3:00 & 4:46 - Ok, so I have to link to this: A Crude Awakening - The Oilcrash ruclips.net/video/odCZpBPfFQk/видео.html, because if you like this video, you will probably like this documentary. Over the last few years, I have been learning about a lot of environmental issues, including following wildlife rescues, learning from experts in that field, and learning about native plants. Combining that with the quality science education I had, my experience in working in the finance industry, my knowledge of Peter Schiff "doctrine," and my personal experience in watching a few animal and insect populations grow exponentially and crash, I had an epiphany when I saw this documentary about why the human population is so high and growing so fast. 81 million people are added to the planet each year. Over the last 50 years, the global wildlife population has declined by 60 percent. The world population of mammals is now 96% humans and livestock (and pets?) and only 4% wildlife. Since civilization began, there has been a loss of 83% of all wild animals and 50% of all plants. In the last 30 years, the global insect population has declined by 30%. Insects make up one of the lower rungs of the food chain, providing food for birds and other animals. So few people seem bothered by this. When I saw this oil crash documentary, it was like the final piece of the puzzle - I realized that the reason the human population is as large as it is because we have accessed and used fossil fuels. It is the one main driver of why the human population has grown exponentially in the last 100 years or so. The destruction of the Earth is the byproduct of having so many people. The sad thing is, nearly every other animal, plant or other form of life on Earth (with the exception of invasives, which in most cases are outside their native range because humans spread them there), can live on the planet without destroying it. But we cannot seem to stop ourselves from destroying it. When I found this playlist of Crash Course videos putting the economy, energy, and environment together, I was so excited - finally, someone who gets it. I can't wait to finish the rest of the videos. It feels like everything I'm learning is all coming together.
Thanks Chris, It's mathematical folks; solar, wind, ethanol and other pie in the sky ideas are not good net energy when you figure all the cost associated. If it was not for the "free" money from the government subsidies including the tax breaks these ideas would not even considered feasible. I would say natural gas is the ace in the hole for us now. If we did not have gas and the infrastructure to pipe it we would be in a totally different world. I suggest those that still think solar and wind are the best options for Man and his world should watch this video again and pay attention.
Wind, Solar, and Hydro can be the answers if we make them... It would be a massive disruption given all the investment in gas and oil pipelines, gas stations, truck stops with refueling stations, and the constructed fossil fuel power plants. We shouldn't let innovation be stopped by outdated fossil fuel infrastructure. You take a risk when you invest that innovation could impact your business. Either evolve or die. I love thinking about Biology and Capitalism together. It makes me feel way more centered than those in our government who refuse to look at the lessons in both..
Good lecture, how about the electrical energy produced from wind and solar being used to make hydrogen? Similar to the HHO generators used in cars? Im very close to solar powering our home and have been looking for a better system for years who actually wants 20 solar panels and a load of batteries on their house.......
conversion of any form of energy to other form leads to significant losses.... i dont think there will be any net energy gains from converting electricity from solar to hydrogen to be later used in locomotives... i hope there will be a break through in battery tech that is cheap and efficient either in density or speed of charge....
No. When you take into account energy storage, you need infrastructure that dramatically diminishes the efficiency of renewables, be it hydrogen, batteries, or energy transfer by pumping water (the most efficient of all).
This video makes it seem that values for EROEI are well established and agreed upon, which is inaccurate. While there is no debate about the concept of EROEI, there is much discussion on how to calculate it with consistent results. When calculating EROEI for tar sands, do you include the energy of development costs? The energy of smelting for all the steel infrastructure? The energy of transportation and setting of concrete? There is no wide consensus on this. The cost of obtaining energy is increasing, but any time Chris Martenson quotes an absolute value of EROEI there should be HUGE error bars.
The video's point that it takes 50-100 years for a new energy source to roll out is a very important one. Even if Lockheed Martin had a working pilot fusion generator hooked up to the grid today (they don't), it would take many decades for that technology to become common. There simply isn't the time left.
