So this is about us taking personal responsibility back from the dependency of the state and multi nationals – It will be interesting to see how the hand full of psychopaths respond to this – for them this takes their power away and replaces the power back in the hands of the people – to a degree at least.
I've watched this clip many times in the last 2 years, and I think this is the best introduction to the problems we are already facing, and the most hopeful and positive responses imaginable. Rob has served as the catalyst, but only you can take these ideas -- and add your own -- in your community. As new Transition initiatives spring up around the globe, fresh new ideas bubble up, and can be adapted for use all over the globe. What a hopeful and positive way to face these issues! Bravo!
Gee ? I wonder if President Obama has a Transition Plan ? I'm sure he does.. Look at all he has done for us so far! Down grading the economy must be the start. Oh yeah ! Not creating any jobs is a clear step to the Transition Economy! ! So glad that we are ahead on this one... E - con - o - My
The whole point is that we still currently live in the age of cheap oil but moving toward the end. Commenting today's prices is pointless. Peak oil is a reality, it WILL happen at some stage and if when it happens we are still shipping our food around the globe there WILL reach a point when it is no longer financially viable for commercial companies to haul food across continents. When oil outprices food this will happen over night. Unless of course we find an infinite oil source. Fingers crossd
I think the best part of this video is the Rolex advertisement at the end which describes the process of ceramic being heated to 1500 degrees and then bombarded with pure gold particles. LOL
This guy is one of those doomsayers. Do we need to search more efficient ways to produce energy? Sure. Is a return to medieval condition a desirable goal? Not at all. Remember: in the days of "totally local food reliance", a simple drought that today goes unnoticed meant large mortality by starvation in a local (20-50km radius) population. Easily.
@lotwyo Correct. Nice to see some people know what theyre talking about. This "local food resilience" ideology is the wet dream of all evil elites = you have people actually DESIRING a lower, backwards standard of living! Of course they think only the evils of civilization will go away after peak oil, until they feudal lords knocks on their door one day. Local food = feudalism.
@linghun Any evidence to support any of these wild claims?
Transition operates in a very methodical manner, the home page will direct you to a plethora or links to government and independent studies that would quite strongly disagree with you.
Comparing to pre industrial farming methods is pretty pointless, we quite clearly no longer live in the Victorian Age, things have come on quite a way since then.
I also fail to see why you specify 'pesticide/fertiliser free argiculture...
@linghun No one WANTS to live in misery, but when you look at all the related issues -- really look carefully -- you can't help but see that humanity itself, our entire human "civilization" is in peril. Without massive inputs of cheap and plentiful energy, the life we currently enjoy can not continue. The Transition movement is about softening the fall -- and creating a wonderful life without so much oil. And, yes, it will mean more work, and more hardship. Sorry, the party's over.
@linghun Thanks for your reply. We have a finite supply of oil on a finite planet -- there's no "theory" about the world peak of oil production -- it's a geologic fact. It might not happen as soon as many of us predict, but it MUST happen sooner or later. I think it all depends on how you define "standard of living". If we base that definition on quality of life or health, and not the accumulation of wealth, we can achieve a higher standard of living. Explore "Peak Oil" to learn more.
Profoundly stupi point of view. Local food is wasteful and unsustainable, makes societies fragile. Technological breakthroughs are a much better hope, the earth receives 10,000 times more energy from the Sun we consume and nuclear fusion can become an option in 15 years.
@billpoo90 Small scale 'pesticide/fertilizer-free' agriculture requires more energy/ labor per kg or calory produced. Thats why pre-industrial peoples were plagued with famines and starvation, and most people (and children) had to toil in the fields. Carrying produce in small quantities around eco-villages and farmers markets takes more energy than shipping it across the planet on a large vessel. (and yes Im taking into account fossil fuels required to make fertilizers).
The peak of the natural warming cycle from the ice age 10,000 years ago is near. Next one is inevitable. Species adapt to this cycle to survive. All species are carbon based. Carbon not a 4 letter word. With creative carbon uses we have prosperity, time/resources/technology to improve our future. Hopkins can promote transitions without scare tactics to sell his ideas of backwards to the future.
This guy kind of reminds me of hippie Rimmer trying to deal with the polymorph. I bet he's into leaflet campaigns, whist drives, car boot sales, street theater and benefit concerts
Mr. Hopkins' claims about the energy in a single liter of oil are off by more than an order of magnitude. Based on 6.1+09 joules per barrel, 156 liters per barrel, the liter has 38 million joules. At human labor output of 300 watts (basal metabolic is about 100W), that's 35 **hours**, not days. Scare stories based on bad math.
@rickrussell You too are also making assumptions. 300 watts is about optimum output for an elite athlete over the space of 1 hour. This is not accounting for rest time, fueling, cooling etc. So yes, a top athlete performing at a maximum output level could burn through that in 35 hours, though I doubt those hours would be consecutive. Also, basal metabolic rate does not apply here. You don't output any benefit when you rest.
@unloads Obviously, there are efficiency questions. 100% caloric conversion of oil to mechanical energy is impossible, and real efficiencies might be 30% or less for IC engines. Drop the human output to 100W of useful work per hour (realistic for a typical day laborer) and the efficiency of oil conversion to mechanical energy at 30%, and the results essential scale. Either way, no way does a liter of oil contain 35 8-hour days of human labor.
@SuperNolimetangere you're misunderstanding he was not comparing chinese people to elves, he was using that story as an analogy to illustrate our current trade situation
@SuperNolimetangere ...eye always consider "the cultured" as a way to occupy the other 90 % of the mind with ediquette dellusions;
~least it do what the mind does in any mammal, try to confabulate closure and correction on what the first 10% is scheming and scaming away in culusion with alter-ego with primary focus on sustaining & justify unwarrented competative behaovir & other non sustainalbe false action perpetuated phycosis; but what do eye know making a homo sapiens think or not to think ?
...me it's in a personal way - I'm a trekkie. Space is the love of my life, & always believed in humanity exploring space, colonizing other worlds, and even the future possibilities of interstellar travel. But now...unless technology comes to the rescue (which is our only real hope), we'll never get there. And all the wonders we'd have seen, riches we'd know, things we'd learn - they'll be 4ever gone.
I hope there's still reason to hope. When we can't hope anymore, then we're truly finished.
...fascist governments by 2100. Most states will likely adopt birth control - the 6.7 billion today live off food completely dependent on cheap oil (& population is still rising). Whoever develops more resilient forms of food (say biotech corps) could pratically control the world. & in any form of government "the hearts of men are easily corrupted". Either civilization will shrink by 2100 or dissapear - I'm almost totally certain of it. Humanity will survive. For all it's sad, but for (cont...)
...geopolitical reality. eg lets say Focus Fusion (google it) works. It would render coal obsolete overnight - that would basically crash the economy of many coal-producing countries, with the possibility of China. The economy probably would restabilize eventually, but not without a crisis first. And we can't count on every single amazing idea in Popsci - some may not be feasible.
But the future doesn't seem so bright right now. with Peak oil + climate change, there'll likely be new (cont...)
Sometimes I wonder if peak oil - which i predict as happening between now and 2025 - will be so catastrophic as to spark WWIII. But I've been reading very depressing fiction in English all year (1984, Oryx and Crake, etc.), so it could just be extreme pessism. But after midterms, Copenhagen and Cancún I've lost all faith in politics. We are so infatuated with oil and energy that we will not really get out of it until forced. And technology may work, but any new technology must face (cont...)
@Hyper There is no doubt that college English classes depress and make bleak the daily world on a far greater level than reality usually can manage. In retrospect, I would not have taken the classes I did; I had the skills to interpret and write about that which I read, so it isn't as if I needed more and more of the very same. And while I appreciate the numerous ways numerous authors comment about life, in the end it wasn't as productive as ignoring most of it and just -producing- in life.
