The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 55    Average: 3.3/5]
44 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 15748
Rating: 3.3
Category: Science
Date: 03/19/11 09:00 AM

44 Responses to 300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 Seconds

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:29 am
    Link: 300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 Seconds - A quick rundown of the worlds energy history.
  2. Profile photo of obhwfgirl
    obhwfgirl Female 18-29
    582 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:18 am
    Totally true! People have made a lot of progress due to industrialization, but it won`t last forever. We need to start changing the way we live as a community and as individuals in order to ensure long-term stability.
  3. Profile photo of shalantas
    shalantas Male 18-29
    426 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:22 am
    *end of the video comes*

    Woah... that oil plant blew up? I thought it sprung a leak and we couldn`t plug it up...
  4. Profile photo of shalantas
    shalantas Male 18-29
    426 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:25 am
    oh and all this is pointless. We drated up way to hard. So once 2012 comes around. aliens who created us will come down to earth and be like.

    "we tried to make you a thriving civilization, but yall just keep screwing up" "no we will kill you"

    "they will then scoop up whoever isn`t a complete d bag and the rest will be left behind while they destroy everything. rendering this planet useless."
  5. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36689 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Brazil switched over to ethanol.
    It would be done, we have enough farmland in the U.S.
    We just don`t want to get off our asses and do it.
  6. Profile photo of zombieland
    zombieland Male 18-29
    418 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:30 am
    nobody will ever do any of this stuff unless its profitable. end of story
  7. Profile photo of obhwfgirl
    obhwfgirl Female 18-29
    582 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:40 am
    @Gerry

    Ethanol is actually a crappy alternative source. When you factor in the amount of fossil fuels used to produce it and then transport it, biofuels actually use MORE energy than they produce. They could work if they didn`t need to be shipped everywhere.
  8. Profile photo of KekS
    KekS Male 18-29
    588 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:49 am
    In that part, when the Earth just formed... There should be Pangaea.
  9. Profile photo of redser99
    redser99 Male 30-39
    114 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:51 am
    I remember reading years ago that back in 1980 there was a massive initiative in the US to move to ethanol but the Arabs severely dropped the price per barrel to $20 which undermined the cost to produce ethanol so the ethanol production industry was dropped (huge money pit for the USA).

    Today, it`d certainly make sense to get back into it I`d hope.
  10. Profile photo of HalfPintRoo
    HalfPintRoo Female 18-29
    2765 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 10:02 am
    redser- I heard the same thing
  11. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:01 am
    redser99

    "Today, it`d certainly make sense to get back into I`d hope"

    You have listened to dangerous nonsense. The reason for the vast increases in the cost of food recently is largely in ethanol production. That is just for adding about 5% to car fuels. What would happen if 50% of car fuel was ethanol?

    This video is pure propaganda.
  12. Profile photo of redser99
    redser99 Male 30-39
    114 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:36 am
    Yes @randomxnp, I whole heartedly agree with you that it is indeed propaganda and that there will be slight increases (with increasingly higher supplies) in food production costs, etc. But, we are getting more aquainted with the higher costs of oil / barrel these days to point where it`ll be accepted and we`ll be in a situation where we`ll be astounded by the cost of oil at $200-300+ per barrel of oil and somehow $100 barrels are no longer an issue in the mainstream.

    The point of the ethanol of course is to reduce the need for fossil fuels and upping the supply may be a jump in the beginning, but will be reasonable in time. That is also to say, that USA can produce most of its own fuel needs instead of relying on foreign countries that are always in contention with the US.

    I guess, for either side, it`ll come down to the lesser of the two evils (so-to-say). I`m for the increase in ethanol production personally.

  13. Profile photo of Im_Racist
    Im_Racist Male 70 & Over
    147 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:42 am
    this doesnt deserve to be on such a bad website as i-a-b. remove it now
  14. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Pretty good video, except it leaves out Nuclear Energy which is the greenest, safest available (Japan`s current problem included!)

    @Gerry1 no, ethanol, and the USA is currently doing it, is TERRIBLE! If EVERY single food crop was converted to ethanol, it still would no replace gasoline. And there`d be zero food!
    It`s supposed to be made from waste materials, in low-effeciency methods, not with top grade FOOD and huge subsidies.
  15. Profile photo of N-Vet
    N-Vet Male 30-39
    105 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm
    Don`t forget about Natural Gas. The U.S. has the 6th largest proven reserve of Natural Gas with 6.9 TRILLION Cubic Meters. Now if we were only allowed to use it....

