ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/PBSDSDonate
Check out our whole series on ENERGY! bit.ly/1BnH5zu
Subscribe: bit.ly/iotbs_sub Twitter: @okaytobesmart
↓ More info and sources below ↓
We've heard news of "peak oil" and "the end of the oil age" for years now, but we keep coming up with ways to find and pump more of it to the surface. Rising CO2 levels and the changing climate that results from burning fossil fuels mean that we should probably stop using oil sooner rather than later, though
Let's take a look at history and see how we've used different fuels, so that we might figure out when and how to make oil a thing of the past
LEARN MORE:
Special thanks to Sheril Kirshenbaum and the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin for their help with this series. www.webberenergygroup.com/
Check out their awesome online course "Energy 101" to learn about energy and energy policy from A to Z! www.energy101.com/
And to find out what people think about energy, check out the UT Energy Poll: www.utenergypoll.com/
Have an idea for an episode or an amazing science question you want answered? Leave a comment or check us out at the links below!
Follow on Twitter: / okaytobesmart
/ jtotheizzoe
Follow on Tumblr: www.itsokaytobesmart.com
Follow on Instagram: / jtotheizzoe
-----------------
It's Okay To Be Smart is written and hosted by Joe Hanson, Ph.DFollow me on Twitter: @jtotheizzoe
Email me: itsokaytobesmart AT gmail DOT com
Facebook: / itsokaytobesmart
Google+ plus.google.com/+itsokaytobes...
For more awesome science, check out: www.itsokaytobesmart.com
Produced by PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Joe Hanson - Creator/Host/Writer
Joe Nicolosi - Director
Amanda Fox - Producer, Spotzen IncKate Eads - Associate Producer
Andrew Matthews - Editing/Motion Graphics/Animation
Katie Graham - Director of Photography
John Knudsen - Gaffer
Theme music:
"Ouroboros" by Kevin MacLeod
Other music via APM
Stock images from Shutterstock, stock footage from Videoblocks
-----------------
Last week's video:
Does the Moon Orbit the Earth? • Does The Moon Really O...
More videos:
Why Does February Have 28 Days? • Why Does February Only...
Why Vaccines Work • Why Vaccines Work
Why Are Some People Left-Handed? • Why Are Some People Le...
Where Does the Smell of Rain Come From? • Where Does the Smell o...
Did anyone else notice that they did not answer their title question?
Yes, and it's bugging me
Yeah!
Kevin Vines Yep
Kevin Vines
A trillion barrels of oil, if we can extract them all at 100 million a day, means we have ~27 years of oil. Math FTW kiddies?
Kevin Vines One of the goals in science education is to provoke people to think critically. Being an educational video, giving the answer directly wasn't necessary, nor was it the goal. What's important here is that there is that with the information that was provided, viewers can begin to ask questions, and even find answers on their own.
Ultimately, though an explicit answer wasn't presented, the information provided should lead us to the conclusion that despite all the predictions made thus far, with all of the variables involved, 'we don't know, but we hope not.'
Stone age didn't end because of lack of stone. Oil age will end long before the scarcity of oil
Oil age will end because a better resource of energy is found.
No, it will not end..and where is the evidence that battery disposal isn't going to create a monumental disaster environmentally? I truly think millennials are just dumb
Nope
As it often said "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones"
peak stone
Milestone.
We dont call it "oil age"
never heard that one but i already love it!
'Peak Wood'... Evvvvvvery morning...
Mark Davies Loooooooooooool!!
***** Get out of here with your negativity.
We are having fun here.
***** What?! People having fun and not being serious? Not on my watch!
wtfduud Eh?
Did you read my comment?
***** I never knew grumpy grandpas finding negativity everywhere can have fun too.
Greetings from Norway! Over 99% of the electricity production in mainland Norway is covered by hydropower plants :D
Nice! Where is most of it collected?
minecraftYJ Western part of Norway, but hydroelectricpower plants are all over the nation.
Huh. Cool
Notrollhere Norway isnt really well known for its industry.
Especially the scandinavian countrys simply dont have any meaningfull need for energy, but a much easier time to produce energy.