And, the fat blob soon to die of a heart attack that is being fed from the work of elves is... The United States. LOL
Check out Peter Schiff and his comparison of the current crisis to an island, with the U.S. as the fat guy that consumes and Asia as the workers feeding the fat guy. In other words, the workers will stop feeding the fat guy and sell the products to themselves. Hence, America's decline and Santa Claus' heart attack.
Actually, technology can solve our energy problem on earth. New innovation may replace oil based economy with hydrogen economy and renewable energy. Also, we still had oil shale reserves amount to a few trillion barrel of oil, so it will last us for another century. This give us enough time for that change to occur. But i believe that mixed approach include energy conservation, technological advancement and clean energy will allow us to be truely independent from fossil fuel.
@DammedRight We don't have any idea how much oil reserves are on the planet and you assuming no growth. We do not have the time you imagine we have. Our children will be made aware of our selfishness as soon as they become uncomfortable. Speaking the way you do is to ignore the problem cause it aint here yet. Very irresponsible no matter how you look at it but I know you don't understand a word I am saying.
The biggest problem of this crisis lies in our mindset, our culture. We are used to ride the wave of cheap oil, we are used to everything just getting bigger and better. Therefore we believe that the future is going to be just like that. This is a dangerous presumption.
What Rob Hopkins is doing with the Transition Network might be the best solution. In the end, living sustainable is not optional. It is a matter of life or death.
It seems like there are plenty of technologies, some being researched, new and existing, that can solve the energy crisis. The world has to work together to solve it, no single or few countries can. There needs to be proper management over where a range of tested, renewable technologies and infastructures can be built with full co operation between all countries. The issue then is funding. It would be easier to start from scratch, create new money cycles. It might as well be tokens now anyway!
@dynamitefan8 Our financial system does not allow pharmaceutical companies to cure themselves our of business nor will it allow the oil companies to cure our addiction to oil without economic failure. If we made it law that all roofs be covered with solar panel shingles we would crash our economy by shrinking the monetary economy by replacing fossil fuel energy we pay for with energy from the sun with is free of charge. Every watt of energy produced by the sun would shrink our economy.
I understand your point, and economically yes they are too large a part of the system to disappear, certainly in an overnight scenario where a new, clean, infinately available resource is discovered. But then, perhaps a shift from the now antiqued, industrial, but definatly well accepted concept of continuous economic growth is required? On reflection the two philosophies don't exactly mesh so smoothly. To me growth is exponential, sustainability is perpetual!
@dynamitefan8 It is not impossible to create a sustainable way of life for all humanity and other forms of life. All the problems we face are technical in nature and can be resolved technically. However, it is not possible given the competitive win financially at all cost economy we have created. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is often used as a measure of economic health is also a measure of pollution and depletion of our environment.Curing our selves out of business is hard to do?
And, the fat blob soon to die of a heart attack that is being fed from the work of elves is... The United States. LOL
Check out Peter Schiff and his comparison of the current crisis to an island, with the U.S. as the fat guy that consumes and Asia as the workers feeding the fat guy. In other words, the workers will stop feeding the fat guy and sell the products to themselves. Hence, America's decline and Santa Claus' heart attack.
Exact figures may be in error, but I heard number of electric motorbikes sold in China in 2002 was about 50,000. Now five years later, it's already 5,000,000. In due time, it'll be 50,000,000 and 500,000,000. We just need a solar means of producing that energy!
The sun provides mother earth the power to strive for billions of years, don't let toxic fumes infect your lungs and make your immune system weaken. We can rid pollution in big cities but humans have to work together.
The transition for china to go into electric vehicles has been a success...last week oil prices dropped because china now has a lesser demand for oil.
technology and education is the key. anyways, we have a tendency to do things 'last minute'
also, oil industry is in power right now, so all other energy alternatives are being suppressed. but like the video description says, their field is "steadily running out"
I don't have a problem with the global warming aspect, which he didn't really spend much time on anyway. (It's not a scam, but I won't bother trying to convince you of that.)
My problem is that he thinks we can get a large portion of the population to accept a reduction in energy usage *before* oil runs out. Knowing what I do of human nature, I just don't see it happening.
Basically he is stating we need to return to a form of feudalism in order for local, not national, societies to survive. He is advocating the re-establishment of ancient Greece, with it's various city-states under a 'national' identity.
While I think his idea for greater local food production is good, I think we should still pursue the research of alternative energies to replace oil.
The local production issue is pointless. The major issue is whether we will continue to have the kind of energy available that we have had with oil. If we don't, going back to local food production won't help. It simply *won't* be able to feed the number of people that powered agriculture does.
Uhm... I do really think we can invent a sustainable form of energy (in fact, we already did).
Humanity had to constantly come up with solutions for barriers and problems, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now.
The hardest part is changing the inter-'grown' and established industry into something that can give us substantially more than the wonders of short-term benefit.
I studied this for my 12th grade project, and all those alternatives are far more expensive than the current price of extracting petroleum and refining it into gasoline. Do you think you can handle shale and pay more than Europeans currently pay for gasoline?
Florescent bulbs are obsolete. LED bulbs are the future but the funding for R&D for LED bulbs is not available.
So the industry manipulates government to ban incandescent bulbs and force expensive florescent bulbs on us. That way they can fund the R&D of LED bulbs.
Alternative energies are florescent bulbs. The future is sustainable energies but the funding for the R&D for them is not available. So ban oil and force people to buy alternative energies to fund the R&D for sustainable energies.
That's retarded. You want to force people to pay higher energy prices so that companies do not have to budget for R&D. Clearly you don't understand economics and naively assume that because you're well off, everyone else must be as well, at least to the point where they can afford a hike in their energy costs.
You should try interacting in the real world sometime.
"So ban oil and force people to buy alternative energies to fund the R&D for sustainable energies."
This only makes sense, of course, if you assume that people can actually afford to pay for the energy that you're forcing them to buy. By "well off," I meant that you're well off enough to afford the luxury of buying the energy of your choice, and many people aren't.
I'll let you in on a little secret: you can leave more than one comment. Therefore you're not limited to 500 characters.
Furthermore, I rarely have trouble conveying coherent ideas within 500 characters, so the problem seems to be you, not me.
You need to learn how to phrase what you're saying to distinguish it from something you're observing, and something that you're advocating, because the post that I was responding to was clearly advocating.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not stuck on either of those things.
You said outright: "So ban oil and force people to buy alternative energies to fund the R&D for sustainable energies." You are suggesting the solution to funding sustainable energy is to force people to buy more expensive energy. Let's ignore the fact that this doesn't even make sense for a minute, and examine how this is different from your fluorescent bulb analogy.
It's all really just a moot point anyway, since your original comment made no sense. Fluorescent bulbs are more expensive because they cost more to make... so I have no idea how you think this extra R&D money will magically pop out of thin air.
See, this is what I'm talking about. I bring up a point about your comment (how it makes no sense to try to extract R&D money by forcing people to spend more money on more expensive technology) and you completely ignore it and chase some random tangent. Reading comprehension problem, or just purposeful evasion.
I already did; is your reading comprehension problem getting in the way again?
It's simple economics here: with a higher cost of manufacture, the retail price goes up and the margin for profit is less. In order to extract even more money for R&D, they would have to raise the price of an already expensive technology even further. Which makes no sense.
Why would you raise the price of CFLs when you could just raise the price of cheap-ass incandescents and make way more money?
I'll let you in on a little secret: People sometimes don't read the entire comment when it's broken up into multiple sections leading to even more confusion. That's why I choose to leave it in just one comment.
You now understand what I was trying to say so the issue is over.