9 minutes in, I'm pulling my hair, and screaming how much are we doom in this world...When you calculate the population growth with the hockey sticks and calculate how long it takes to adopt a new form of energy...There is no way it can be done in time... Now I get why Tesla made his mission to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy...Especially when money is being printed in tin hair they don't care about making money...Accelerate this process is far more important...
But our economies are so weak we can't even afford to accelerate the process of energy transition... It's worse than that actually, because it haven't really began !
This feels a bit alarmist. Just after this video, the fracking boom took off thus turning the energy return arguments here rather moot. Biofuels are classically inefficient to make. It's a little early to say the renewable revolution is here but the energy payback of silicon solar cells with a 20 year life span is about 8:1 and will only increase with time and wind is even higher at over 10:1 and again only bound to increase with time.
and what if i hydrolise water using electricity that comes from a solar pannel? yes, the net energy input is negative, I mean the energy contained in the hydrogen is far far less than the energy used to produce it, that is clear, but it´s sunlight!!! it doesn´t cost us anything to produce or extract! the oly cost is the solar pannel, but once you produce enough hydrogen equivalent to the energy used to produce that pannel, the rest is "free". Some could say: whats the point in making that? why don´t we just use the electricity of the pannel ? well, because with hydrogen you can use it in an internal combustion engine such as the ones in ships, or as an engine fuel for airplanes. Besides once you think of the pannel + the water as a circuit to produce hyrogen, you could engineer that to produce it on the spot, as an internal part of the engine. Imagine fueling up your tank with water, wich then produces hydrogen, burns up in the pistons, and then goes back to water, it´s possible!
You don't take into account the raw materials needed to make the panel and the energy to extract them, the energy needed to assemble them and their limited lifespan ! Sun is unlimited and free, but harnessing this energy is NOT. ANd if you want to store it, it's even worse.
You couldn't be more wrong on nuclear. Our development of cheap and safe nuclear power stopped with politician direction at about the "whale oil" stage of energy development. Literally, politicians chose the winners, and the winners ended up being highly rare uranium in water cooled high-pressure reactors. There were lots of other candidates, including systems that enact self-shutdown and operate at atmospheric pressures. Now, I agree that there will be a significant hiccup in world economic expansion due to a necessary shift in energy sources. But I do not agree that this represents the end of exponential growth in the world economy. In fact, with cheap nuclear, we've barely started.
Where exactly are these operating examples of modern safe "cheap nuclear" power plants? As I understand it, it is the energy and effort required in building the plant, producing fuel, safely storing spent fuel and decommissioning the plant at end of life, which makes the EROEI of nuclear quite poor. And you cannot build a nuclear plant without massive access to fossil fuels.
bms2070 Your presumed EROEI of nuclear is poorly applied to all possible nuclear reactors because you presume rare fuels (Uranium), rather than common fuels (Thorium). The Thorium cycle is one such reaction of an element useful for nuclear fuel that is so common amongst rare-earth deposits that rare-earth mining has been all but abandoned by developed-world countries because of nuclear non-proliferation agreements. It is true that it takes substantial energy to isolate enough uranium to make reasonable fuel from it, this is expected because Uranium is about as rare as platinum, to say nothing of the special isotope needed for fuel (which is even more rare). Other source materials have totally different economics, economics that were never explored because reactors based on them were never explored when we didn't fear radiation like the boogeyman. Reactors using these fuels were experimented with, however polticians were left to choose the winners. We got stuck with only Uranium, and only stadium-sized-high-pressure-vessel-water-based-reactors as a result of that choice. The truth is energy research has been stifled in the developed world since the 1960s, and without that research, you have no hope of continuing an exponential energy curve.
jeremyrainman Agreed. I'm getting so tired of these peak energy stories. We don't have a peak energy problem, we have a peak "powers that be" problem. I can't imagine how many patents the oil companies are holding to suppress new technologies. Once we run out of oil, another technology will be magically "discovered" re: the oil companies will release their grip on suppressing the technology.