What we seriously need is a good infrastructure to move energy around the world, so we can actual produce energy in regions that are really good at it and sell it to the areas that need it the most.
ThisNameIsBanned That and better ways of STORING it.
Beavers may harness energy through dams, but they don't really use it to do work. They just like non-moving water.
Knew perhaps a relative of yours in San Antonio. Worked at SwRI, up on the hill.
We will never stop using oil. When we convert to all electric vehicles, we will still need the oil for lubrication.
Not to mention plastic. Just me alone at the factory where I work , I process 16 tons per day
I can't wait for fusion power to be a thing. They already have promising prototypes though it'll take a few years/decades until it's ripe for the market
didnt they want to build one in france soon?
***** It's always 30 years away.
sooooooooDark yes ITER and in germany they have the wendelstein 7 x I will make a PowerPoint presentation about fudmsion so I know this but could someone please tell me hiw they win the energy I mean I know what fusion is but how do they want to 'win' the energy that is released
Neo Sabien this*
sooooooooDark They've been building it. Its set to go online in 2020.
One trillion barrels seems like a lot, but when you do the math (dividing by the 93 million barrels used per day) means that at the current rate...not even increasing consumption...we would use up the entire earth's supply in 30 years. Now, it is "one trillion +", and we don't know how big that "+" is, but at any rate, the last barrel will cost a lot more to get out of the ground (if we can ever get it out) than current barrels, so expect price increases over the next 30 years, and then if we don't have our act together by then, expect some major problems.
Rationalific The deal with oil is its just an estimate and theres way more oil available and some sources obvisiously even "replenish" over time, as the inner part of the earth produces oil and pumps that up.
Theres plenty of oil around thats just not worth to access, as its in regions that are not really friendly to the commonly used methods. But in general, its just a big pile of BS that oil will ever run out in the forseable future, much sooner it will simply be too expensive to use it for any reasonable manner, so people stop using it and aim for alternatives much sooner that it will ever be a problem to run out.
But then, the oil market is also a gigantic pile of speculation and cheatings in prices. In the last year oil price plummet down like a stone. It became so cheap, that russia got in financial problems by the super low price (as the price drop was fairly unexpected).
The consumer oil prices going up is much less connected to actual less oil available, much more as it simply became an easy way to increase prices and profit. Prices should go DOWN if more oil is available on the market, instead it simply goes up in general trends, as people keep paying the prices, as they heavily depend on it too (especially the giant ships all the air-transport and the like, they depend so much on oil and it wont change in any meaningfull way).
Running out of oil ? That simply wont happen in our life times.
And still, with the overall increasing prices in oil, people will sooner or later switch to cheaper sources, no question about that.
ThisNameIsBanned Oil replenishes at a microscopic fraction of the speed we are using it.
Rationalific Well yeah, the prediction is believed to be that in 2050 we will officially be out of oil.
Rationalific I just did the math myself and thought for sure someone would have beaten me to it. I'm rather surprised that more people aren't mentioning this. Also surprised they just glossed over this easy math and the implied ramifications.
On reflection, > 1 trillion is a rather ambiguous number and maybe they didn't want to be put to the coals for false data.
Rationalific thanks for the info Dexter.
This is only science channel I came across has really cool ideas I really appreciate my man
you sir,
are awesome.
thank you for spending your time making these videos:)
I'm really loving your videos, its incredibly educational and I love your introductions, its very engaging.
I'd like to point something out on the subject of eliminating the need for oil. We will not stop needing oil for likely centuries after we stop using it for energy. The reason being that oil is incredibly useful for chemistry. Not crude oil, but all the stuff that can be harvested from it, like toluene and petroleum ether. I'd wager that almost every single over the counter or prescription drug available in America is synthesized in part from a petroleum derivative or has a petroleum derivative used in its production as a solvent. Hell, we even build roads in part from petroleum derivatives, and let's not even start on polymers. Our world is built on oil for more than just energy, like how our world is still built with wood even though we don't use it for energy.
There is no shortage of oils for raw products . Petroleum products are relatively cheap and plentiful, but people have been using oil for thousands of years, and our synthesis technology has vastly improved. All sorts of ways for the manufacturing side of things to adapt over time, though there may be price adjustments. It is the energy side of thing that is the bigger concern.