Actually, as I was reading it I thought he was clearly observing, not advocating. And while he didn't use the word profiteering, he did say the industry was forcing people to buy expensive stuff to pay for R&D. *That* statement is dumb, because they're expense because they cost more to produce. That doesn't leave a windfall for the industry.
And, the fat blob soon to die of a heart attack that is being fed from the work of elves is... The United States. LOL
Check out Peter Schiff and his comparison of the current crisis to an island, with the U.S. as the fat guy that consumes and Asia as the workers feeding the fat guy. In other words, the workers will stop feeding the fat guy and sell the products to themselves. Hence, America's decline and Santa Claus' heart attack.
@Digeridude The presenter obviously forgot the history of his own country. During the Industrial Revolution, children as young as 4 or 5 worked in appalling conditions in England, they were the elves of the industrial revolution.
Still, can't run cars and other vehicles on nuclear energy. We must push for an alternative fuel transition faster, otherwhise society as we know it will collapse. What would happen to our nuclear facilities if that were to happen?!?
I think people are afraid of nuclear power due to the whole cold war "end of the world" hysteria. The connection between reactors and bombs just freaks out the paranoid.
No it,s not that, its how it acts as a waste, needing to be buried hundreds of feet underneath the surface of the earth while we wait for it to finish disintegrating The 4 forms of energy I like are:
Nuclear power is vastly more efficient than any of those, and the problem with radioactive waste is being (mostly) solved by methods of re-purification and Breeder reactors. In any case, Fission stations should only be needed for another 20-50 years until Fusion is refined commercialized, this should however be in conjunction with the other methods you mentioned to help decentralize the power system.
Im sorry my terminology offended someone as sensitive as you, I'll re-explain. Ur-235, 233, and Pu-239 is whats commonly used in reactors as mediums of fission. The time required for most of the radioactive isotopes to decay is great, usually 50 years, and until then it has to be handled carefully before it can be throw out as normal refuse. Storage and handling of the waste is whats costly and inefficient and what makes nuclear power, in this day and age, not a viable source of energy.
I operated a nuclear reactor for 5 years when I was in the Navy. You're talking about half-life. U-235 is what we used, which has a half-life of 700 million years. That is, it takes 700 million years for HALF of those atoms to decay into thorium-231, which is also radioactive.
Aside from the fact that U-235 is found naturally, the point that you're missing is that the decay process is what releases stray particles that cause tissue damage, so long half-lives are a good thing.
Secondly, another face that your ignorance is preventing you from understanding is that fission is the result of U-235 atoms absorbing neutrons and breaking apart and into fission products, namely xenon, krypton, and iodine. So U-235's half-life has absolutely no consequence on the concern of radioactive waste.
The sad thing is, 5 minutes on google could have prevented you from making yourself look like a total dumbass.
An unstable isotope releases a particle, such as a beta or alpha, and energy is released in the process. The release of that particle causes the atom to become a different element. That is what decay is.
As uranium decays to thorium, over 700 million years, you wind up with half uranium atoms and half thorium atoms. It's not a change of mass, it's a change of element.
You are correct that half life is the time it takes for 1/2 of the atoms to decay into different atoms.
The new atoms do have a different mass though.
Thorium 234 is about 4 less grams per mole then uranium 238. That is why they are different elements..
In point of fact if you pulled all the protons and neutrons out of an atom you would end up with more mass in the parts then you had in the original atom. A mole of U-238 the mass would go up almost 2 grams.
You're forgetting the mass of the particles released upon decay. The total mass is still the same. There is no disappearing mass.
It's not just a new element, it's a new element plus whatever particle (beta, alpha, etc) gets released. Those particles are what do radiation damage.
actually Thorium 234 = 234.043601 + Helium 4 = 4.002602 = total thorium + helium 238.045603 U-238 = 238.0507826 - 238.045603 = 0.0051796 So 0.0051796 mass is missing. Actually that's because helium is tightly bound and you are correct... Although the shifts in mater is essential in calculating the energy released in the decay. antimatter annihilation does convert matter directly into energy. In B+ decay protons emit particles and gain mass
Also, just because you don't like my terminology, that doesn't mean I lack basic understanding of what I am talking about, this coming from someone who attacks a word in my explication but doesn't take the effort to correct it. It makes you seem ill-informed. You seem rather to correct me for your own amusement, than to add anything useful to the discussion.
Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine so that farmers could grow their own fuel ... how easily we forget
somehow big oil monopolized such a pure idea; with hempseed or rapeseed the refuse of the oil extraction process is even a nutritious feedstock
of course with hemp the bonus is all that .... fibre, which of course was the way we made paper before we learned how to soak lumps of wood in acid for pulp
rolex: high academic achievemnt an idea WORth spreading? how 'bout i spread locally produced nut butter on the idea of my but cheeks spread before mr rolex's puffy pink and pursed kissah!!!!! decarbonization mother(earth)fuckerrrs!!!!, flood your entire town with warm porridge! !!!!!
i fancy wordplay a means to activate a literal brain blossoming, indispenceable to the "loving and leaving" process, i figure. Use of the f-bomb "...fuckerrs" here pertains to the 'honest ignorance' meme in humankind. motherfucking might not be so bad, but throw insensitivty and excess force/use of dinosaur thinking style: we got somthing so terrible; a place for intolerance, I'd say. and warm porridge is a soft metaphor for excess use of deleterious activity. an 'i feel fine' apocolypse.
sorry I get it now ... the rolex ad stuck on the end!
its more an angry reaction to the prospect of change with these people, however inevitable change may be: its more 'head-in-sand armageddon' than 'I feel fine apocalypse' don't you think?
'what's to be done' after our 'realistic assessment'?#$%^... takes courage, revised values--- from the bottom up. i don't want to believe the masses are asses. I'd rather zero in on 'what can i do' ---- to ease into transition: head out of the sand. ignorance isn't just bliss: ignorance can be treacherous, too. i don't feel fine selling out to 'he with the most toys at the end of the world wins!' contest... i'll be at a farmers market, dancing to Pachamamas drum. (earth=heart)
Why is oil still used? Because it's still cheap. Supply and demand. As the supply of oil wanes, the cost of using it will rise, and that will drive incentive for innovation of new energy technologies.
I agree that the rising cost of oil will mean there will be an incentive for new energy technologies. The question is will we develop those technologies before an oil crisis disrupts our civilization.
I hope you are right. We use oil for mobility and food production. Our economy relies on economic growth, and that growth relies on increasing amounts of oil. When Peak Oil hits, that oil will hit a cap. How will we commute to work, how will we grow food?
This was a great talk. Working toward "resilience" is a nicer way of putting it than "sustainability." It puts the emphasis on what's practical and attainable.
Your car (if you have one) uses energy at a rate of about 100 kW; enough to power a hundred households or 3000-4000 laptops. If you think that millions of cars can be powered from the grid, you're hallucinating. The post-oil world will be different than the pre-oil one but the current wasteful lifestyle will have to go. At the very least cars will be far less massive, abundant and powerful. We might see the resurgence of buses, trams and trains though.
100 kW is the maximum demand that an engine places on the batteries. Most of the time you will use a small fraction of the maximum power.
When a car is charging it doesn't draw 100 kW from the grid either. We have control over the draw. I do agree we would need far more power generation, but not as much as you would think.
The energy is all around us. We just have to harness it. Ever try to push a tree down? The wind is able to. Harness the wind effectively, Establish solar network. Biomass/methane heating. design cities with efficiency in mind. no more of this .5 - 2 hr commute.
which is why nuclear is not a solution. When things go wrong you get Chernobyl.
Also it isn't as efficient as they claim. A lot of energy goes into finding the uranium, a lot of energy goes into refining it. A lot of energy is used to deal with the waste. And this isn't including the environmental impact. Uranium mining ruins local ecology. And what happens when uranium 238 becomes to scarce or costly to find. As long as we have an atmosphere and the sun, we have wind.