Does the "total energy" box here ignore 'rejected energy' ie wasted energy? Fossil fuels are incredibly inefficient compared to electrification. 60% is wasted. If you are interested in net energy then you definitely shouldn't be committing the primary energy fallacy. If you are interested in 'energy out' then you have to include all the losses in the chain along the way to something useful. The rejected heat needs to be added to that. Otherwise you are included wasted energy in your 'used energy' calculation which is nonsense. 3:1 REOI means 1:1 when you take account of the rejected heat on combustion. Electrification is the only way.
I understand the logic behind this but it is a bit flawed. Not all energy sources are equal in value or price. Suppose I build a nuclear plant to power an oilsands facility in northern Alberta and it takes 2 kwhrs of electricity from the nuke to extract and refine the equivalent of 1 kwhr of oil. That seems like a losing situation but if the energy from the nuke is very cheap and the energy from the oil is more versatile then it’s quite likely worth doing so. Nukes produce steam and electricity, neither of which are suitable for powering trucks and cars.
Mr Chris your consideration about hydrogen are very misleading, an electrolysis device can have an efficency of 70% therefore with solar a return of 14,7:1, they ARE usable in batteries for electric vehicles thar are more efficient instead of oil and it can be produced. in LOCO without the need for transportation. is also better than batteries for energy store for factories. never the less it has been very little investment compared to old fuels so we're likely to see an improvement in the future
He did say that batteries could be used as batteries, but they are not a source of energy because there is very little free hydrogen. if we need hydrogen, we need to create it by means of chemical reactions (mostly through electrolysis ) and such reactions take energy. in other words, it takes more energy to create hydrogen than what you get back from burning it
No it won't. Solar energy has a pretty low EROEI, and if you factor in storage, then it's even more low. You can't expect the same civilization as the one we have now with solar PVs. Besides, you need silver which peaked in 2015. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Even if a new energy source is developed, and we fix the economy, we are going to run up against other limits, like species decline, for example. We cannot live in a world with just humans, livestock, pets, and crops. Plastic is piling up - all the plastic ever made is still on the planet today as plastic and cannot yet be broken down. Look up diseases of civilization. Health and nutrition are major problems right now. Depression, a disease of civilization, in teens and young adults is on the rise. Suicide rates have increased 33% in the last 20 years. As a disease of civilization, depression is correlated with the increase in human population. Study population crashes throughout human history and you will find that they occur when there are multiple stressors. Whenever a population grows too large for its environment, things like disease, lack of resources, etc. bring it back down. Right now, we're facing health challenges, economic challenges, and social challenges. Chronic poor health, cancer, the opioid epidemic, and more ... Watch Eric Cline's lectures on the 1177 crash and you'll see a parallel with the refugee crisis in Europe. And think about the social unrest and protesting going on right now. It just feels like several different metrics are heading towards boiling points. www.filmsforaction.org/articles/depression-is-a-disease-of-civilization-huntergatherers-hold-the-key-to-the-cure-return-to-now/ www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/03/14/schools-grapple-with-student-depression-as-data.html www.apa.org/monitor/2019/03/trends-suicide mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Nov-14_Population-Density-Stress-Is-Killing-Us-Now-MAHB-blog.docx.pdf ruclips.net/video/bRcu-ysocX4/видео.html www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/202006/young-people-are-lonelier-and-more-suspicious-others
Wind and solar resources are limited. Even the EROEI was greater than one (and it isn't), these numbers are based upon fudged results in optimum conditions. Wind and solar require huge investments in mining, resource extraction, complex material manufacture, and so on. But the limit is the location and availability of the underlying resource. ... Look up the foolish history of hydropower - or RDF - refuse derived fuel for a better understanding of the point.
Well ... this chapter is seriously error riddled, but I understand Chris has to rely on "Reliable" sources ... that are about as reliable as CNN. His overall conclusion is correct, but the picture he paints is quite rosy compared to the reality. ... Except for nuclear technologies of which he is apparently unaware. The ratio for Wind Power btw is ~0.5-1.0, and solar panels are ~0.1 to 0.5. ... My numbers come from engineers designing these devices ... not press releases or official publications. i.e. The real situation is much worse than Chris portrays, but that's not his fault.
