in 2004.. All because the U.S. is the only country who can print USD to keep prices artificially low?
dssupra 8 months ago
@dssupra "All because the U.S. is the only country who can print USD to keep prices artificially low?"
How would printing money keep prices artificially low?
hitssquad 6 months ago 2
@hitssquad It keeps it low for us for now, but it makes it more expensive for everyone else. In the US, Oil prices are not really based on dollar value as much as supply and demand. Because of this fact, the US has the ability to print money to allow the economy to continue to allow for US companies to continue to supply the US demand (bailouts and stimulus, aka printing money).. In other countries, with US dollar reserves, the value of those drastically reduce in value, driving oil cost up
dssupra 5 months ago
@dssupra "It keeps it low for us for now"
That doesn't make sense. You prevent inflation by printing money? How does that work?
hitssquad 5 months ago
@hitssquad oil prices arent only effected by inflation, prices also reflect supply and demand and taxes. You arent realizing that people holding US reserves are getting hit much harder than the US right now. I never said you prevent inflation from printing money, its the opposite. Printing money causes inflation, but allows the US to continue importing the same amount of oil as it did 2 years ago. Like I said, supply and demand.
dssupra 5 months ago
may be if we stop paying for oil we spend more money on alternatives
foreverGraceby 9 months ago
then what should we do ,you give us no hope here for the future
no way of getting out ,so why should we worry about it why look
at something that so depressed all is going to do is make us less happy
I rather be ignorant and happy then worry sick and hating the world
about this and any way out is so impossible am so going to stop watching this
as soon as my high school report is done.
foreverGraceby 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
pheromoneaction 9 months ago
.."that dreaded slurping sound".... i loled hard
georgemargaris 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 9 months ago
The Wealthy Elite would be envious of the life we could have in THE VENUS PROJECT.
ChiefWolfmoon 9 months ago
what about Bakken Oil Field, Rocky Mountain Oil Fields, and Alaska?
Also Tesla technologies...
rsaathoff 10 months ago
@rsaathoff Do you think countless researchers have randomly forgotten about something you just pointed out?
fr0ber 10 months ago
@fr0ber I am not sure. I know Tesa was a threat to profit and oil is the international trading currency as well as a mechanism of control of the populous. When oil gets to 200 a barrel there will be talk of drilling in the US...
rsaathoff 10 months ago
9:25 explains why they are invading Libya today....
Mazzuri 11 months ago
Europeans reluctantly switched to coal from wood out of desperation due to the reckless level of deforestation they had caused. Everyone hated the foul smog and the polluting nature of it. The royalty did not want people to use it but their society would have collapsed if they didn't. When the coal issue got tricky they discovered a whole other abundant half of the planet carefully managed by responsible stewards. That probably won't happen to us!
PhoenixArk123 11 months ago
Are you saying:"I drank your milkshake!", except you used a margarita?
papawx3 11 months ago
I'm buying a telsa
SuperKenny720 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World War III is coming.....
wastedwasted3 1 year ago
Brilliant work.. thanks for the facts
the43k 1 year ago
I suggest everyone try to see Chris speak in person.....
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago 65
If you look at the graphs of coal and oil production and human population you will find that we are an oil, and coal based species. Further you will find that we are a very violent and self destructive species.
ehswan 1 year ago
I would prefer we start to dedicate many barrels of oil to create huge stockpiles of solar panels. It will take a lot of hydrocarbon energy to create a large solar base stock where actual manufacturing of solar stocks can start to become self sufficient using solar power as the energy source. Better use of taxes than what we are currently doing in my opinion.
jjstoney1 1 year ago
Peak oil already will destroy 5 billion of the world's population by simple mathematics and the law of thermodynamics. All the other talk of "the economy" is moot. The economy=energy. Not money, gold, nor products, etc. Without sufficient hydrocarbon energy our planet must go back to the amount of sunlight that humans can capture per year to support our species. What is really developed that can realistically do that at this time?
jjstoney1 1 year ago
@jjstoney1 "I would prefer we start to dedicate many barrels of oil to create huge stockpiles of solar panels."
Go ahead. What's stopping you?
.
"The economy=energy."
