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

Chapter 17b - Energy Budgeting: Petroleum has supplied the surplus energy that has allowed for social complexity, industrialization, and the modern conveniences that we enjoy. In this chapter, Dr. Chris Martenson explains that in the future our supply of surplus energy will decline due to the fact that increasing amounts of energy will be required to produce new energy. When poor net energy (ERoEI) returns are paired with peak oil production, it points to a return to a less complex society.

http://www.chrismartenson.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• finance
• financial
• crisis
• economy
• economic
• crash
• course
• collapse
• depression
• 1929
• peak
• oil
• renewable
• energy
• stock
• market
• exponential
• money
• fiat
• currency
• gold
• silver
• inflation
• iraq
• war
• bailout
• bernanke
• chris
• martenson
• ron
• paul

[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.

[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.

[goedeck1]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?