Social complexity is not that big plus actually... Currently, there are to much social spheres where a lot of money is dumped, without a corresponding benefit. No need for examples I think, from movies to overpriced software companies... People with basic and important professions are often at the bottom, supporting the whole circus. You may see peak energy, I see peek wasting. Energy is everywhere, even on your imaginary island, and it's more then enough for normal existence if people had the brain to use it with some sense of balance... And share with 3 people... really? Sorry, my only association is with the forward chain letters...
Yes energy is everywhere, but energy that you can actually use, with high density is pretty scarce. You should read J.A Tainter book "The Collapse of Complex Societies"
You might just be wrong now. Anything is kinda possible now. Humans are more powerful now which means they can make a landslide discovery on how ethanol can be the saving energy for the next century
Anything is possible now ? Dude we are not in a Star Trek episode. You're putting way too much trust in technology and human ingenuity. Truth is, you don't want to accept that our civilization is facing an impending energy crisis. It will hit us hard in less than 10 years, I can guarantee you that.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
3:00 & 4:46 - Ok, so I have to link to this: A Crude Awakening - The Oilcrash ruclips.net/video/odCZpBPfFQk/видео.html, because if you like this video, you will probably like this documentary. Over the last few years, I have been learning about a lot of environmental issues, including following wildlife rescues, learning from experts in that field, and learning about native plants. Combining that with the quality science education I had, my experience in working in the finance industry, my knowledge of Peter Schiff "doctrine," and my personal experience in watching a few animal and insect populations grow exponentially and crash, I had an epiphany when I saw this documentary about why the human population is so high and growing so fast.
81 million people are added to the planet each year. Over the last 50 years, the global wildlife population has declined by 60 percent. The world population of mammals is now 96% humans and livestock (and pets?) and only 4% wildlife. Since civilization began, there has been a loss of 83% of all wild animals and 50% of all plants. In the last 30 years, the global insect population has declined by 30%. Insects make up one of the lower rungs of the food chain, providing food for birds and other animals.
So few people seem bothered by this. When I saw this oil crash documentary, it was like the final piece of the puzzle - I realized that the reason the human population is as large as it is because we have accessed and used fossil fuels. It is the one main driver of why the human population has grown exponentially in the last 100 years or so. The destruction of the Earth is the byproduct of having so many people. The sad thing is, nearly every other animal, plant or other form of life on Earth (with the exception of invasives, which in most cases are outside their native range because humans spread them there), can live on the planet without destroying it. But we cannot seem to stop ourselves from destroying it.
When I found this playlist of Crash Course videos putting the economy, energy, and environment together, I was so excited - finally, someone who gets it. I can't wait to finish the rest of the videos. It feels like everything I'm learning is all coming together.
Watching this in Late June 2022 and you have already been correct about many of your predictions 💔
Thanks Chris, It's mathematical folks; solar, wind, ethanol and other pie in the sky ideas are not good net energy when you figure all the cost associated. If it was not for the "free" money from the government subsidies including the tax breaks these ideas would not even considered feasible. I would say natural gas is the ace in the hole for us now. If we did not have gas and the infrastructure to pipe it we would be in a totally different world. I suggest those that still think solar and wind are the best options for Man and his world should watch this video again and pay attention.
excellent series glad for the new revision, even if the old version is still truthful
>spend 19 videos talking about the economy
7:35 "Forget about money because it's made up anyway"
An error?
At 14:08 you say EROI on corn ethanol can be negative according to some sources. I take it you mean less than 1, rather than negative.
I am writing my high school essay on this topic. really cool.
current form of living standard? are you going to discuss energy efficiency and the impact to the economy soon?