Then why is energy currently trading at the equivalent of less than one cent per barrel of oil (BOE)? And how could the energy intensity per dollar of GDP keep dropping over time?: seekingalpha. com/article/181818-u-s-economic-energy-efficiency-1950-2008
hitssquad 6 months ago
Our society runs on cheap easy to get at transport fuels. They are no longer cheaper or easy to get at. The alternatives aren't cheap transport fuels. Alternatives lose the net energy battle as well.
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago 64
This has been flagged as spam show
Take her to your door step Naughty women here mworld5.info
LIZZIEMONICA 1 year ago
Peak oil is a "price perception myth." Nobody knows what the future price of oil will be because there are far too many variables. For example, at what price will Americans start car pooling? What happens if we have a bigger economic collapse? What happens if a disease kills 1/5th of humanity? There are many things which could alter the projections of AVAILABLE oil and the PRICE of that oil.
What are the Russians the #1 producer today? WHo predicted that? NOBODY!
nodesnetwork 1 year ago
Great presentation, Chris. Well synthesized, very informative.
zachnuggets 1 year ago
Lonely wives for naughty things mworld5.info
ZacariasNaima 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This massage from naughty women mworld5.info
ayashadilrukshi 1 year ago
I'm hoping to see nuclear fusion power stations within my lifetime...
adaptedvinyl 1 year ago
Then we have solid proof that life does exist on other planets since methane is found on them also. Long held beliefs are hard to let go. The earth is flat and the solar system orbits around the earth. People had a tough time with these concepts. The Chinese and Russians have also hit oil inside basement rock which could never have held fossils. Science dictates keeping an open mind since the books are always being re-written. If it's from fossils then oil should be every where.
BrentRF 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search online Russian women gettop5.info
AmadoGalloway 1 year ago
Oil is being drilled far deeper then any fossil remains are found. It's a product of magma. There are wells pumping out more now then when they were first drilled. Wells that were supposed to long pumped dry are still producing.
Peak oil is being perpetrated by OPEC to continue to manipulate the price up by using scare tactics. Oil supplies were supposed to be depleted by 1973. Read about this on your own, follow the money.
BrentRF 1 year ago
@BrentRF Oil is fossil fuel and it is not product of magma. If oil is a abiotic so would coal and natural gas.
istraight1 1 year ago
The only answer is The Venus project.
fibbsabaddy 1 year ago
Very Informative and Eye Opening video.Thnx.
ggaurava1 1 year ago
Such a great and important video to introduce the public to the concept and importance of Peak Oil. Thank you for posting this!
OfficialLuisAponte 1 year ago
The other problem with Nuclear power plants is that they require grid power to stay cool even if they aren't producing ANY power themselves.
that means, if the grid is down for more then a week for any single reactor, the spent fuel ponds would boil off because the pond water can't circulate. This eventually leads to the spent rods burning up and discharging radioactive ash to the air since the ponds are covered by a tin roof not concrete.
mjs48130 1 year ago
@mjs48130 good points, I'm pretty sure the cooling pools are required to have diesel back up generators and diesel fuel onsite.. great point though... it takes a lot of oil to mine and transport uranium.
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago
@MrEnergyCzar Agreed, but generators are just a stop gap until grid power returns. If the anticipated crisis is deep enough to stress the grid and impact the availability of diesel, this risk is very real. Just something to watch for as things progress. For me here in the Midwest, the impact of this risk would be devastating since I am surrounded by the buggers..
mjs48130 1 year ago
Hey people. I've decided that I'm only going to live as long as there are frozen pizzas for me to eat. If running out of oil ends those tasty frozen pizzas, then I'm outta' here.
Zamblee 1 year ago
Everyone should try and see Chris give one of his talks.....
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago
Can we make just one thing absolutely clear everyone. Peak oil DOES NOT MEAN we are running out of oil. We are running out the cheap oil that is easy to extract. There is a shitload of oil, but if it's not profitable to extract for the corporations doing so, it won't be done. It is the profitable oil we are running out of, NOT oil itself.
kikrlbs 1 year ago
Why did we stop using ethanol again? That WAS the first fuel...
Ironically you create more CO2 making bio-fuels like ethanol than just through processing pre-existing petro and burning it. Also abiotic oil & gas is a real thing, not all of it came from fossils. this abiotic oil & gas replenishes it'self since it comes from gas and volatile organic compound emissions from the Earth's mantel, for us to say that there will be a day when we have no oil is to misunderstand theEarth's cycles.