I read somewhere that alcohol can do the same thing as oil. hmmm
And we can distill alcohol from plants. Some plants yield more alcohol than another.
Like Sugar Beets yields more than corn.
@@breeze787 alcohol is ethanol, and ethanol can be converted to other organic compounds which is used to make stuff like plastic etc.
@@breeze787 Just remember, if we use Sugar Beets we still need land to grow it. Its also more susceptible to upcoming climate change, weather, storms, etc, which could effect crop yield. Its one of those things which sounds wonderful in theory, but theory and reality rarely are the same.
Bull sheet is because of petroleum so humans figure what else can we do with petroleum so lets move toward the future and invent new renewables energy and invent new means without dependency on petroleum base products. We can do it lets put this opec and putin and countries that have us hostage because they control production and price
Answer: when extracting a barrel of oil takes as much energy as the energy that barrel gives.
I really don't want to promote whaling here but yes, whales are a renewable resource. The tricky thing with renewable resources is, however, that they have a certain rate at which they are renewed and this rate even depends on how much we use them. So the trick is to use renewable resources sustainably. Whales were overused which was what almost drove them to extinction.
Penny Lane I thought that as well. A large proportion of fossil fuels formed 200 million+ years ago in the Carboniferous. Once they are gone they are gone (or at least gone for the next 100 million years whilst organisms die and replace them). Whales on the other hand do breed, albeit reaallly slowly.
Really, I personally think any commercial use of Whales, with exceptions for indigenous peoples, runs the risk of being unsustainable. Its the same for any animal that has such a low and slow birth rate, but especially Whales given the uncertainties over their populations.
Merry Machiavelli Exactly, their low reproduction rate makes it almost impossible to hunt them sustainably and that's not even considering the ethical dimension of killing such a highly intelligent animal in such a slow and gruesome way. But yeah, still renewable.
Penny Lane well if you put it his way almost anything is renewable, isn't it?
***** Not really, if it can replenish itself within the nearish future (500 years) then its its renewable, If it takes 100s of millions of years i.e, geologic time scales, then its not, at least for any practical human purposes. There is a big gap between those two time scales,
Energy that blows my mind that amazing
When will we stop using oil?
Simple: When our 'leaders' do
Oh shut up
The problem we have with energy is that we are kind of bad at getting it. People living in extreme continents like Europe and North America are using oil, and for what? There's plenty of solar energy at the equator. There are deserts there, full with burning hot energy. We could harvest that energy, if we cooperate with the countries there. We pay them a small fee, or we simply build the infrastructure ourselves. This is a way better alternative than letting that energy dissipate into the atmosphere while we burn oil.
Transmitting that energy would be a challenge. More local sources already lose 40% in transmission. However, the coldest corners of the planet get plenty if solar energy beaming down at them. It is a collection and storage that are the challenges.
You seem to not understand the challenges. First off, solar panels are not as efficient as you might think. They do not currently have an energy output even close to that of oil at the same price, and that goes to another issue: cost. The cost of setting up enough solar panels to provide energy on the level of what oil gives us is infeasible in the surface area needed for those panels. You also cannot convince the masses to invest in solar unless if it's a more economic decision for their lives. Money is the largest incentive to most people.
Lest we forget.. sciencing.com/toxic-chemicals-solar-panels-18393.html
Electricity is one of many forms of energy. Electricity accounts for about 20-25% of total energy consumption. Solar, wind and nuclear produce only electricity. These will not solve the problem.
Brilliant Clip.Keep it up!!!
great video. well said!!!
1:31 he is an undercover moth confirmed!!!!
At a certain point, the oil used in out production will also outweigh the oil produced especially with increasingly difficult means of production.
Very good! I recently watched a documentary called "There's no tomorrow" and i was wondering about that.
Interesting, all good information to know!
Great video and insight into the problem. I hope we can quickly shift to more renewable and feasible sources of energy, so as to reduce the damage we are doing to the environment and ultimately to ourselves 😕
Solving one problem by introducing another.