It's possible to design nuclear power plants in a way so that disasters like Chernobyl are not possible. In the 23 years since the Chernobyl disaster there have been many new designs suggested to make nuclear power plants safer. See for example pebble bed reactors.
US reactors have been safe from the start. Any pressurized water reactor design would prevent another Chernobyl. These are the designs (essentially from the 50's) that Navy subs use. They are water-cooled and moderated, have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, and are pressurized to prevent boiling within the core. All of these things ensure that a reactor will never generate the amounts of heat (or erupt in a radioactive fire) that Chernobyl did. Chernobyl was a bad design.
Anti-nuclear people are idiots. Disasters like Chernobyl? There has only been ONE disaster, and it was a combination of both design flaws and operator errors (multiples of both) that culminated in a perfect storm of nuclear catastrophe.
Nuclear plants aren't built or operated like Chernobyl anymore, which is why there's never been, and never will be, any other disaster like it.
Nuclear is cleaner, safer, and cheaper than even coal. Not using nuclear power just makes the energy crisis worse.
what waste? We can use the waste as fuel or simply photodisintegrate it into none radioactive material and that photodisintegration process can be used as a reactor component.
There is at least a five billion year supply of fissile fuel on earth. About the same time our sun has left.
That large supply however is with fast breeders, burning U-238 as fuel and using more cycles.
Or reactor tech is very old. There has been at least 25 accidents so there is room for safety improvements.
@787Bisurdaddy Agreed. France gets 75 per cent of it's energy from nuclear power with no significant incidents. Certainly no Chernoybl-like disasters.
ahhhh i know this guy :L
DistantFish 2 months ago
oxyhydrogen gas can burn hotter than the sun, and be used a fuel then returns back to water in certain circumstances
Darrylk22 3 months ago
So this is about us taking personal responsibility back from the dependency of the state and multi nationals – It will be interesting to see how the hand full of psychopaths respond to this – for them this takes their power away and replaces the power back in the hands of the people – to a degree at least.
ehpl 4 months ago
Thank you so much, it's going to be tough, but we are on the right way! lots of love to everyone.
hastalueguito 4 months ago
I've watched this clip many times in the last 2 years, and I think this is the best introduction to the problems we are already facing, and the most hopeful and positive responses imaginable. Rob has served as the catalyst, but only you can take these ideas -- and add your own -- in your community. As new Transition initiatives spring up around the globe, fresh new ideas bubble up, and can be adapted for use all over the globe. What a hopeful and positive way to face these issues! Bravo!
PM3520 4 months ago
it is not the president to blame the congress that they dont cooperate..no matter who run the office still the same shit..blame the republican
rockme4ver 5 months ago
Gee ? I wonder if President Obama has a Transition Plan ? I'm sure he does.. Look at all he has done for us so far! Down grading the economy must be the start. Oh yeah ! Not creating any jobs is a clear step to the Transition Economy! ! So glad that we are ahead on this one... E - con - o - My
3877michael 5 months ago
like if you are from bristol :D
ThePoushal 6 months ago
Dear Rob Hopkins: There is a perfectly possible dream. A dream that can and will solve our energy problem
It is Star Scientific Muon Catalysed Fusion
NO CO2
NO Toxic Waste
Cheap Clean AbundanT Energy
The source is dueterium from seawater - virtually limitless
See their website "Star Scientific Limited"
blog - "The Big Picture by Star Scientific"
Youtube "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
The whole point is that we still currently live in the age of cheap oil but moving toward the end. Commenting today's prices is pointless. Peak oil is a reality, it WILL happen at some stage and if when it happens we are still shipping our food around the globe there WILL reach a point when it is no longer financially viable for commercial companies to haul food across continents. When oil outprices food this will happen over night. Unless of course we find an infinite oil source. Fingers crossd
billpoo90 6 months ago
PROPAGANDA
GanEdenAustralia 6 months ago
I think the best part of this video is the Rolex advertisement at the end which describes the process of ceramic being heated to 1500 degrees and then bombarded with pure gold particles. LOL
hollister927 6 months ago
incredible positive honest visionary!
gaiautube 6 months ago
This guy is one of those doomsayers. Do we need to search more efficient ways to produce energy? Sure. Is a return to medieval condition a desirable goal? Not at all. Remember: in the days of "totally local food reliance", a simple drought that today goes unnoticed meant large mortality by starvation in a local (20-50km radius) population. Easily.
lotwyo 6 months ago
@lotwyo Correct. Nice to see some people know what theyre talking about. This "local food resilience" ideology is the wet dream of all evil elites = you have people actually DESIRING a lower, backwards standard of living! Of course they think only the evils of civilization will go away after peak oil, until they feudal lords knocks on their door one day. Local food = feudalism.
linghun 6 months ago
@linghun Any evidence to support any of these wild claims?
Transition operates in a very methodical manner, the home page will direct you to a plethora or links to government and independent studies that would quite strongly disagree with you.
Comparing to pre industrial farming methods is pretty pointless, we quite clearly no longer live in the Victorian Age, things have come on quite a way since then.
I also fail to see why you specify 'pesticide/fertiliser free argiculture...
billpoo90 6 months ago
@linghun No one WANTS to live in misery, but when you look at all the related issues -- really look carefully -- you can't help but see that humanity itself, our entire human "civilization" is in peril. Without massive inputs of cheap and plentiful energy, the life we currently enjoy can not continue. The Transition movement is about softening the fall -- and creating a wonderful life without so much oil. And, yes, it will mean more work, and more hardship. Sorry, the party's over.
PM3520 4 months ago
@PM3520 But if everyone believes in this theory, then they will pursue a lower standard of living. You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
linghun 4 months ago
@linghun Thanks for your reply. We have a finite supply of oil on a finite planet -- there's no "theory" about the world peak of oil production -- it's a geologic fact. It might not happen as soon as many of us predict, but it MUST happen sooner or later. I think it all depends on how you define "standard of living". If we base that definition on quality of life or health, and not the accumulation of wealth, we can achieve a higher standard of living. Explore "Peak Oil" to learn more.
PM3520 4 months ago
Profoundly stupi point of view. Local food is wasteful and unsustainable, makes societies fragile. Technological breakthroughs are a much better hope, the earth receives 10,000 times more energy from the Sun we consume and nuclear fusion can become an option in 15 years.
linghun 6 months ago
@linghun Local food wasteful and unsustainable?? Please explain, I would be extremely interested in how you came to this conclusion.
billpoo90 6 months ago
@billpoo90 Small scale 'pesticide/fertilizer-free' agriculture requires more energy/ labor per kg or calory produced. Thats why pre-industrial peoples were plagued with famines and starvation, and most people (and children) had to toil in the fields. Carrying produce in small quantities around eco-villages and farmers markets takes more energy than shipping it across the planet on a large vessel. (and yes Im taking into account fossil fuels required to make fertilizers).
linghun 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The peak of the natural warming cycle from the ice age 10,000 years ago is near. Next one is inevitable. Species adapt to this cycle to survive. All species are carbon based. Carbon not a 4 letter word. With creative carbon uses we have prosperity, time/resources/technology to improve our future. Hopkins can promote transitions without scare tactics to sell his ideas of backwards to the future.
scameron39 6 months ago
Comment removed
scameron39 6 months ago
wot a wet liberal twat saying positive stuff about obama get yur head out yur ass cunt
outtacastatv 7 months ago
interesting but very anthropecentric..
TheGregH67 7 months ago
This guy kind of reminds me of hippie Rimmer trying to deal with the polymorph. I bet he's into leaflet campaigns, whist drives, car boot sales, street theater and benefit concerts
mkeysou812 8 months ago
Rickrussel that's still a hell of a lot of energy for one bottle...