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
@WoodlandRavah "you create more CO2 making bio-fuels like ethanol than just through processing pre-existing petro and burning it." You're using 'create' to mean two different things, neither of which accurately correspond to the physical reality.
It's more useful (for scientific accuracy not politics) to compare how much net CO2 is added to our atmosphere per unit of energy usefully extracted from fuel. Biofuels can easily work with no net CO2 output. Fossil fuels never can.
ImMichaelTaylor 1 year ago
@ImMichaelTaylor
Natural History would say that the need for less CO2 is shortsighted and ignorant as f@#$. During the Jurasssic period we had pole to pole rain forests yet we feel the need to perpetuate the thought that a polar bear trumps a rain forest, sorry buddy but im for geo-engineering and the betterment of planet Earth, if that means at the risk of momentary infrastructure loss and habitat fluctuation then so be it. Li-tards have no view for the distant future, I do, so screw em...
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
@WoodlandRavah "yet we feel the need to perpetuate the thought that a polar bear trumps a rain forest," What are you talking about? Search your skull for bumps or wet spots, I think you're concussed.
ImMichaelTaylor 1 year ago
@ImMichaelTaylor
I think you're retarded because you have no clue what I meant, despite me clearly writing it out. The Earth shall be remade in our image over and over again through the eons, and only life shall be the benefactor, throughout the cosmos, environmentalists are short sighted and foolish.
[kills and eats a weak deer with his bare hands]
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
@WoodlandRavah Your words were clear enough, it's their lack of objectivity and failure to relate coherently to established physical fact that I take issue with.
"The Earth shall be remade in our image over and over again through the eons" Evidence? (And no, "because it sounds cool" or "the voices told me so" are not types of evidence.)
ImMichaelTaylor 1 year ago
@ImMichaelTaylor
Have or have we not moved mountains, created lakes bigger than some states, dug to where the air is too hot to breath and the pressure is stiffling? Have we not gone to the moon or learned the properties of matter? What are all our efforts up to this point, just farts in the wind? Your just a defeatest and a co-intel pro... Objectivity is awesome, I did'nt say do this crazy s@#$ overnight, just over time, we do slowly gain power over nature as we study it you know?!?!
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
@WoodlandRavah
My advice is stick to flowery phrases and pretentious declarations, and leave accuracy to people who give a fuck about it. Still, that's your lookout. Goodbye.
ImMichaelTaylor 1 year ago
@ImMichaelTaylor
"stick to flowery phrases and pretentious declarations,"
And you your's... [COUGH]A.G.W.[COUGH]
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
If we could only somehow eat oil at 1:1 conversion we'd have enough energy to feed a 4-person family for about four centuries on a single barrel of oil.
ymirfrostgiant 1 year ago 2
Nuclear is not bad; it is improving. There is a reactor design that can't melt down, for the hotter it gets, the slower the nuclear reactions take place, releasing less heat.
professornuclearbomb 1 year ago
Great information we enjoyed your video
PeakPetro 1 year ago
dude very good series, people should watch this so they KNOW instead of BELIEVE whats on cnn or fox. Its just arithmetic. However i must not that peak oil does indeed not mean you are running out of oil, but while consumption goes up (plastics use, chemicals, complex medicine) discovery does not. Some deep water , antartic supply will not offset the asian increased demand so relative supply will decline. Unfortunately solar/wind energy is just not up to standards for economic exploitation
kloneo 1 year ago
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them.
collapsewithme 1 year ago
the problems of mankind are becoming manifest
collapsewithme 1 year ago
oil makes humans, not the other way round
walter0bz 1 year ago
what about antartica and africa and australia ... surely there ought to be lotsa oil there? so many lions and elephants and kangaroos and penguins have been dieing form such a long time.. we should drill the shit outta those 3 continents
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
What a wonderful thing to happen around the same time as an already declining economy. At the VERY worst, it could lead to the decline of America. Ancient Rome had similar problems (declining economy, famine, leaders could do nothing about it). At best we turn into an Amish-like country, where we ride around on bikes (which could also somewhat solve the obesity problem America has?) more actual labor would be used, and a few people would move to other countries. Hm.
kalebknecht 1 year ago
@kalebknecht
I think this is the underlining reason for why the economy is declining in the first place.
VolcanicPenguin 1 year ago
Romantic Brothers FLOWERS! Great real song! New Hit Dance! Real political situation! Romantic Brothers Flowers!