America in a nutshell.
I love your Channel.. really enjoyed watching your videos
good video very informative
I'm trying to get funding for an engine powered by genetically altered hamsters that fart oxygen. So far...no takers.
Most Nobel laureates support genetic engineering, including the vast majority of the winners in Medicine.
Hook it up to Hillary's ass and we could power the whole nation.
Fusion, our best way of surviving!!
Fusion bombs and MAD? Sure, why not.
+Skarn22 Dude, Fusion Energy does not equal fusion bombs
That's the only kind of fusion we have that's actually feasible though.
Skarn22 fusion Reactors could be feasible, your calling it too soon for it not to be feasible, we have to wait and see first to see if that is fact or not
2000wires gamming
Too soon? More like too late lol
"Could be feasible" basically means, theoretical. *Maybe* in 50 years we will have some cold fusion reactors. If scientists are correct, we'd need a viable technology right now-- that's going to be something fission-based. That's the only thing that even comes close to coal/oil.
your so smart! also you put a lot of stuff in my brain.
For anyone who doesn't want to waste five minutes of their life watching a video that doesn't even answer the question, we will never run out of oil, it will simply become too expensive to extract.
Peak oil isn't about the amount of oil still in the ground, it's about the volume of oil being pumped out of the ground. Foe example, lets say there is 1 trillion barrels still in the ground and we can pump it out at 1 billion barrels a day and peak production. Now lets say out current demand in 900 million barrels a day with a projected growth of 100 million barrels a day over the next 5 years. In five years we will be at peak consumption. That is peak oil as I understand it, not being able to supply the demand for oil.
Jeffery Liggett Peak oil was originally defined as the time in which the discoveries of oil peaked. Peak oil today is more of an abstract idea about the extraction and consumption of oil rather than a definite definition. Because consumption and production are so connected, Joe's discussion on the topic is still pretty good.
Nolan Thiessen isn't peak oil defined by OPEC and the Saudis? _whenever they please_
They mention Peak oil every now and then and the price goes up.
The sheiks can then by a new bugatti to go drifting in.
When they crash it, they mention peak oil again and get another one.
Talk about renewable!!!
George Smith aaah. the definitions used n petroleum industry makes less sense than putting a cucumber up some1's ass and being surprised at the diagnosis from the doctor. always keep a copy of the definitions at desk.
So America gets more than 3 times as much energy from nuclear power than all renewable sources put together, yet all our attention is still focused on renewable sources and not nuclear power... because?
Ryan Travitz because of nuclear waste.. its too much.. also bombs are made out of it.. and it doesnt decay..it takes centuries :(.. highly radioactive...
there is a solution though.. thorium nuclear reactors.. it doesnt make much waste, bombs cant be made out of it.. and it can output more energy.. but there isnt a perfect thorium reactor yet.. india has successfuly made a prototype.. i hope it turns out to be great... also india has 1/3rd of the worlds thorium reserves...
good points
Oil and petroleum are also used to an extent to make most of everything that we use daily
I'm afraid that in 2 decades it will be too late
burt591 already is
We don't have a choice. We survived decades already, another two is nothing.
Another two could be everything. Scientists are out on if we've officially passed the tipping point (but I saw a study that said it was passed a year or 2 ago) but every year in the future is one less year we have to right our wrongs.
Our wrongs are probably already too large to right, and now we need to begin engineering the remedial solutions to our technological problems.
Zero Point Energy will be released once all the oil is siphoned from the ground, the corrupt greedy elite need to get their money first.
No worries, it can always be worse
We could STOP using fossil fuels for energy, but the problem is the fuel. It cant be monopolised like the rest since its as common as LEAD. Im talking about thorium power plants here.
except thorium plants' nuclear waste decays faster than uranium and we have safe enough tech for thorium that it could be used in electric cars
First thorium, then we will hopefully start using fusion.
that is optimal, but thorium would do for now Edward Karlsson
True, and nuclear energy is just viewed as wrong by the public. If we could use nuclear and atomic technology for peaceful purposes, we should have been better right now.
