MUST SEE !!! - Oil Peak 2011 - part 2

[@mydarlinggirlrachae]

Thanks for posting. I live in Australia and became an activist due the invasion of the Middle East, which led to learning about peak oil. I have since learned my countrymen live in a state of infantile denial, willing to believe any rubbish, as long as there no truth to it . Seems to be pervasive in the west. Things are about to get very messy

[@nellre]

Really good presentation!

[@markc1234golf]

yup sadly i agree with ya there

[@AlMayer1100]

@polypus74 You're right, by the way, the energy profit of uranium is 1:20. The energy profit of coal is 1:80. To extract 1 kg of uranium fuel, one must move and crunch 10,000 tons of stone, extract the uranitite and involving enormously energy-hungry processing (hex-centrifuges). Transportation, storage is expensive, removing NPPs is even more expensive. And there is NOT ONE single terminal storage worldwide until today!!! A terminal storage would cost 400-500 mio. per year with open end.

[@smithy11742]

Nuclear energy, natural gas and coal alongside unconventional oil should be sufficient to sustain the worlds energy demands for quite some time. I'm sure we are going to witness some unpleasant changes as energy prices increase and supply becomes unreliable but its going to be a very gradual decline. There is still time for change.

[@Quercuspalustris50]

Germany is investing in renewables heavily now, and it's costing a lot, but by 2020 and thereafter, their energy bills will be cheaper than if they had stayed addicted to coal and gas for electricity. Some states in Germany are producing 50% of their electricity through wind. Iowa has 20%, and their energy bills and hikes have been smaller than the US average. And there are a few counties in PA where residences can switch to wind/hydro and it's actually cheaper than the fossil alternative

[@SargentSnuggles]

As it stands, and its unlikely to change, alternative energy such as solar and wind still require a great deal of oil to manufacture, install, and maintain. I think its too late make the switch. We are headed towards a very different and grim future.

[@Quercuspalustris50]

Wind is the savior. It's EROEI is the best (not counting hydro, but we've got all the best hydro places taken already) and will get better. For every doubling of rotor size, it quadruples energy output - bigger is better. Google Lazzard's 2011 Levelized Cost of Energy. Solar doesn't have that exponential growth potential like wind, but it will shortly be cheaper than coal.

[@Quercuspalustris50]

Right. Economies will have to get used to slower growth. Neighbors will have to get used to sharing tools, lawnmowers, baby clothes, land for local farming. Energy efficiency is key. More biking, and public transport. More condo style homes, which are less energy intensive, built around walkable neighborhoods. No more shopping for recreation. No more buying a dress and wearing it once then leaving it in the closet for 15 years. 55mph speed limits like the 70's. That's the new survival.

[@jimbills]

Alternatives are: wind, solar, breeder or thorium reactors (much more promising than simple nuclear), geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass (ethanol sucks, but algae shows some promise). The basic problem we face is that all are expensive, and we're only now at the point where we can really consider them because oil/coal/gas are much cheaper and efficient energy sources. Without a miracle invention, the future is more expensive energy, unavoidably, and this WILL have economic repercussions.

[@prezoftheworld]

@HDaviator imo geothermal gives the most bang for our buck

[@EmmaPiers]

KZbin Nicole Foss for more detail

[@seanincali1]

normalcy bias and cognitive dissonance. they're defense mechanisms coping with difficult issues like peak oil. now add the steep discount rate which deals with how much humans value the present vs the future. (meaning we value the present more than the future) it makes perfect sense that people are willfully ignorant. the question is how many of us are aware of the problems, and how many of us are capable of making significant contribution to the solutions.

[@UAtrackandfield]

Eh, we live in a post-Fukushima world and we would need somewhere around 10,000 nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels. Also uranium is a finite resource so, as a main energy source, the world would run out in about 20 years. Currently, though nothing can replace fossil fuels but fossil fuels are so integrated into the world economy no one is trying to switch to alternative fuels any time soon.

[@polypus74]

@oliverhochron "better find more uranium" aside from little problems like fukushima, uranium is also non-renewable. "non-petroleum insecticides" funny both your 'solutions' involve biocides. what is needed now is a much deeper rethink of how we live on the planet. powering down, ecological regeneration, appropriate technology, perennial polyculture, etc. think permaculture.

[@UAtrackandfield]

No one wants to hear bad news. Reason why politics is about who can best make lies sound like the truth...he probably didn't get elected the following term....

[@seanincali1]

the fossil fuels are already forms of solar energy. millions of years ago, lifeforms fixed carbons using photosynthesis, and over millions of years, that energy, in the form of fixed carbon, turned into fossil fuels. the energy that formed the fossil fuels was the aggregated sunlight over millions of years. we don't have the technologies to aggregate that vast amount of solar energy. the same is true for other renewable energy. besides, renewable energy make up 9% of energy in the US.

[@nietzschevsgod]

why is this so hard for people to understand, its basic knowledge, people are willfully ignorant