Germtrancsuperman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romantic Brothers FLOWERS! Great real song! New Hit Dance! Real political situation! Romantic Brothers Flowers!
Germtrancsuperman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romantic Brothers FLOWERS! Great real song! New Hit Dance! Real political situation! Romantic Brothers Flowers!
Germtrancsuperman 1 year ago
why dont we get some backup plans so were not shitting our selves when we have no energy left to solve the enegy shortage?
danthemanzizzle 1 year ago
@danthemanzizzle, there won't be any shortage, if there is any it would be a man made one. Its all business, stop being so stupid already.
moniequa 1 year ago
This is Chris's most important chapter...
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago
what if we built atomic power plants in the caves where the oil has been.
that way we wouldnt take such a great risk
specialfx87 1 year ago
Well... There is an other side of the story, not tabooed by "this is a fact-only series". I firstly do not believe, that everything explained in this series happened by chance, like it was a coincidence, that most of the "bad stuff" that happened, was to remedy an old problem (that is insinuated). Secondly, there are a lot of holes that seem to be "not to be asked, because these are facts", yes, they are SELF-INTERPRETED facts. But I like the series very much anyway.
Jukonja 1 year ago
Societey today is all about who owns more... think of a big business CEO, they have many sophisticated slaves... that make money for them in exchange for money... just like the old times where they would work for food and shelter... same thing. Slavery is not over... the diff is that slaves have rights now... think about it... theres ppl who does all the work and theres ppl who just live out of our work.. no whater what that job is. WERE ALL SOPHISTICATED SLAVES OF CAPITALISM.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
I don't know if it was mentioned in the video but one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 23,200 hours of human labor. Look around at our society and realize oil is what makes all of this abundance possible.
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
thank you for making this video. It is an excellent and necessary service to pretty much anyone.
The only problem now is to free people from distraction so that they can re-prioritise their lives. The culture industry of distraction isn't really helping matters here.
sefjaguar 1 year ago
some people believe that oil is infinite in supply while maintaining that the rapture is imminent. how queer.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
right when he started talking about one human slave being equal to one lightbulb being on, i turned off my lights haha
cindypoopoo 1 year ago
@cindypoopoo... What do you mean by "I turned off my lights?"
That you got bored?
That you did not agree with his statement?
Or that you actually turned off your lights?
I really do not know why I'm even bothering to ask but I'm curious hahah ;-)
johnTconover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
want watch Crash Course in HQ and all episodes? then go:
TVFLAP . COM
prioritty3 1 year ago
very interesting video.
eric cartman pokerface is really a lot related to this thx a lot failtube :-D
adutchdude 1 year ago
Prices are not up because of supply, demand is actually down. On youtube checkout 60 Minutes - The Price of Oil, part 1 of 2
didymus0987 1 year ago
Comment removed
didymus0987 1 year ago
I think that it is possible to replace oil. we could find some other sources of energy, but only if all countrys stand together and support each other with money, ressources and scientists while researching on this topic.
my fear is that short term gains are for those in power more important than everything else. that's the problem. those who could make the change are not willing to do so..
deimossonofares 1 year ago
o czem to jeszt że tak szem żapytam kóltórarnie?
TheBozanna 1 year ago
What this video, also indirectly demonstates, is the energy inefficiency of the automobile, compared to the bicycle.
The reason the car is so inefficient is that a vast majority of the energy used transports the car, NOT its occupant, with the bicycle the reverse is true.
This is another reason that in a world of decreasing more costly energy, we should embrace cycling as transport. With trains for long distance.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
On YouTube Ray Kurzweil explains the Law of Accelerating Returns -- Exponential Advancing Technology. watch#v=9PWXrnsSrf0
zonsb 1 year ago
The powers that be, international banksters also own and or control oil production and supply much the same as they own and or control the military industrial complex. Listen to Lindsey Williams explain The Energy Non-Crisis.
zonsb 1 year ago
Over a hundred years ago JP Morgan cut off funding to Nicola Tesla's work and successful prototype for distributing free energy to the world. When Morgan came to understand that he couldn't put a meter on it to charge people he cut off all funding.