***** i agree with you, and we should be able soon enough be able to burn U-235 (nuclear reactor waste) in the thorium reactors, and most of Thorium reactors' waste decays in just 10 years! That difference tho!
I love how he said "the history of energy transitions has been one of new energy sources taking the place of dirtier scarcer ones". What he should have said was that better sources of energy take the place of older, less energetic fuels. So many people keep wondering when humanity will get off of oil, but everybody already knows the answer to that question... when someone comes up with an energy sources that is better than the ones we currently use.
could you please make a video about thorium reactors vs uranium ones
Renewables are not only cleaner for the environment, they're getting more efficient every year.
Because they're not subsidized by taxpayers like the billions that go to big oil every year.
if we put that money from oil into solar and wind power we would be incredible
+Danny Fry so true
+Asif Ifas China is so polluted already I wouldn't rely on them horrible idea
unless the wind blows too soft or too hard...
just to let you know. we permanently passed 400 parts per billion.
Saw your video on ecological succession in science class today! I was that nerd that was like "THATS HANK IM SUBSCRIBED TO HIM!!!" And my friends looked at me like I was crazy😂
We will NEVER stop using oil. Let that sink in.
Open a wormhole and draw the energy from another dimension
Hee Sing Sia I do that every day, that is no big feat
Abbieq11 i do it unconsciously it’s this easy
It only takes 0.005% of my power to achieve such a trivial task.
answer: when oil burnout turn out more expensive than alternative sources.
Hopefully!
Great episode I personally love solar panels and renewable energy you should do a rpisode about those new fanless wind turbines they have. Also 1ST!
It's a shame they can't put a hydroelectric dam in the Mississippi river. A massive amount of water travels down that river with a strong current. I imagine the energy product would be incredible.
Stephen Mulkey There are currently 74 proposals to build hydroelectric generators on the Mississippi river.
JombieMann Yeah it's been talked about for a long time, but it's such a major shipping channel that they don't want to shut it down for construction.
Stephen Mulkey Yeah and sticking a dam in the middle of that river will most likely cause havoc downstream. Hydroelectric dams are often less environmentally friendly than you'd think.
Then again, most energy corps don't give a shit about that kind of thing.
Hydro electric generation does not always require building a dam. Most of the proposed projects do not plan to build dams.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_head_hydro_power
+Andy Wilderness But they make money. If you make money you're automatically more evil than everyone who makes less money than you. Duh.
"we head peak wood"
Heh.
I too, love lamp
we will always have a need for lubrication fluids. In the north where it gets cold you have to burn something to make heat.
Its so sad that nuclear isn't used more.
al thought i agree whit nuclear the affects of it wayyy to risky take the ukine for expanmple the city whihc had its nuclear core melt caused so much radition that to this day its still there and also it too expenices
Stalin wut did happened to ya bruh?
Nuclear Fusion not fission should be utilized.
Alpha581 Sure it should, when we have it. But sustained efficient fusion is still far off. We should not wait for lottery but do something now.
The problem rigth now with nuclear plants is the radioactive waste that they produce and these radioactive material takes a long time to decay.But we till have other renewable options.
Unless there's some massive breakthrough with renewables, I personally think the only real short term solution we have is Nuclear energy.
A video explaining it's advantages over the alternatives:
th-cam.com/video/pVbLlnmxIbY/w-d-xo.html
the problem is we subsidize oil we to focus on subsidizing renewable energy like wind and solar
MarlowPreston That video doesn't talk about the huge cost of building nuclear reactors, running them or decommissioning them. The last nuclear reactors built in the USA were 3 - 5 times their original budget. Today, reactors in Finland, the UK and the USA are experiencing the same ballooning costs as the previous generation of reactors, so we're repeating the same mistakes. There's only so much time and money to deal with climate change and nuclear power is too slow to build and too expensive to be a practical solution.
MarlowPreston its awesome until we have a meltdown.
You're underestimating the power of human error. But if this is what you choose to believe fine.
mijnnaam maannjim what "all in" costs are you using for nuclear power? (The figures from a reactor currently under construction would be your best bet). Keep in mind that even these high build costs are subsidized by government money and policy to keep them artificially low.