Wind, Solar, and Hydro can be the answers if we make them... It would be a massive disruption given all the investment in gas and oil pipelines, gas stations, truck stops with refueling stations, and the constructed fossil fuel power plants. We shouldn't let innovation be stopped by outdated fossil fuel infrastructure. You take a risk when you invest that innovation could impact your business. Either evolve or die. I love thinking about Biology and Capitalism together. It makes me feel way more centered than those in our government who refuse to look at the lessons in both..
Good lecture, how about the electrical energy produced from wind and solar being used to make hydrogen? Similar to the HHO generators used in cars? Im very close to solar powering our home and have been looking for a better system for years who actually wants 20 solar panels and a load of batteries on their house.......
conversion of any form of energy to other form leads to significant losses.... i dont think there will be any net energy gains from converting electricity from solar to hydrogen to be later used in locomotives... i hope there will be a break through in battery tech that is cheap and efficient either in density or speed of charge....
Simplicity is inevitable
Has all energy expended in the middle eastern wars been calculated in to the net energy cost in that region?
What about Thorium Molten Salt?
Hydrogen allows for efficient storage and transport of renewable energy.
No. When you take into account energy storage, you need infrastructure that dramatically diminishes the efficiency of renewables, be it hydrogen, batteries, or energy transfer by pumping water (the most efficient of all).
This video makes it seem that values for EROEI are well established and agreed upon, which is inaccurate. While there is no debate about the concept of EROEI, there is much discussion on how to calculate it with consistent results. When calculating EROEI for tar sands, do you include the energy of development costs? The energy of smelting for all the steel infrastructure? The energy of transportation and setting of concrete? There is no wide consensus on this. The cost of obtaining energy is increasing, but any time Chris Martenson quotes an absolute value of EROEI there should be HUGE error bars.
What about fusion energy? Apparently, this is being tested, and there are some successful results coming out of Lockheed Martin.
The video's point that it takes 50-100 years for a new energy source to roll out is a very important one. Even if Lockheed Martin had a working pilot fusion generator hooked up to the grid today (they don't), it would take many decades for that technology to become common. There simply isn't the time left.
9 minutes in, I'm pulling my hair, and screaming how much are we doom in this world...When you calculate the population growth with the hockey sticks and calculate how long it takes to adopt a new form of energy...There is no way it can be done in time...
Now I get why Tesla made his mission to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy...Especially when money is being printed in tin hair they don't care about making money...Accelerate this process is far more important...
But our economies are so weak we can't even afford to accelerate the process of energy transition... It's worse than that actually, because it haven't really began !
People in the past lived quiet well without energy as we know it..Ignorance is bliss!!
99% of people on earth today would die if they had to live in the pas,,tperiod
This feels a bit alarmist. Just after this video, the fracking boom took off thus turning the energy return arguments here rather moot. Biofuels are classically inefficient to make. It's a little early to say the renewable revolution is here but the energy payback of silicon solar cells with a 20 year life span is about 8:1 and will only increase with time and wind is even higher at over 10:1 and again only bound to increase with time.
and what if i hydrolise water using electricity that comes from a solar pannel? yes, the net energy input is negative, I mean the energy contained in the hydrogen is far far less than the energy used to produce it, that is clear, but it´s sunlight!!! it doesn´t cost us anything to produce or extract! the oly cost is the solar pannel, but once you produce enough hydrogen equivalent to the energy used to produce that pannel, the rest is "free". Some could say: whats the point in making that? why don´t we just use the electricity of the pannel ? well, because with hydrogen you can use it in an internal combustion engine such as the ones in ships, or as an engine fuel for airplanes. Besides once you think of the pannel + the water as a circuit to produce hyrogen, you could engineer that to produce it on the spot, as an internal part of the engine. Imagine fueling up your tank with water, wich then produces hydrogen, burns up in the pistons, and then goes back to water, it´s possible!
You don't take into account the raw materials needed to make the panel and the energy to extract them, the energy needed to assemble them and their limited lifespan ! Sun is unlimited and free, but harnessing this energy is NOT. ANd if you want to store it, it's even worse.
The subtitles disappeared.
You couldn't be more wrong on nuclear.