Since then many more energy harnessing technologies have been shelved. Same with health rejuvenating and cures for most every disease and ailment.
zonsb 1 year ago
It is not just energy in ay form that we are talking about here. It is a liquid fuel. Besides, geothermal has some problems. I have heard that a project in California was shut down after tremors started to occur after drilling... also, geothermal, solar, and wind may supply electricity and heat but it is unlikely that they can be made to replace liquid fuel like gasoline. Maybe liquid ammonia.... but to make enough of that would be a huge task.
TheAgleh 1 year ago
watch?v=_3Bs5MWeNUM
the amrican people
lol
memesh87 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is boring and very long.
CarDude501 2 years ago
I think we need to do these things:
1. Make a steady HIGH oil price so that it wont come over it in 10yrs. This way other energy sources will be promoted
2. Stop spilling energy and oil.
3. Making food more locally.
4. 100% nuclear/wind/solar energy so that there will be enough oil left for other uses
5. Electric cars. And increased public transportation. Electric cars only may be used to drive short distances. Public transportation can be used for longer distances
And we will be fine...
slash3rr 2 years ago
@slash3rr Public transportation may only help by limiting demand through being less convenient.
US railroads claim 45 miles per passenger gallon. Trains weigh 1.5 - 2 tonnes per metre.
Buses weigh around 10x a small family car, and under good circumstances have an average occupancy of 15. Take an efficient small car with 2 occupants and you will exceed the raw fuel efficiency of public transport.
Also consider public transport might take you a circuitous route.
nickrhill 2 years ago
Thats not true
Firstly, trains can take more people for a given space then cars, and they use less fuel, per person if they operate with enough people, then a car. It is only that trains are not used extensively enough.
Point 2, Much of the energy used in a car is in transporting the car, with very little of the energy used transporting the actual occupant, and cars & trucks require the most road space per person, then any other form of transport.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD You made 4 points.
The point about space is off-topic.
The point about trains using less fuel (per passenger mile) when full is equally valid for cars.
Whether they are used extensively enough is a value judgement.
Both trains and cars use relatively little fuel transporting the weight of the occupant. The vehicle is relatively heavy compared to occupants in both instances.
nickrhill 1 year ago
Space, is very much a point. By requireing lots of space to work effectively, This is why many cities devote 40% of their space to infrastructure for cars. it means that you need to increase distances to make the car travel effectively. So where you could have had people living close enough to things to travel more by bicycle, you now have larger spaces to accomodate cars which require cars, forming spiralling car use.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD You would need roads and associated infrastructure whether or not there were private cars.
Supply of goods and services, emergency vehicles etc.
Without roads, the death toll in towns would be enormous due to problems of emergency vehicle accessibility.
If you are having a stroke, or a heart attack, I don't think you would try using buses or trains.
Without roads, building and commerce would be impossible.
nickrhill 1 year ago
Thats a reasonable point. You certainly dont need the kind of road network in place now that primarily serves private motor vehicles.
Perhaps SOME building requires motorised vehicles, but much of commerce involves selling goods and services to the individual whose money is just as good wether they arrive by car, or by bicycle. With less reliance on moter vehicles the corner stor would once again flourish. How also do you explain the commerce in town centres where cars are not allowed?
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD Without roads, how will the goods get to the shops? Without roads, how will the heavier goods get to the customer's houses?
My mother is disabled. She cannot cycle, cannot use public transport. How does she and older infirm folk fit into your vision? Without car, she is house bound.
nickrhill 1 year ago
Read my last comment, you would need SOME roads, but not to the same extent as we have them now. Diabled people and truely infirm people could be given free taxi access. Cargo bikes (as in the onesthey use in Coenhagen) could serve to carry mid range things.
I am not talking of getting rid of roads all together, just a reduction, with NO PRIVATE moter vehicles in cities. Just look everyday inside cars as they go past, most are single occupant with people quite capable of cycling.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
See other comment,
Sometimes though the infirmness of people is overstated, and I have seen 70 year olds on bicycles. If your mother is capable of driving, why is she not capable of catching a train?
Rickshaw type bicycles could take people on non time critical errands as well. But see my other comment. I am not saying to get rid of ALL roads.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
It is not valid for cars, and no cars take up more space per person when full then trains, and that is a fact. Trains run on electricity meaning you have a problem with supply of electricity and not much of a problem for oil.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
It is not a value judgement, because cars are simply inefficient at moving many people from place to place because of space reasons. How much space does a train with 500 people take up compared to 500 people in cars, even if the cars are full!