And what "rare-earth" elements are you talking about that solar power requires? Silicon, glass and aluminum aren't really in short supply, unlike uranium.
Finally, solar power cannot be used as a cover for a weapons program while nuclear power has been used as a front for developing nuclear weapons by several countries.
I was really waiting for him to say "We'll stop using oil when we invent fusion."
Why are you showing me this just after I heard the news about oil prices going into negative, TH-cam?
we'll stop using it when renewable energy soon becomes way more affordable to use and cost effective to produce and thus become the more profitable option. in 2015 the globe used 10% of all energy from renewables. that will be 20% in the next few years driving the costs way down and more and more companies will invest and sell it driving the costs down yet again.
aslong as there is profit in oil, renewable energy will not have a chance.. which is sad so sad.
I agree with you. This is about business, not just domestically but internationally, meaning political stakes are involved, as well. Possibly if environmental disaster starts to become far more costly -- more expense than profit, and in a way that actually affects the original profiteers -- we might see a shift. Or if climate effects are so negative, widespread, and obvious that few people feel immune to it, maybe things could begin to really change. But we're not there yet, and what it will take for us to get there . . . isn't too promising.
Nuclear fusion & Cold Fusion are the future. We must invest more into R&D.
sirgrundel Cold Fusion is pseudoscience, it cannot be done, only one Cold Fusion test "worked" (It was a hoax) and the results could not be reproduced by other scientists. Cold Fusion is not a thing people!
Eddie Gruver Hot Fusion is none the less. My point is still valid.
sirgrundel Only half so, I just wanted to point out that Cold Fusion does not exist.
sirgrundel Sure thing. until someone demonstrates that nuclear fusion is doable nuclear fission seems pretty good tho
Eddie Gruver You are mistaken, cold fusion in that test was most likely a hoax. But that isn't to say its not possible. The whole problem with fusion is it needs to happen at temperatures so hot that the energy gained is more than the energy lost, because fusion as Bar needs to happen at roughly 100 million kelvin, but even at 80 million kelvin power in will be less than power out (ie we can get power from it). thats how our sun works. Cold fusion doesn't actually mean fusion happening in a freezer at -2 celsius. its just cold enough to have a net gain in power. the only current way we know to do this is in extreme pressure, like the sun. But, like dangerously extreme pressure. Also really hard to achieve extreme pressure. so maybe we will find away to make hyper efficient pressure chambers for fusion, or we will find another way, but cold fusion is the future. I think.
Hey! Please could you do an episode on Radiative Forcing. It's not spoken about that often.
YOUR HAIRSTYLE HERE IS BOMB!
I hope we will get our energy from big fusion reactors in the future.That would be rather safe and friendly to the environment compared to todays power plants.
That’s true and nuclear power would already be much more abundant and far less expensive had the environmentalists cared to listen to anyone but their virtue signaling selves .
how is this even a question?
shay campbell It's a valid question. The answer is likely "no, it will just get more and more expensive to acquire until it is no longer economically feasible for large-scale production". We won't run out, it just won't be worth the effort to get the ever-dwindling remains, as other energy technologies advance.
IstasPumaNevada Yeah, I like the answer. It's like "Yeah, we'll stop using oil, but not because it's completely depleted. It's rather because there's something else that we can exploit."
***** But the amount consumed will decrease, and few new wells will be created for a niche market that will problably have other much better fuel options by then.But your prediction is the most accurate of all I've heard recently.
Exactly!
Bacteria creating fuel and other artificial ways of generating it are what I had on my mind.
I'm quite surprised someone devoted his PHD to it, well congrats. I'd however like to point out that of this 8% you mentioned maybe over half the cars might go eletric not for the fuel prices but because eletric ones are silent, don't smoke and can deliver astonishing aceleration all of which may not look like a big deal on rural areas but are a god sent to big metropolises.
I guess it comes down to life styles, I dream of having a car, to me car means freedom from the system, owning my own transport and being able to go anywhere at anytime fast, over leather and under AC.
In the end history has show that there is hardly any case of a silver bullet, but rather a long list of plausible solutions that combine to supply different situations and different ocasions.