Our development of cheap and safe nuclear power stopped with politician direction at about the "whale oil" stage of energy development. Literally, politicians chose the winners, and the winners ended up being highly rare uranium in water cooled high-pressure reactors. There were lots of other candidates, including systems that enact self-shutdown and operate at atmospheric pressures.
Now, I agree that there will be a significant hiccup in world economic expansion due to a necessary shift in energy sources. But I do not agree that this represents the end of exponential growth in the world economy. In fact, with cheap nuclear, we've barely started.
Where exactly are these operating examples of modern safe "cheap nuclear" power plants? As I understand it, it is the energy and effort required in building the plant, producing fuel, safely storing spent fuel and decommissioning the plant at end of life, which makes the EROEI of nuclear quite poor. And you cannot build a nuclear plant without massive access to fossil fuels.
bms2070 Your presumed EROEI of nuclear is poorly applied to all possible nuclear reactors because you presume rare fuels (Uranium), rather than common fuels (Thorium). The Thorium cycle is one such reaction of an element useful for nuclear fuel that is so common amongst rare-earth deposits that rare-earth mining has been all but abandoned by developed-world countries because of nuclear non-proliferation agreements. It is true that it takes substantial energy to isolate enough uranium to make reasonable fuel from it, this is expected because Uranium is about as rare as platinum, to say nothing of the special isotope needed for fuel (which is even more rare). Other source materials have totally different economics, economics that were never explored because reactors based on them were never explored when we didn't fear radiation like the boogeyman.
Reactors using these fuels were experimented with, however polticians were left to choose the winners. We got stuck with only Uranium, and only stadium-sized-high-pressure-vessel-water-based-reactors as a result of that choice.
The truth is energy research has been stifled in the developed world since the 1960s, and without that research, you have no hope of continuing an exponential energy curve.
jeremyrainman Agreed. I'm getting so tired of these peak energy stories. We don't have a peak energy problem, we have a peak "powers that be" problem.
I can't imagine how many patents the oil companies are holding to suppress new technologies. Once we run out of oil, another technology will be magically "discovered" re: the oil companies will release their grip on suppressing the technology.
Thorium is where it's at!
@@Solarflare87 Where are your thorium power plants? We're running out of time
Molten salt thorium reactors, anyone?
Still nothing in sight. Technical issues to overcome. Anyway it's too late for that, and besides you can't rely on thorium for your transportation.
Elon musk is interested in using TMSR on his reusable falcon rockets to free up the massive fuel tanks as cargo space.
Does the "total energy" box here ignore 'rejected energy' ie wasted energy? Fossil fuels are incredibly inefficient compared to electrification. 60% is wasted. If you are interested in net energy then you definitely shouldn't be committing the primary energy fallacy.
If you are interested in 'energy out' then you have to include all the losses in the chain along the way to something useful. The rejected heat needs to be added to that. Otherwise you are included wasted energy in your 'used energy' calculation which is nonsense.
3:1 REOI means 1:1 when you take account of the rejected heat on combustion.
Electrification is the only way.
I understand the logic behind this but it is a bit flawed. Not all energy sources are equal in value or price. Suppose I build a nuclear plant to power an oilsands facility in northern Alberta and it takes 2 kwhrs of electricity from the nuke to extract and refine the equivalent of 1 kwhr of oil. That seems like a losing situation but if the energy from the nuke is very cheap and the energy from the oil is more versatile then it’s quite likely worth doing so. Nukes produce steam and electricity, neither of which are suitable for powering trucks and cars.
Mr Chris your consideration about hydrogen are very misleading, an electrolysis device can have an efficency of 70% therefore with solar a return of 14,7:1, they ARE usable in batteries for electric vehicles thar are more efficient instead of oil and it can be produced.
in LOCO without the need for transportation. is also better than batteries for energy store for factories.
never the less it has been very little investment compared to old fuels so we're likely to see an improvement in the future
He did say that batteries could be used as batteries, but they are not a source of energy because there is very little free hydrogen. if we need hydrogen, we need to create it by means of chemical reactions (mostly through electrolysis ) and such reactions take energy. in other words, it takes more energy to create hydrogen than what you get back from burning it
i understand that you are physics expert but you also didn't read my comment, at all
Solar will save the day. Just need to develop battery storage technology and there's no need to worry.