Trains also allow more integration with bicycles, which are useful because most of the power used goes to propelling the occupant not the vehicle.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
1. geothermal
2. geothermal
3. geothermal
imo =P
lwanatt 1 year ago
we have to stop using oil for energy. And transportation. That way we can continue to make plastic things for a lot of years. If we dont change it now. We wont be able to change the engery infrastructure before oil runs out that bad that their will be war or something else thats bad. And we wont have enough oil to make the products to change the infrastructure! They need plastic to!
slash3rr 2 years ago
wooow
eliasn1 2 years ago
VeryEvilPettingZoo, at $8.00 a gallon, it is game over. When it takes more energy to extract the oil than you get out of the ground you get a net loss of energy. You can't break the laws of thermodynamics no matter how hard you try.
sethreber 2 years ago 7
You are so right. It is taking 10 calories burnt to provide us with one calorie. The end result is inevitable failure. Get ready to take a step back 200 plus years in the near future.
kikrlbs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The USA has enough coal and natural gas to last a hundred years......not to mention oil shale....which is currently restricted by environmentalists
Jacobrester 2 years ago
Sure!. Just wait some few years...it will be fun.
FMMAROTO 2 years ago
I dont know what you mean by your comment
Jacobrester 2 years ago
Game over for oil maybe, but when are people going to wake up to the advantages of the humble bicycle?
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
u have to look at the big picture... this would affect pharmaceuticals, hospitals, plastics, sithetic fibers, transportation etc... how are u planning to transport tons and tons of food with bicicles?
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi I am aware of this, but reducing dependence on cars gives us at least more time. There is no real reason, that we cant re- design cities with higher density living, and less reliance on cars, if we act now. We should be encouraging people to ride a bike more often, this all helps. It will not harm public health either.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD yeah, but what about food? u need actual land to grow food and harvest... if we over populate the world, where are we going to be able to do that? even if we ride bikes... we would starve to death. We are starving right now... our brothers from africa and asia... hey dont have enough "FERTILE" land to grow food. because we use water so we dry rivers and then it turns into a desert wich we cant harvest.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Africa has more than enough land to grow food. Its the richest continent in natural resources on the planet. Its economic woes are due to its lower than average IQ, which is a result of evolving in a warm climate with very few evolutionary pressures.
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
@SuddenCatharsis WOW really?! now you say IQ is related to warm climate? hahahahaha get out of here!!! africa's land is like 2% fertile... a person with a 20 IQ can grow food... its not rocket sicence... it all because of water supply and soil fertility... and please dont come over and state such ignorant things... Warm weather, few evolutionary pressures = low IQ?!! hahaha they should be the most eveolved because only the strongest survives... come on now..
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi The evolutionary pressures in Africa are nowhere near the conditions in Ice Age Europe.
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
@SuddenCatharsis hahaha, evolution is all bout being able to adapt... not how hard is the weather... and then u say warm weather = low IQ! where did you learn that... so i never send my kids there... evolutionary pressures? hahaha, that means something that reduces the reproductory succes... not the weather... please investigate some more.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Freezing temperatures and scarce resources are the evolutionary pressures which permitted only the intelligent and altruistic to survive.
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
@SuddenCatharsis dude please stop... go back to school, get a degree, learn some more about evolution... evolution has nothing to do with altruism, or freezing temperature... just listen to yourself... theres no such thing as a more advanced race in the evolutionary chain or nothing like that... you are making a fool of urself... evolution is all about survival over long time periods... Millions of years... Good luck... please dont drop out of school... it'd be shameful for you. like it is now.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Evolution is adaptation through genetic mutations which increase the likelihood of survival in given conditions. Our apelike ancestors progressed towards the state of human through genetic mutations. Its nonsensical to assume that evolution stopped once the point of humanity was reached. The vast physical differences between people from different regions on the planet is evidence of evolution, people who have adapted to their environment. The differences transcend physical.
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
@SuddenCatharsis EXACTLY, now that you googled it you got it right. we evolve in various ways depending on our environment.... that doesnt mean that some dont evolve and some do it faster... you get someone adapted to cold weather and wont be able to adapt to a warm weather and vice versa... maybe they adapt but its harder... please forget those ignorant statements about cold= evolution warm = devolution. hahaha you made ma laugh.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JuanJoseFaOrTi I never said any people evolved faster than others and I didn't google something that is just common sense. But we can clearly see evolution created differences among mankind when you look at the various racial groups. A cold climate where resources were scarce and the conditions harsh would favor intelligence and altruism over a warm climate where food and resources were abundant.