Whatever people will drive cars or ride in busses will come down to the people themselves with the only sure being the richer and more advanced we become, the more choices we have to choose from.
Economy comes first! #SmithTeam
Great video. I did a similar video on this subject and provided a conclusion from an economist's standpoint.
Imagine this is my school work
I would love to own a Tesla powerwall 2 and a Tesla solar panels.
Never. Just all the oil we can extract until it is no longer economically viable to do so....in the next 5-25 years.
Tim Smith *29
you had me at peak wood
Does termites farming fungi count as using energy to do stuff?
*After decades of studying energy, I've come to this conclusion:*
*Fusion > Nuclear > Renewable Energy (wind, solar, etc) > Oil.*
*All has its own pros and cons, but I always think long term.*
oil is better than wind and solar
Noah S. *I'm talking in consideration with air pollution.*
fusion power is a sub category of nuclear power so in reality nuclear should be off the list or remove fusion. cause nuclear energy can be either fusion or fission. they both produce a huge amount of energy, the means of producing the energy is different though.
***** not the liberals, over 30 years ago they modified the canadian school curriculum to their desire. They messed up math and they changed social from cool history to trying to convince people that modern globalization is a good idea
I believe you mean fission instead of just nuclear and I also assume that oil is a category for all fossil fuels, not just oil. Also with climate change wind could very well become the better renewable energy source though solar has fewer drawbacks as unlike wind it doesn't really screw with animals (I still don't get how they can't just see a big spinning blade and be like 'ok leave that alone' seriously animals are dumb)
Nuclear energy for the win
Dilithium Crystals ftw!
+bandrukesucks matter-antimatter explosive harnessing
+TGVv B64 for da win
Get real with the Thorium !!
TIMEtoRIDE900 Mehh... Thorium recycles better but its still doing the same thing.
Why did you link this video I just watched in the End Slate?
Ahh hahahaha they showed a Anchorman in this video lol
When Will We Stop Using Oil? Long after your aged great-grandhildren depart this world.
*How much Technology is being withheld b/c they want to milk all the Profits from the Wooden Wheel?*
The big oil companies are intentionally holding back human progress by buying out places that are coming up with newer, more renewable, more efficient energy sources. The only way we can truly transcend is to put all of our resources into developing new technology and sources of energy.
ShadowDurza Elon musk
So its the 100mpg carb again or something like it... sigh.
Shadow,
there is no effective renewable energy available, end of story! The only underused technology is nuclear.
There is no more efficient energy source. Nuclear could be but the libtards are afraid of it.
Don't forget that oil is necessary for modern technology. Even if we stop burning it entirely the other products made from it are the backbone of most modern devices.
Nuclear may not be a 'renewable' energy, but it's one of the cleanest as well as most efficent sources of energy currently available.
Please do a video on this.
What do you mean when you say "invent a peak of our own"? That sounds like you are implying some kind of government intervention.
Rani Hinnawi Riiiiiight, so let's get the government to protect life yes? The most sociopathic and horrible organization who has started countless wars and killed tons of people. Because I'm sure they care about life so much right? They never do things just to monopolize power to themselves or to exercise complete control over the plebeians who see their invisible hand as a necessity. Fucking hippie bastard
Speak to me about politics after you receive a lobotomy and then maybe we might have a more intelligent discussion
Rani Hinnawi Your biggest mistake is thinking the government can change. It's been proven since the dawn of history that the only way power is relinquished from their hands is when the entire system is taken apart by revolution, economic collapse, etc. Even with the existence of a governing document, the Constitution, the gov doesn't give a shit and they break it over and over again. Also, why the hell are you concerned with public opinion? The general public are a bunch of morons. Why should uneducated people who have little to no stake in this country have any ability to decide how it operates? Having freedom and rights doesn't *give* you the right to take that away from others. My worry is that "Social liberalism" such as this, with concern for the environment often degenerates into support for totalitarian control. Something that the feds are more than happy to oblige.
Watchout for conservatives trolls!
Adhiraj Sharma Go back to your cave and shut the fuck up.
TazTalksYouListen Exactly!