MrJero85 8 months ago
its smart but it doesn't go far enough. Please watch Zeitgeist moving forward.
thecisco666 9 months ago
Mr. Hopkins' claims about the energy in a single liter of oil are off by more than an order of magnitude. Based on 6.1+09 joules per barrel, 156 liters per barrel, the liter has 38 million joules. At human labor output of 300 watts (basal metabolic is about 100W), that's 35 **hours**, not days. Scare stories based on bad math.
rickrussell 9 months ago
@rickrussell You too are also making assumptions. 300 watts is about optimum output for an elite athlete over the space of 1 hour. This is not accounting for rest time, fueling, cooling etc. So yes, a top athlete performing at a maximum output level could burn through that in 35 hours, though I doubt those hours would be consecutive. Also, basal metabolic rate does not apply here. You don't output any benefit when you rest.
unloads 7 months ago
@unloads Obviously, there are efficiency questions. 100% caloric conversion of oil to mechanical energy is impossible, and real efficiencies might be 30% or less for IC engines. Drop the human output to 100W of useful work per hour (realistic for a typical day laborer) and the efficiency of oil conversion to mechanical energy at 30%, and the results essential scale. Either way, no way does a liter of oil contain 35 8-hour days of human labor.
rickrussell 7 months ago
@SuperNolimetangere you're misunderstanding he was not comparing chinese people to elves, he was using that story as an analogy to illustrate our current trade situation
RayDandy 9 months ago
@SuperNolimetangere ...eye always consider "the cultured" as a way to occupy the other 90 % of the mind with ediquette dellusions;
~least it do what the mind does in any mammal, try to confabulate closure and correction on what the first 10% is scheming and scaming away in culusion with alter-ego with primary focus on sustaining & justify unwarrented competative behaovir & other non sustainalbe false action perpetuated phycosis; but what do eye know making a homo sapiens think or not to think ?
docatomics 10 months ago
@SuperNolimetangere fair enough, thanks for the link.
wildgrem 10 months ago
@SuperNolimetangere
Good video, I dont know what it has to do with the chinese being compared to elves. That background music sucks ass though.
wildgrem 10 months ago
@SuperNolimetangere link?
wildgrem 10 months ago
@SuperNolimetangere lighten up. People make fun of north americans all the time.
wildgrem 10 months ago
fashion subscribing to sustainability. with a new name, to captures the practice-beyond -the-source.
Slow-Moda after slow-food.
and how far sustainability has come...
wwwf4wpeaceDOTde
tohpengsunberlin 10 months ago
great presentation.
RayDandy 11 months ago
Thanks Rob...we are also here in Sweden working with two local Transition groups...teaching permaculture.
earthwayexperience 1 year ago
...me it's in a personal way - I'm a trekkie. Space is the love of my life, & always believed in humanity exploring space, colonizing other worlds, and even the future possibilities of interstellar travel. But now...unless technology comes to the rescue (which is our only real hope), we'll never get there. And all the wonders we'd have seen, riches we'd know, things we'd learn - they'll be 4ever gone.
I hope there's still reason to hope. When we can't hope anymore, then we're truly finished.
Hypergalactica 1 year ago
...fascist governments by 2100. Most states will likely adopt birth control - the 6.7 billion today live off food completely dependent on cheap oil (& population is still rising). Whoever develops more resilient forms of food (say biotech corps) could pratically control the world. & in any form of government "the hearts of men are easily corrupted". Either civilization will shrink by 2100 or dissapear - I'm almost totally certain of it. Humanity will survive. For all it's sad, but for (cont...)
Hypergalactica 1 year ago
...geopolitical reality. eg lets say Focus Fusion (google it) works. It would render coal obsolete overnight - that would basically crash the economy of many coal-producing countries, with the possibility of China. The economy probably would restabilize eventually, but not without a crisis first. And we can't count on every single amazing idea in Popsci - some may not be feasible.
But the future doesn't seem so bright right now. with Peak oil + climate change, there'll likely be new (cont...)
Hypergalactica 1 year ago
Sometimes I wonder if peak oil - which i predict as happening between now and 2025 - will be so catastrophic as to spark WWIII. But I've been reading very depressing fiction in English all year (1984, Oryx and Crake, etc.), so it could just be extreme pessism. But after midterms, Copenhagen and Cancún I've lost all faith in politics. We are so infatuated with oil and energy that we will not really get out of it until forced. And technology may work, but any new technology must face (cont...)
Hypergalactica 1 year ago
@Hyper There is no doubt that college English classes depress and make bleak the daily world on a far greater level than reality usually can manage. In retrospect, I would not have taken the classes I did; I had the skills to interpret and write about that which I read, so it isn't as if I needed more and more of the very same. And while I appreciate the numerous ways numerous authors comment about life, in the end it wasn't as productive as ignoring most of it and just -producing- in life.
Spearfisher1970 1 year ago
Our future is the The Venus Project.
barod1 1 year ago
how can the crowd not laugh at "elves in the form of china" ?
Pasteldqueijo 1 year ago
Some good ideas with large amounts of naive drivel, and some just flat wrong assertions that make me question the rest of the content.
Berelore 1 year ago
On october 29th 2010, 86.9% of votes were thumbs up.
about 40 000 views.
The Transition Movement is definetely going somewhere.
I myself will be going to promote this in my transition town.
celljackingjr 1 year ago
@ Digeridude
@ ragnarocks0
And, the fat blob soon to die of a heart attack that is being fed from the work of elves is... The United States. LOL
Check out Peter Schiff and his comparison of the current crisis to an island, with the U.S. as the fat guy that consumes and Asia as the workers feeding the fat guy. In other words, the workers will stop feeding the fat guy and sell the products to themselves. Hence, America's decline and Santa Claus' heart attack.
Tothe2012 1 year ago
Actually, technology can solve our energy problem on earth. New innovation may replace oil based economy with hydrogen economy and renewable energy. Also, we still had oil shale reserves amount to a few trillion barrel of oil, so it will last us for another century. This give us enough time for that change to occur. But i believe that mixed approach include energy conservation, technological advancement and clean energy will allow us to be truely independent from fossil fuel.
DammedRight 1 year ago
@DammedRight We don't have any idea how much oil reserves are on the planet and you assuming no growth. We do not have the time you imagine we have. Our children will be made aware of our selfishness as soon as they become uncomfortable. Speaking the way you do is to ignore the problem cause it aint here yet. Very irresponsible no matter how you look at it but I know you don't understand a word I am saying.
wherethegoodgo 1 year ago
@DammedRight
Forget about god damn energy, we can just make electric cars!
The real problem is not energy, it's petroleum products.
How can we make plastic if we have no oil?
Green peace has a website, that website was made on a computer, that computer is made of metal and plastics.
Plastics support oil because they are made of long chains of hydrocarbon from oil.
Metal supports oil because the fire to melt the metal is not powered by wood.
Also the trucks to get the metal from earth
ostapslobodian 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a bunch of anti-God liberal drival. This is crap and doesn't even make sense.
readyjojoy 1 year ago
Lame crowed
frilink 1 year ago
hahahaha 6:30 we have elves in the form of china lol
luisrak6 1 year ago
wow, I always wonder why people are not speaking about a world oil........this is impressive, gives me hope
vijishellboy 1 year ago
The biggest problem of this crisis lies in our mindset, our culture. We are used to ride the wave of cheap oil, we are used to everything just getting bigger and better. Therefore we believe that the future is going to be just like that. This is a dangerous presumption.