    Also the "easy oil" isn`t all gone. regulations and ,as Jeremy Clarkson puts it, Eco-Mentalists limit or prevent drilling oil close to shore.
  16. Profile photo of chimmeychang
    chimmeychang Male 30-39
    685 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm
    5 cats is right, nuclear is the cleanest safest most efficient energy producer...but bad publicity(probably from competing coal companies) has turned it into Satan`s turd?
  17. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    @5Cats/randomxnp
    Except the food shortage isn`t as bad as you think it is, farmers in the US are paid to NOT farm because the excess of supply would drat up the market value. Lots of businesses get their profits from this kind of inefficiency.

    That land could be used to grow crops just for making fuel. Since it never enters the food market it shouldn`t cause any deflation for food, just for fuel prices.
  18. Profile photo of Vithooshan
    Vithooshan Male 18-29
    36 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    "we`ll have to re-design health care and more"... what does that have to do with anything?
  19. Profile photo of munchlets
    munchlets Male 13-17
    13 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm
    You know we can just use hemp to run all of our land, and water vehicles on right? And hemp (weed) grows faster than any plant, or tree on Earth right?
  20. Profile photo of Neoptolemos
    Neoptolemos Male 30-39
    625 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    @chimmeychang & 5Cats:
    True, there is no CO2 emission with nuclear energy. But there are two reasons we shouldn`t depend too heavily on it:
    1) The nuclear waste is still harmful for years to come. And what we basically do is store in bunkers underground. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen, especially if we are to produce waste on a bigger scale.
    2) Nuclear energy is not renewable. Like classic fossil energy, it depends on raw material (in this case, uranium or plutonium) and the human race is excellent in depleting materials, as we have proven with oil, gas, copper, phosphorus, helium, wildlife, etc. etc.

    We should make the effort to change our complete system towards RENEWABLE energy (solar & wind) and start closing our production cycles, i.e. recycle EVERYTHING.
    If you see the Earth as a big space vessel, with a certain fixed number of raw materials, it`s not hard to imagine that renewable & recycling is the ONLY way forward.
  21. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 2:28 pm
    The problem eventually boils down to the fact that there`s 7 billion of us. I doubt we`ll adapt fast enough, millions or billions of us will die off and the population will become sustainable again. Problem solved.
  22. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    N-Vet, there`s just a line that HAS to be drawn. I`m sure you don`t care if millions of acres of wildlife were destroyed, but what if after that all that`s left is oil that`s under cities and peoples homes? Would you be willing to let them dig oil in your own backyard? Heck, it`s not like you`ll have a choice. They`ll just buy the land and send you packing. You`ll only care when it effects you immediately and directly, but the damage will be far worse by then.
  23. Profile photo of mandingo3519
    mandingo3519 Male 30-39
    192 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 3:27 pm
    this guy is presenting very good point (except for the first 30 seconds of theory of evolution) however it is too bad that the people who need to see this will not. so very good idea just "wasted" on those of us who while can do something about it, still wont make a big enough difference
  24. Profile photo of Neoptolemos
    Neoptolemos Male 30-39
    625 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    @mandingo3519:
    "this guy is presenting very good point (except for the first 30 seconds of theory of evolution)"

    Theory of evolution? Where? Oh, you mean the Big Bang theory? Or geochronology?
    Either way, all three of these theories/sciences are well funded, and -dare I say it- true*

    *with a probability of 99.9999% (<always put this in so religious zealots can keep clutching at straws)
  25. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm
    Always with the global warming :(
  26. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    1) The nuclear waste is still harmful for years to come. And what we basically do is store in bunkers underground. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen, especially if we are to produce waste on a bigger scale.

    What sort of accident exactly? You have no idea how nuclear waste is buried. It`s safer than burying garbage.

    2) Nuclear energy is not renewable. Like classic fossil energy, it depends on raw material (in this case, uranium or plutonium) and the human race is excellent in depleting materials, as we have proven with oil, gas, copper, phosphorus, helium, wildlife, etc.

    That is true. Uranium is a finite resource, but we have so much of it it would last us more than long enough to develop better means.

