Crash Course: Chapter 17a – Peak Oil by Chris Martenson
Chapter 17a – Peak Oil: Energy is the lifeblood of any economy and a steady supply of energy is necessary to maintain the status quo, while an ever-increasing supply is needed to grow an economy. In this chapter, Dr. Chris Martenson explains that Peak Oil is not a theory, rather it is a description of how oil production increases over time, reaches a peak, then declines. Evidence points to a global production peak in the near future, which is troubling since the US imports two-thirds of its oil and relies on it to much of its transportation and food production needs. www.chrismartenson.com
o czem to jeszt że tak szem żapytam kóltórarnie?
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.
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 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.
Game over for oil maybe, but when are people going to wake up to the advantages of the humble bicycle?
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
On YouTube Ray Kurzweil explains the Law of Accelerating Returns — Exponential Advancing Technology. watch#v=9PWXrnsSrf0
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. geothermal
2. geothermal
3. geothermal
imo =P
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
@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.
watch?v=_3Bs5MWeNUM
the amrican people
lol
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.
This is boring and very long.
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…
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!