SuddenCatharsis 1 year ago
@sethreber The 2nd law applies to closed systems, gah! <.<;, it takes more energy to grow crops than we get from eating them by your interpretation. And it's true, but yet still here we are, not starving and some of us morbidly obese; wonder how that works? Same way you get more energy out of using oil, solar power, hydro-power, or whatever you want.
sciencemile 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What follows "when demand exceeds supply" isn't shortages (as the video suggests), but rather price increases until supply and demand again agree. That's a minor and easily neglected little economic principle called "The Law of Supply and Demand." At a minimum, a fuller discussion of the elasticity of global oil demand was in order.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Oil demand is very inelastic. The law of demand and supply won't save the economy from collapse, since oil is the fundamental basis for the modern world.
Indrius 2 years ago
In the short term, yes, but over several years? In the USA, if gas goes to $8 a gallon, many will switch to public transportation and carpools to commute to work. More trips will be by train rather than plane or car. Business will find it more economical to ship by rail than truck. All cars will be hybrids. Petroleum-based products will become more expensive, lessening the amount produced. Etc. This is a loss of prosperity, for sure, but it's not "when demand exceeds supply you'll get shortages"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Also, the supply will change with price in a new way after passing global peak oil. When oil really becomes scare, it'll become profitable to spend LOTS more to extract it from poor fields.
Ultimately, there's only so much oil, so economies must change. The question is the relative speeds between this transition and the diminishing supply. An economic collapse is far from obvious, though a loss of prosperity is.
My examples were for the USA. I don't know about the global situation
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@Indrius Yes but the already know a substitue for oil... the problem is that the oil tycoons have always pushed it back because they want to make as much as they can from it.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Basically you are right. But the problem is, that when production is going down 3% a year and demand does not stop growing 2% each year, there are 5 % missing on the market each year which leads us to prices exploding geometrically over the next decade until the "Law of Supply and Demand" finds its new equilibrium e.g. at $250.
hedele1 2 years ago
"elasticity of global oil demand" When pricing oil in gold you will see it has fallen in price at least 3000%. Gas is a product made from oil. There is plenty of oil for 1000s of years. Lets say that oil peak is real. HEMP. We can provide all the fuel required with less effort than you might think. Do the math.
aftorquato 2 years ago
Hemp is a way to turn sunlight and farmland into oil, but it is not efficient. High-lipid algae can produce about 20x as much per acre; however, extracting and processing the oil is not efficient. If someone found an efficient process, it would take some 900,000 square miles - about 1/4 of the US surface area - of algae to match global petroleum production. But algae doesn't require farmland. I've heard the stuff can even grow in oceans. We need algae researchers, not UN "global warming" hacks.
sparkloweb 2 years ago 12
we have something like 10,000 times the required annual energy consumption tap-able right now with current technologies in the form of geothermal power, energy is a million times as abundant as arable land on this planet
lwanatt 1 year ago
@sparkloweb We have algae plants on the shores of san francisco.
ogwazzo 1 year ago
@sparkloweb Whoa. Epic comment. Epic solution
TrueEmergence 1 year ago
@sparkloweb algae covers the surface of the water and doesn't allow uv rays to penetrate the water, thus killing the species that live in the water. Algae is bad and is often a result of chemical and petroleum run off into bodies of water from industrial scale farms when it rains,.
jhopndontstop 1 year ago
@jhopndontstop Those farms (e.g. corn for ethanol) can displace as much or more life than an algal bloom from nutrient runoff. I haven't heard of petroleum causing algal blooms...maybe. But life in the ocean (above the dark floor, which already receives no sunlight) is far more mobile than that trapped in lakes or rivers. Also most of the harm from algal blooms is from the decaying matter - not an issue if we continuously harvest it. A valid concern might be the change in ocean currents, if any.