    Time to face facts. Nuclear power is the best option until we develop fusion - IF you can afford it.
  27. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    this doesnt deserve to be on such a bad website as i-a-b. remove it now

    I would agree with that if it wasn`t for myself not being able to otherwise see it.
  28. Profile photo of DMoneys36
    DMoneys36 Male 13-17
    221 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 5:51 pm
    The Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was only a big deal because the media blew it out of proportion. The Oil spill during the gulf war on January 19, 1991 was 156 million gallons larger... and probably on almost nobody knows/remembers it. Why? Because it didn`t affect us Americans.
  29. Profile photo of deadbass72
    deadbass72 Male 18-29
    166 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm
    meh...
    {scroll}
  30. Profile photo of RETARDEDBEAR
    RETARDEDBEAR Male 18-29
    437 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:16 pm
    Leveling thousands of acres of real estate to make way for wind turbines and solar panels which absorb energy directly from the Earth`s weather patterns and sun energy... that totally doesn`t effect the environment.
  31. Profile photo of NitroJunkie
    NitroJunkie Male 70 & Over
    758 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    Good points, but almost every single thing he mentioned about the environmental hysteria is bull.
  32. Profile photo of test-user564
    test-user564 Male 18-29
    490 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    world war II did not have guided missiles
  33. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5195 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    THEY RIPPED OFF RSA ANIMATE!!! I`m so pissed off I`m going to retaliate with a refrigerator bonfire.
  34. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:48 pm
    [email protected] Nice.

    Just throwing this out there, let`s not forget that we`re quite happy to pay $1 for a liter of bottled water, while we rail against a global price $100 per barrel of oil, which fuels our entire world economy at present.

    This is important, please note. When upscaled to barrels (just did the math myself, made a spreadsheet and everything), bottled water costs about $159 per barrel, while oil costs $100 per barrel. We are literally burning through a finite resource at a retarded rate.

    I`m a bit embarassed to think of what children of the future will be taught in class about our generation, when there`s 20 billion people in the world with rumbling bellies. We`re living in golden times, guys. We don`t appreciate it, because we`re inside the bubble. But like credit card debt, we don`t have to worry about it as we live in Halcyon Days right now. It`s future generations that are going to have to pay the price.
  35. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:54 pm
    p.s, to lighten the tone, I`m such a f*cking fantastic nerd that I went through my entire receipt from a recent trip to the grocery store and converted every single liquid item to barrels of oil. Yes, I`m *THAT* sad. Or bored, which is why I`m here.

    Most expensive sh*t you can buy, by volume?

    3rd place: Hair Conditioner.
    2nd place: Margerine.
    1st place goes to: Haagen-Dazs Icecream.

    And yep, under all scenarios, oil is the cheapest sh*t in the trolley.
  36. Profile photo of karmbatant
    karmbatant Male 18-29
    6 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 3:15 am
    This is a bit over-zealous in what it says needs to be done and also makes some statement like they are facts rather than the creators opinions. Nevertheless it does have some good points. I don`t know what it doesn`t just say, well we COULD just put more investment into hydrogen fuel rather than oil and beef up solar and wind production through gov incentives. We don`t need oil or coal really it`s just the most economical resource at the moment. Eventually that will change. If population keeps growing we`ll just find new and better ways of managing it. We`re pretty awesome that way.

    I don`t like the video just cos the guy sounds like a bit of a deuche is all.
  37. Profile photo of Undamaged
    Undamaged Male 18-29
    34 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 4:05 am
    Exactly right. You don`t have to be a treehugging hippy to see that we need to change. Fossils fuels are going to run out.
  38. Profile photo of Student_Law
    Student_Law Male 30-39
    1010 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:13 am
    The biggest scam ever, was the idea that "global warming" is something you "believe" in or not.
  39. Profile photo of JamestheKidd
    JamestheKidd Male 18-29
    31 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:23 am
    Does anyone know what the song is at the beginning of the video? It`s driving me crazy! Help, anyone, please!!!
  40. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 7:25 am
    @Jamesthekidd: Walk on the wild side by Lou Reed.
  41. Profile photo of JamestheKidd
    JamestheKidd Male 18-29
    31 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 11:21 am
    Thanks Mykunter. I had the beat in my head all night and it was driving me crazy. Good looking out.
  42. Profile photo of whosliam
    whosliam Male 18-29
    39 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    did he say the atom bomb? how is that petroleum
  43. Profile photo of Quackor
    Quackor Male 18-29
    2856 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 9:21 pm
    seems obvious, when trees and coal ran out everything got better, so i propose burning fossil fuels faster than ever
  44. Profile photo of Izaq
    Izaq Male 30-39
    173 posts
    March 21, 2011 at 5:15 am
    How many _hundreds_ of people have died from nuclear disasters? (not counting warfare).

    How many _millions_ of people have died from air pollution partly from coal fueled power plants?

    Someone please explain to me how nuclear power is more dangerous compared to coal plants?

Leave a Reply