What Rob Hopkins is doing with the Transition Network might be the best solution. In the end, living sustainable is not optional. It is a matter of life or death.
engdahlmeister 1 year ago
It seems like there are plenty of technologies, some being researched, new and existing, that can solve the energy crisis. The world has to work together to solve it, no single or few countries can. There needs to be proper management over where a range of tested, renewable technologies and infastructures can be built with full co operation between all countries. The issue then is funding. It would be easier to start from scratch, create new money cycles. It might as well be tokens now anyway!
dynamitefan8 1 year ago
@dynamitefan8 Our financial system does not allow pharmaceutical companies to cure themselves our of business nor will it allow the oil companies to cure our addiction to oil without economic failure. If we made it law that all roofs be covered with solar panel shingles we would crash our economy by shrinking the monetary economy by replacing fossil fuel energy we pay for with energy from the sun with is free of charge. Every watt of energy produced by the sun would shrink our economy.
wherethegoodgo 1 year ago
Comment removed
dynamitefan8 1 year ago
@wherethegoodgo
I understand your point, and economically yes they are too large a part of the system to disappear, certainly in an overnight scenario where a new, clean, infinately available resource is discovered. But then, perhaps a shift from the now antiqued, industrial, but definatly well accepted concept of continuous economic growth is required? On reflection the two philosophies don't exactly mesh so smoothly. To me growth is exponential, sustainability is perpetual!
dynamitefan8 1 year ago
@dynamitefan8 It is not impossible to create a sustainable way of life for all humanity and other forms of life. All the problems we face are technical in nature and can be resolved technically. However, it is not possible given the competitive win financially at all cost economy we have created. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is often used as a measure of economic health is also a measure of pollution and depletion of our environment.Curing our selves out of business is hard to do?
wherethegoodgo 1 year ago
i can't help but laugh at part, "We have the elves in the form of China." Brilliant comparison
ragnarocks0 1 year ago 28
@ragnarocks0
And, the fat blob soon to die of a heart attack that is being fed from the work of elves is... The United States. LOL
Check out Peter Schiff and his comparison of the current crisis to an island, with the U.S. as the fat guy that consumes and Asia as the workers feeding the fat guy. In other words, the workers will stop feeding the fat guy and sell the products to themselves. Hence, America's decline and Santa Claus' heart attack.
Tothe2012 1 year ago
Exact figures may be in error, but I heard number of electric motorbikes sold in China in 2002 was about 50,000. Now five years later, it's already 5,000,000. In due time, it'll be 50,000,000 and 500,000,000. We just need a solar means of producing that energy!
OnePeopleOneChina 2 years ago
The sun provides mother earth the power to strive for billions of years, don't let toxic fumes infect your lungs and make your immune system weaken. We can rid pollution in big cities but humans have to work together.
greenboy215 2 years ago 11
The transition for china to go into electric vehicles has been a success...last week oil prices dropped because china now has a lesser demand for oil.
greenboy215 2 years ago
technology and education is the key. anyways, we have a tendency to do things 'last minute'
also, oil industry is in power right now, so all other energy alternatives are being suppressed. but like the video description says, their field is "steadily running out"
Utsusemi 2 years ago
At 0:02, in the lower left, some digital objects collapse into a pile. Anybody know what that was?
jursamaj 2 years ago
3d desktop, bumptop
v=M0ODskdEPnQ
ovus00 2 years ago
Thanks. :)
jursamaj 2 years ago
It was from a talk called 'Anand Agarawala demos BumpTop' demonstrating a pseudo-3d desktop graphical user interface.
bluesrunthegame 2 years ago
digital collapse : P
SiliconBong 2 years ago
Comment removed
johnbambammorgan 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with the global warming aspect, which he didn't really spend much time on anyway. (It's not a scam, but I won't bother trying to convince you of that.)
My problem is that he thinks we can get a large portion of the population to accept a reduction in energy usage *before* oil runs out. Knowing what I do of human nature, I just don't see it happening.
jursamaj 2 years ago
those ears!
pinochet222 2 years ago
Basically he is stating we need to return to a form of feudalism in order for local, not national, societies to survive. He is advocating the re-establishment of ancient Greece, with it's various city-states under a 'national' identity.
While I think his idea for greater local food production is good, I think we should still pursue the research of alternative energies to replace oil.
cameron120587 2 years ago
@cameron120587
The local production issue is pointless. The major issue is whether we will continue to have the kind of energy available that we have had with oil. If we don't, going back to local food production won't help. It simply *won't* be able to feed the number of people that powered agriculture does.
jursamaj 2 years ago
This guy is so inaccurate that someone hearing this in 5 years will wonder if he was spoofing current conventional wisdom.
DAILEYericCaryUSA 2 years ago
07:08
Uhm... I do really think we can invent a sustainable form of energy (in fact, we already did).
Humanity had to constantly come up with solutions for barriers and problems, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now.
The hardest part is changing the inter-'grown' and established industry into something that can give us substantially more than the wonders of short-term benefit.
AppA 2 years ago
Burning tires is illegal too, I don't see anyone crying about that. So the incandescent bulb is supposed to be phased out by 2014, who gives a damn?
People act like they have an inalienable right to do stupid things when better alternatives are readily available, I don't understand it.
andymcgaha 2 years ago
great talk. imformative and inspireing.
sabelmouse 2 years ago
Oil exploration has picked the low hanging fruit - but the deeper reserves are "massive".
Oil platform "Jack 2" in the Gulf of Mexico, by itself, doubled oil reserves in the US just couple of years ago.
BP's "Tiber Well" just this year is yet another Megawell and again it is just one hole.
Russia - who knows?
And let's not talk about the the oil shale of Green river or up in Canada.
Avoid natural gas reserves as well - Qatar has 200 years of production at peak extraction.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
I studied this for my 12th grade project, and all those alternatives are far more expensive than the current price of extracting petroleum and refining it into gasoline. Do you think you can handle shale and pay more than Europeans currently pay for gasoline?
mostliberal 2 years ago
Florescent bulbs are obsolete. LED bulbs are the future but the funding for R&D for LED bulbs is not available.
So the industry manipulates government to ban incandescent bulbs and force expensive florescent bulbs on us. That way they can fund the R&D of LED bulbs.
Alternative energies are florescent bulbs. The future is sustainable energies but the funding for the R&D for them is not available. So ban oil and force people to buy alternative energies to fund the R&D for sustainable energies.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
That's retarded. You want to force people to pay higher energy prices so that companies do not have to budget for R&D. Clearly you don't understand economics and naively assume that because you're well off, everyone else must be as well, at least to the point where they can afford a hike in their energy costs.
You should try interacting in the real world sometime.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Who said I wanted them to force us to pay higher energy prices???
Who said I was well off? <-- Nice assumption BTW
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
You did:
"So ban oil and force people to buy alternative energies to fund the R&D for sustainable energies."
This only makes sense, of course, if you assume that people can actually afford to pay for the energy that you're forcing them to buy. By "well off," I meant that you're well off enough to afford the luxury of buying the energy of your choice, and many people aren't.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I think it's the difficult nature of trying to convey something within 500 words.
The Alternative energy part was an analogy to fluorescent bulbs.
"Alternative energies are florescent bulbs."
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
I understand that it was an analogy. That doesn't change my statement at all.
Either way, you're saying that it's logical to forcibly increase people's energy costs.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
What I tried to write, within 500 words, was an observation not some kind of directive.
What I observed is profiteering. I'm not for profiteering.
If you're still confused as to the original comment and can't comprehend my explanation to it than I can't help you further.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
I'll let you in on a little secret: you can leave more than one comment. Therefore you're not limited to 500 characters.
Furthermore, I rarely have trouble conveying coherent ideas within 500 characters, so the problem seems to be you, not me.
You need to learn how to phrase what you're saying to distinguish it from something you're observing, and something that you're advocating, because the post that I was responding to was clearly advocating.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Furthermore, if you were talking about profiteering, you should have mentioned it, since your original post had nothing to do with it.
Don't blame me for responding to your ridiculous statements just because they have absolutely nothing to do with what you MEANT to say.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Do I also have to say that this comment is a comment???