sparkloweb 1 year ago
@sparkloweb Except we can't use the oceans in that way. Turning algae loose in it in those quantities would be ecologically devastating. Confining them to "floating greenhouses" of some sort would be equally bad in those amounts. As always, there's no single magic bullet to the energy problem. It will require multi-vector energy production, and radical changes in usage attitudes. It's unavoidable.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
@OriginalTharios Easy to claim that ocean greenhouses or contamination would be devastating, but to my knowledge no such studies have been done. Studies HAVE shown that the high-lipid algae are weak and easily contaminated by robust wild species. So a bigger question is how to protect algae farms, not how to protect the ocean. Another option is to pipe seawater into deserts and build ponds there, possible creating arable soil from the waste (also needs research) and slightly reducing sea levels.
sparkloweb 1 year ago
@sparkloweb Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell with such a ridiculous statement. To make biofuels from algae a viable singular alternative to oil, or even a substantial alternative, it would be necessary to cover the majority of the ocean's surface one way or another. If in the open sea, the algae might be weaker but could overwhelm the natural algae, or they could spontaneously mutate. Aquaculture would starve out surface plankton by blocking sunlight.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
Could oil companies be purposly pumping out less oil, as a pact - to allow prices to rise, ??
majortom321 2 years ago
It seems very unlikely because any oil company that left the pact and just made more oil anyway would earn much more money than they would by staying in it.
robertjmunro 2 years ago
Were running out of cheap oil. We're not running out of the more expensive oil.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Under Cap and trade gasoline prices
will increase 58% and Household
utilities will skyrocket. The DNCGOP
club is sinking America..
jblcva 2 years ago
No accident the US invaded one of the largest oil producers in the world when it did.
mapmanic 2 years ago 2
I'm also going to dispute you're interpretation/representation of the graph at 13:00
1.) the graph has 2 things on one axis this is a no no it allows it to be deceiving.
2.)you represented the graph as the total amount of one sector being the difference between the two data points this is not how this type of graph is read. but rather as the difference between the data point and 0
if you want to represent percentages you use a pie graph not a line graph.
Robodude288 2 years ago
accursed character counter
if I were to TRY to read the graph my guess would be that the part that is a line rather than a shaded range applies to one of the y-axises, while the shaded areas represent the other y-axis either way the usage isn't represented by the amount of the shaded area showing.
if you want to keep this argument I'd advise you replace this mess of pixels with a pie chart that properly represents the percentage as you didn't address the change over time in the argument anyway.
Robodude288 2 years ago
It's a confusing graph, but the argument being made is still correct.
robertjmunro 2 years ago
interesting but i have criticisms
"problems we have with the nuclear plants in operation today"
oh you must mean the public perception of them?
"I think it's safe to say nuclear is not a feasible alternative"
I don't but you are entitled to your opinion.
hmm why do you do nuclear and renewable but skip over natural gas? I find this odd considering it is, according to you: our second largest provider...
projections in your graphs this is bad I do how ever applaud you that they are marked as such
Robodude288 2 years ago
and this presentation was brought to you by Penzoil
CountDollarz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i feel very adventurous today any guys want to join me ^^
SexxyyAmber88 2 years ago
HEJ ;D;D;D
Womack1337 2 years ago
Extraordinarily well done. The most troubling point is that this will happen regardless of discussion. When I teach this, it's most simply understood as the point where there is too many people (demand of energy) and not enough stuff (supply of energy). While it's impossible to provide increased supply of a scarce commodity, it is all too possible to decrease the demand. If I can't have more stuff, I must have fewer people. Either through an act of nature or an act of man, we'll get there.
bobdefalco 2 years ago
Peak oil maybe years off with huge oil finds off of Brazil, Mexico and in the Bakken in North Dakoda. BP recently reported that they can pump 600,000 barrels of crude oil a day from their Carribean findings alone which is what Saudi Arabia does in a year. I don't want to down play this video and its message but the timing of events maybe off by many decades due to these enormous finds.
123rstreet 2 years ago
Don't buy that SUV yet. Finding is a lot different than extracting and refining oil, it could take up to 10 years before these new oil discoveries hit the market. By then, we would have depleted our reserves.
sakurai14 2 years ago
hahaha.... wow dude, really?
Saudi Arabia produces well over 10 million barrels a DAY. WTF are you talking about?
plopfish 2 years ago
And why should they export 10 million of those barrels to us in exchange for worthless dollars?
sakurai14 2 years ago 3
Not for dollars but there are these nice Pershing 2 missiles targeting there ass.
llothar68 2 years ago