No it won't. Solar energy has a pretty low EROEI, and if you factor in storage, then it's even more low. You can't expect the same civilization as the one we have now with solar PVs. Besides, you need silver which peaked in 2015. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Even if a new energy source is developed, and we fix the economy, we are going to run up against other limits, like species decline, for example. We cannot live in a world with just humans, livestock, pets, and crops. Plastic is piling up - all the plastic ever made is still on the planet today as plastic and cannot yet be broken down. Look up diseases of civilization. Health and nutrition are major problems right now. Depression, a disease of civilization, in teens and young adults is on the rise. Suicide rates have increased 33% in the last 20 years. As a disease of civilization, depression is correlated with the increase in human population. Study population crashes throughout human history and you will find that they occur when there are multiple stressors. Whenever a population grows too large for its environment, things like disease, lack of resources, etc. bring it back down. Right now, we're facing health challenges, economic challenges, and social challenges. Chronic poor health, cancer, the opioid epidemic, and more ... Watch Eric Cline's lectures on the 1177 crash and you'll see a parallel with the refugee crisis in Europe. And think about the social unrest and protesting going on right now. It just feels like several different metrics are heading towards boiling points.
www.filmsforaction.org/articles/depression-is-a-disease-of-civilization-huntergatherers-hold-the-key-to-the-cure-return-to-now/
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/03/14/schools-grapple-with-student-depression-as-data.html
www.apa.org/monitor/2019/03/trends-suicide
mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Nov-14_Population-Density-Stress-Is-Killing-Us-Now-MAHB-blog.docx.pdf
ruclips.net/video/bRcu-ysocX4/видео.html
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/202006/young-people-are-lonelier-and-more-suspicious-others
It should be that the next 15 years will nothing like the last 25 by now since you have been saying this for 5 years
Wind and solar resources are limited. Even the EROEI was greater than one (and it isn't), these numbers are based upon fudged results in optimum conditions. Wind and solar require huge investments in mining, resource extraction, complex material manufacture, and so on. But the limit is the location and availability of the underlying resource. ... Look up the foolish history of hydropower - or RDF - refuse derived fuel for a better understanding of the point.
Well ... this chapter is seriously error riddled, but I understand Chris has to rely on "Reliable" sources ... that are about as reliable as CNN. His overall conclusion is correct, but the picture he paints is quite rosy compared to the reality. ... Except for nuclear technologies of which he is apparently unaware. The ratio for Wind Power btw is ~0.5-1.0, and solar panels are ~0.1 to 0.5. ... My numbers come from engineers designing these devices ... not press releases or official publications. i.e. The real situation is much worse than Chris portrays, but that's not his fault.
Social complexity is not that big plus actually... Currently, there are to much social spheres where a lot of money is dumped, without a corresponding benefit. No need for examples I think, from movies to overpriced software companies... People with basic and important professions are often at the bottom, supporting the whole circus. You may see peak energy, I see peek wasting. Energy is everywhere, even on your imaginary island, and it's more then enough for normal existence if people had the brain to use it with some sense of balance... And share with 3 people... really? Sorry, my only association is with the forward chain letters...
Yes energy is everywhere, but energy that you can actually use, with high density is pretty scarce. You should read J.A Tainter book "The Collapse of Complex Societies"
You might just be wrong now. Anything is kinda possible now. Humans are more powerful now which means they can make a landslide discovery on how ethanol can be the saving energy for the next century
Anything is possible now ? Dude we are not in a Star Trek episode. You're putting way too much trust in technology and human ingenuity. Truth is, you don't want to accept that our civilization is facing an impending energy crisis. It will hit us hard in less than 10 years, I can guarantee you that.
who are these humans and when will they make the discovery?