I thought the profiteering part was pretty clear to understand.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
The thing that you described in your comment was not profiteering. So no, it wasn't clear at all.
It's hard to even respond to your comments when you continually change focus on which ideas you're talking about.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I don't see the use of continuing if you don't know what profiteering is.
Why you're stuck on the difficulty of conveying ideas within 500 words, and issues with breaking up the comment I do not understand.
It's a waste of both of our time.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not stuck on either of those things.
You said outright: "So ban oil and force people to buy alternative energies to fund the R&D for sustainable energies." You are suggesting the solution to funding sustainable energy is to force people to buy more expensive energy. Let's ignore the fact that this doesn't even make sense for a minute, and examine how this is different from your fluorescent bulb analogy.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
It's all really just a moot point anyway, since your original comment made no sense. Fluorescent bulbs are more expensive because they cost more to make... so I have no idea how you think this extra R&D money will magically pop out of thin air.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"I think it's the difficult nature of trying to convey something within 500 words."
"What I tried to write, within 500 words, was an observation not some kind of directive."
"Why you're stuck on the difficulty of conveying ideas within 500 words,..."
Three times and you still can't understand... :shaking head:...
I'm suggesting that "THEY THINK" the solution to funding is to force people to purchase more expensive energy.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
See, this is what I'm talking about. I bring up a point about your comment (how it makes no sense to try to extract R&D money by forcing people to spend more money on more expensive technology) and you completely ignore it and chase some random tangent. Reading comprehension problem, or just purposeful evasion.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
How does that not make sense to you?
Explain yourself.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
I already did; is your reading comprehension problem getting in the way again?
It's simple economics here: with a higher cost of manufacture, the retail price goes up and the margin for profit is less. In order to extract even more money for R&D, they would have to raise the price of an already expensive technology even further. Which makes no sense.
Why would you raise the price of CFLs when you could just raise the price of cheap-ass incandescents and make way more money?
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
:Face Palm:
Incandescent bulbs have been banned smart one.
Don't reply to me. You're a moron.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
You're joking, right? I'm getting tired of copying and pasting your responses to remind you what you said.
"So the industry manipulates government to ban incandescent bulbs and force expensive florescent bulbs on us."
And the reasoning, according to you, is to generate more profit to fund R&D for LED lighting... which makes no fucking sense.
Try to keep up with the conversation, please.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Industry is the voice if billions of peoples income =]
branboom 2 years ago
I'll let you in on a little secret: People sometimes don't read the entire comment when it's broken up into multiple sections leading to even more confusion. That's why I choose to leave it in just one comment.
You now understand what I was trying to say so the issue is over.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Actually, as I was reading it I thought he was clearly observing, not advocating. And while he didn't use the word profiteering, he did say the industry was forcing people to buy expensive stuff to pay for R&D. *That* statement is dumb, because they're expense because they cost more to produce. That doesn't leave a windfall for the industry.
jursamaj 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wanna find a fellow who can satisfy my needs... Lol.
seeexiamberr 2 years ago
I thought this was a fantastic talk, very thought-provoking and inspirational.
Mrmoc7 2 years ago
"We have elves in the form of China."
All poignancy aside, that line made me laugh.
Digeridude 2 years ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
@Digeridude
And, the fat blob soon to die of a heart attack that is being fed from the work of elves is... The United States. LOL
Check out Peter Schiff and his comparison of the current crisis to an island, with the U.S. as the fat guy that consumes and Asia as the workers feeding the fat guy. In other words, the workers will stop feeding the fat guy and sell the products to themselves. Hence, America's decline and Santa Claus' heart attack.
Tothe2012 1 year ago
@Digeridude The presenter obviously forgot the history of his own country. During the Industrial Revolution, children as young as 4 or 5 worked in appalling conditions in England, they were the elves of the industrial revolution.
ESTAUST01 1 year ago
the way how he presented the oil bottle in the beginning really professional and high class.
megalibra82 2 years ago
Still, can't run cars and other vehicles on nuclear energy. We must push for an alternative fuel transition faster, otherwhise society as we know it will collapse. What would happen to our nuclear facilities if that were to happen?!?
kreaturen 2 years ago
but it can create electricity and power electric cars, only practical with powerful long lasting batteries and fusion reactions if we ever get there.
weightpro 2 years ago
Resilience ruined WoW and now it will ruin real life too
knucklez2 2 years ago
I think people are afraid of nuclear power due to the whole cold war "end of the world" hysteria. The connection between reactors and bombs just freaks out the paranoid.
bentothetenthpower 2 years ago 2
No it,s not that, its how it acts as a waste, needing to be buried hundreds of feet underneath the surface of the earth while we wait for it to finish disintegrating The 4 forms of energy I like are:
Tidal
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Nuclear doesn't seem efficient to me.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
@ReyAudentio
Nuclear power is vastly more efficient than any of those, and the problem with radioactive waste is being (mostly) solved by methods of re-purification and Breeder reactors. In any case, Fission stations should only be needed for another 20-50 years until Fusion is refined commercialized, this should however be in conjunction with the other methods you mentioned to help decentralize the power system.
hal970fx 2 years ago
ya that would be nice if when that fusion plant is finished if it will work, pretty much infinite energy with incredible input/ouput power return
weightpro 2 years ago
Nuclear waste doesn't disintegrate. Clearly you lack even the most basic understanding of what you are talking about.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Im sorry my terminology offended someone as sensitive as you, I'll re-explain. Ur-235, 233, and Pu-239 is whats commonly used in reactors as mediums of fission. The time required for most of the radioactive isotopes to decay is great, usually 50 years, and until then it has to be handled carefully before it can be throw out as normal refuse. Storage and handling of the waste is whats costly and inefficient and what makes nuclear power, in this day and age, not a viable source of energy.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
I operated a nuclear reactor for 5 years when I was in the Navy. You're talking about half-life. U-235 is what we used, which has a half-life of 700 million years. That is, it takes 700 million years for HALF of those atoms to decay into thorium-231, which is also radioactive.
Aside from the fact that U-235 is found naturally, the point that you're missing is that the decay process is what releases stray particles that cause tissue damage, so long half-lives are a good thing.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Secondly, another face that your ignorance is preventing you from understanding is that fission is the result of U-235 atoms absorbing neutrons and breaking apart and into fission products, namely xenon, krypton, and iodine. So U-235's half-life has absolutely no consequence on the concern of radioactive waste.
The sad thing is, 5 minutes on google could have prevented you from making yourself look like a total dumbass.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Does that say face? It should say fact. Can't really tell because I"m staring at a low-def TV set.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
i thought half life was the time it takes for half of that atom's mass to decay?
weightpro 2 years ago
No.
An unstable isotope releases a particle, such as a beta or alpha, and energy is released in the process. The release of that particle causes the atom to become a different element. That is what decay is.
As uranium decays to thorium, over 700 million years, you wind up with half uranium atoms and half thorium atoms. It's not a change of mass, it's a change of element.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
ok, thanks, just wasn't sure.
weightpro 2 years ago
You are correct that half life is the time it takes for 1/2 of the atoms to decay into different atoms.
The new atoms do have a different mass though.
Thorium 234 is about 4 less grams per mole then uranium 238. That is why they are different elements..
In point of fact if you pulled all the protons and neutrons out of an atom you would end up with more mass in the parts then you had in the original atom. A mole of U-238 the mass would go up almost 2 grams.
abram730 2 years ago
You're forgetting the mass of the particles released upon decay. The total mass is still the same. There is no disappearing mass.
It's not just a new element, it's a new element plus whatever particle (beta, alpha, etc) gets released. Those particles are what do radiation damage.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
abram730 2 years ago
Yeah, my math is lacking significant digits.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Also, just because you don't like my terminology, that doesn't mean I lack basic understanding of what I am talking about, this coming from someone who attacks a word in my explication but doesn't take the effort to correct it. It makes you seem ill-informed. You seem rather to correct me for your own amusement, than to add anything useful to the discussion.