Adhiraj Sharma
Midway upon the journey of our life
I found myself within a forest dark,
For the straightforward pathway had been lost."Inferno" by Dante Alighieri
#leaveacomment
You are are a trolo
good to know
I use hydropower for Niagara falls, in southern Canada but only in winter because in summer I go to my summer house all season and I have it generated by a generator I made (I'm smart, becuase its okay to be smart) uses old grass clippings and twigs , and I pump half that gas into my green house and the rest I pump it towards my small garden in my backyard . But thats only like 25% my power the rest is solar and wind that i bought ( I'm "kinda" rich). But I do have a little motor generator my a creek beside my house, it barely produces anything but it has enough power to heat half my greenhouse, the rest is from that generator, with warm co2 coming in and some power to a air heater, maybe I will get another creek generator.
I have always loved learning about energy economics and seeing how one energy source can supplant another, and focussed a great deal of my undergrad on the topic. I certainly hope that alternative fuels can supplant oil sooner rather than later, because oil is relatively dirty. Not just CO2 emissions, but also all kind of other emissions. Most of these are seen as externalities in the economics, meaning we don't pay for them when we buy the oil, rather we pay for the effects in things like increased healthcare or infrastructure cost. One awesome example of internalizing the externalities of fossil fuels is the US's Clean Air Act, which put limits on the amount of sulphur coming from coal-fire power plants. This Act is estimated to save over $100billion in externalities each year.
When people talk about Obama's "war on coal", they're mostly talking about government regulations designed to internalize the externalities of fossil fuel burning. Coal just happens to be *much* dirtier than other sources. But once we get rid of coal, oil will be the new dirtiest fuel.
What we really need is peak human population. Everything will get better after that.
Then volunteer your own family to go extinct, idiot.
Greetings from Iceland, where 70% of our electricity is hydro and 30% is geothermal.
When i saw the title i was all like "Uhm... duuuh ?"
is water and infinite source?
yes
not fresh water
+30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Characters actually yes because we can make water filters out of recyclable material so as long as there is water we can always make it drinkable
+ChapoDaGuapo Yeah, you can always do ANYTHING if you have unlimited cash. You can desalinate water; you can haul icebergs home and melt 'em. Fact is, MOST people in the world DON'T have much money...so your answer smacks of "let them eat cake."
+bcubed72 I meant, "desalinate SEAwater," obviously.
Brilliant channel. It's amazing that these types of videos have lesser views than most useless craps on youtube.
get ready, they're gonna do a makeup tutorial next. haha
Gave a thumbs up specifically for the Anchorman joke
Missed the opportunity to just say "Yup!" and end the video, would have been hilarious.
Humans are awesome not because we specialize in one area but because we excel in all..
Until JOHN CENA came along
Who?
+AntiMessiah JOOHHN CEEEEENAAAA ! ! !
+Tristan Möller chadi beennaa
+SuperZecton What differences us from animals is that we ask questions.
+minecrafter0505 no, its because we have the brain power to imagine things
defnetly the earth is in a great danger
Yup
I always knew Oil was a non-renewable energy source, but I was always confused as to if we will ever run out of oil...... Thank you!! not in my lifetime haha
I love lamp too
I
i
GASOLINE AND DIESEL FTW
I
Drink it
I love you guys, but this channel name is so patronising I get annoyed every time I read it.
I wonder how many of those that continue to defend the use of fossil fuels are working for the oil industry.
Jim Groth I wonder how many of the people that oppose nuclear energy work for the coal companies (coal being the only currently viable source of electrical energy in the short term).
I for one think nuclear power should be expanded.
can you make a video about the best way to save earth, or how to plant trees more effectively to save earth or the best way to recycle our garbages, thank you. you have a great channel here!, very informative and fun at the same time.
Do a show onThorium Salt reactor
Even if the world has some new source of energy, you will still need oil for plastics, lubrication, fibers, asphalt, medicine, etc. You might not burn it, but you still need it. So, you can't put the oil Jeannie back in the bottle.
Well, where my grandparents live (in the south of Scotland), I know that most of their energy comes from wind using wind turbines.
Under $60 per barrel oil company starting to bankruptcy and nobody get oil from Gas Station.