ReyAudentio 2 years ago
Um, yes it is that, at least for some ( a lot ) of people.
bentothetenthpower 2 years ago
Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine so that farmers could grow their own fuel ... how easily we forget
somehow big oil monopolized such a pure idea; with hempseed or rapeseed the refuse of the oil extraction process is even a nutritious feedstock
of course with hemp the bonus is all that .... fibre, which of course was the way we made paper before we learned how to soak lumps of wood in acid for pulp
the world's gone fuckin mad
alSation81 2 years ago
I love how rolex manages to make some standard manufacturing processes sound so exciting.
elminz 2 years ago
this was what ive been wanting to hear forever, that oil is limited and we need to move on, wind and solar and geothermal r way more efficient
ebird97 2 years ago
I agree. Why mine for a fuel when the sun is pumping down onto us
MrqLaw 2 years ago 2
Don't count on the chinese to produce it for ya.
GlueSniffer4Life 2 years ago
rolex: high academic achievemnt an idea WORth spreading? how 'bout i spread locally produced nut butter on the idea of my but cheeks spread before mr rolex's puffy pink and pursed kissah!!!!! decarbonization mother(earth)fuckerrrs!!!!, flood your entire town with warm porridge! !!!!!
taumibaubo 2 years ago
no joke.
pauperton 2 years ago
can you translate that to English?
alSation81 2 years ago
i fancy wordplay a means to activate a literal brain blossoming, indispenceable to the "loving and leaving" process, i figure. Use of the f-bomb "...fuckerrs" here pertains to the 'honest ignorance' meme in humankind. motherfucking might not be so bad, but throw insensitivty and excess force/use of dinosaur thinking style: we got somthing so terrible; a place for intolerance, I'd say. and warm porridge is a soft metaphor for excess use of deleterious activity. an 'i feel fine' apocolypse.
taumibaubo 2 years ago
sorry I get it now ... the rolex ad stuck on the end!
its more an angry reaction to the prospect of change with these people, however inevitable change may be: its more 'head-in-sand armageddon' than 'I feel fine apocalypse' don't you think?
alSation81 2 years ago 2
'what's to be done' after our 'realistic assessment'?#$%^... takes courage, revised values--- from the bottom up. i don't want to believe the masses are asses. I'd rather zero in on 'what can i do' ---- to ease into transition: head out of the sand. ignorance isn't just bliss: ignorance can be treacherous, too. i don't feel fine selling out to 'he with the most toys at the end of the world wins!' contest... i'll be at a farmers market, dancing to Pachamamas drum. (earth=heart)
taumibaubo 2 years ago
Comment removed
taumibaubo 2 years ago
Why is oil still used? Because it's still cheap. Supply and demand. As the supply of oil wanes, the cost of using it will rise, and that will drive incentive for innovation of new energy technologies.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 8
I agree that the rising cost of oil will mean there will be an incentive for new energy technologies. The question is will we develop those technologies before an oil crisis disrupts our civilization.
I hope you are right. We use oil for mobility and food production. Our economy relies on economic growth, and that growth relies on increasing amounts of oil. When Peak Oil hits, that oil will hit a cap. How will we commute to work, how will we grow food?
Will Kurzweil's magical tech be invented?
mollytherealdeal 2 years ago
What a waste of time, this guy just says the common knowledge everyone knows.
geoffreyphilip 2 years ago
chinese elves: they make our shit
atypicalguy 2 years ago 3
This was a great talk. Working toward "resilience" is a nicer way of putting it than "sustainability." It puts the emphasis on what's practical and attainable.
ShadowShorts 2 years ago 2
Your car (if you have one) uses energy at a rate of about 100 kW; enough to power a hundred households or 3000-4000 laptops. If you think that millions of cars can be powered from the grid, you're hallucinating. The post-oil world will be different than the pre-oil one but the current wasteful lifestyle will have to go. At the very least cars will be far less massive, abundant and powerful. We might see the resurgence of buses, trams and trains though.
GlueSniffer4Life 2 years ago
100 kW is the maximum demand that an engine places on the batteries. Most of the time you will use a small fraction of the maximum power.
When a car is charging it doesn't draw 100 kW from the grid either. We have control over the draw. I do agree we would need far more power generation, but not as much as you would think.
salaymeh 2 years ago 2
The energy is all around us. We just have to harness it. Ever try to push a tree down? The wind is able to. Harness the wind effectively, Establish solar network. Biomass/methane heating. design cities with efficiency in mind. no more of this .5 - 2 hr commute.
MrqLaw 2 years ago
ever tried to push a city down? a nuclear reactor is able to.
Ramsez 2 years ago
which is why nuclear is not a solution. When things go wrong you get Chernobyl.
Also it isn't as efficient as they claim. A lot of energy goes into finding the uranium, a lot of energy goes into refining it. A lot of energy is used to deal with the waste. And this isn't including the environmental impact. Uranium mining ruins local ecology. And what happens when uranium 238 becomes to scarce or costly to find. As long as we have an atmosphere and the sun, we have wind.
MrqLaw 2 years ago
It's possible to design nuclear power plants in a way so that disasters like Chernobyl are not possible. In the 23 years since the Chernobyl disaster there have been many new designs suggested to make nuclear power plants safer. See for example pebble bed reactors.
drapiher 2 years ago 2
US reactors have been safe from the start. Any pressurized water reactor design would prevent another Chernobyl. These are the designs (essentially from the 50's) that Navy subs use. They are water-cooled and moderated, have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, and are pressurized to prevent boiling within the core. All of these things ensure that a reactor will never generate the amounts of heat (or erupt in a radioactive fire) that Chernobyl did. Chernobyl was a bad design.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
True, true. Uranium isn't the answer. It might be able to buy us more time, but it's not a solution.
SmileyWhiplash 2 years ago
yep, also i can see the price of Uranium going up and UP
tetranoob 2 years ago
Anti-nuclear people are idiots. Disasters like Chernobyl? There has only been ONE disaster, and it was a combination of both design flaws and operator errors (multiples of both) that culminated in a perfect storm of nuclear catastrophe.
Nuclear plants aren't built or operated like Chernobyl anymore, which is why there's never been, and never will be, any other disaster like it.
Nuclear is cleaner, safer, and cheaper than even coal. Not using nuclear power just makes the energy crisis worse.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 4
Um... one, actually two words. Waste, Unsustainable
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
Two words: Yucca Mountain. Dealing with nuclear waste simple isn't the problem you guys are making it out to be.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 2
what waste? We can use the waste as fuel or simply photodisintegrate it into none radioactive material and that photodisintegration process can be used as a reactor component.
There is at least a five billion year supply of fissile fuel on earth. About the same time our sun has left.
That large supply however is with fast breeders, burning U-238 as fuel and using more cycles.
Or reactor tech is very old. There has been at least 25 accidents so there is room for safety improvements.
abram730 2 years ago
@787Bisurdaddy Agreed. France gets 75 per cent of it's energy from nuclear power with no significant incidents. Certainly no Chernoybl-like disasters.
punchthedog 2 years ago
funny but sad :(
rowanrockhopper2 2 years ago
Comment removed
SmileyWhiplash 2 years ago
Harness the power. Use your anger.
Ramsez 2 years ago 2
i just did a mini lol
tetranoob 2 years ago
ok, i agree on our back yard vegetable gardens, but how are we goning to fly our planes and travel long distances when oil runs dry??
VladTepeshu 2 years ago
i guess with Hidrogen, but there is a lot of work to do for engineers. Or it just going to be for the richest.
sysFail81 2 years ago