Rob Hopkins: Transition to a world without oil
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лис 2009
- www.ted.com Rob Hopkins reminds us that the oil our world depends on is steadily running out. He proposes a unique solution to this problem -- the Transition response, where we prepare ourselves for life without oil and sacrifice our luxuries to build systems and communities that are completely independent of fossil fuels.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10 - Наука та технологія
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!
I see a lot of comments applauding the fact that we have not run out of oil yet and we have generations of oil still ahead of us. And yet the reality is, if we BURN that oil, we ensure the planet reaches a level of climate change that is incompatible with life. Whether we are literally running out of oil, or we simply cannot use that oil because it contributes to climate change, the result is - we need to change.
Yes, we need to change, agreed. But, I disagree with the notion that the "climate change will be incompatible with life". I think this part nobody can accurately project what might happen, or when it will happen, or to what degree. Our ability to predict the weather next month is questionable, much less 100 years from today. I'm more optimistic, I think humans will find a way to adapt, or innovate, and to hopefully prosper. I worry more about population growth, and our ability to sustain human development. Can you imagine the natural resources that would be required if every human living today lived at the same lifestyle standard as the average American? The natural resources of the world cannot sustain it.
Starting with a real focus on the local food supply is a great way to start.
Thank you so much, it's going to be tough, but we are on the right way! lots of love to everyone.
I think he's talking about resilience to running out of oil, not climate change. And in that context his speech makes a lot of sense.
I love how rolex manages to make some standard manufacturing processes sound so exciting.
It's not a talk about energy that will replace oil so everyone can keep a destructive lifestyle going longer...business as usually, keeping a civilization that needs lots of inputs and we need to keep consuming. It's about learning how to function, build a life, and create systems that doesn't require a lot of inputs...energy and money. Alternative renewable energy sources are different in every area and your energy should come from different sources, hopefully local and community owned. Examples: use passive solar houses...if you do need heat once in a while, use masonry stove with coppiced wood or solar..look into trompe/compressed air systems. Form a structure where you live where your basic necessities can be sourced locally so it requires less energy and transportation cost.
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
the way how he presented the oil bottle in the beginning really professional and high class.
For the past 30 years, we have on average, discovered less oil in each year than we used that year. Tight oil, bituminous sands and offshore drilling are very expensive and energy-intensive stop-gap measures with a much lower EROEI than conventional oil used to provide (and even conventional oil has decreasing EROEI). The party may not be quite over yet, but the beer and the chips are pretty much gone and most of the hot chicks have already left.
Thanks Rob...we are also here in Sweden working with two local Transition groups...teaching permaculture.
A brilliant lecture covering resilience and transition - an inspiring and hopeful message.
If you stick around to see the Rolex advertisement after, it's a slap in the face to those who rightly state that clean water and oil are finite resources. In the production of luxury items especially, there is so much waste of resources...
This guy expressed my views more eloquently than I ever could.
Actually, timar03 is correct. There are two thresholds in oil production: physical and economic. When it takes more energy to get the oil than it gives, we've reached the physical limit. This is much below the economic limit where it gets too expensive to pump the oil out compared to the profit it brings. We will leave *huge* amounts of oil in the ground even well past peak.
I chose this video for my SJ project, it's a little out of context but I have an explanation. I went to a meeting yesterday evening and the topic was about putting a Hydro Dam in Fraser Falls located in our First Nations region. In this video they talk about climate change and what not, and like this Hydro Dam that they want to set up years from now. 1/2
1.353 kW/m2 is an absolute max. Mostly, it's a *lot* lower.
Your 700 acres is 2,832,799.5 m2 -> 3833 MW. 600MW is less than 16% efficiency, in a near ideal location. (Even worse if you account for the area used by non-power structures.)
And checking some sites, it looks like building may cost 3 times what they claim.
To get even a significant fraction of the Earth's insolation will require that fraction of the *land area*. And you can't do it where you want crops or wild plants growing.
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.
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.
Its an awesome movie!
Very worth taking the time to see!
:)
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.
Spot on Mr. Hopkins.
@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.
Getting the timing wrong doesn't invalidate the point. But yeah, it may very well be that people half cried wolf so many times that when the wolf finally does show up, no one will bother.
i thought he was going to talk about how to deal with the extremely powerful people trying to stop a transition from oil to something else
Yeah I read in my geology text book that is the case if we use Breeder reactors, because right now only the present burner reactors only about 1% of the Uranium is used in the reactor and about 99% ends up in waste.
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 density applies more to vehicles. Battery powered cars are OK for in-town, not so much for long distances. And you have losses when you charge the batteries.
Likewise, turning the electricity into useful chemical fuel will have a lot of losses, if you can find a good way to do it.
Rob Hopkins is a man who truly appreciates the power of fossil fuel. Seriously; only people who have dug the earth and labored under the sun can truly appreciate the power of a liter of petroleum...And will never take advantage of it and waste it.
@SuperNolimetangere fair enough, thanks for the link.
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.
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?
@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.
fusion power is something of a pipe dream, so I don't think its feasible but yes Nuclear power based on fission is feasible for powering society so I would agree there.
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 Rolex watch advertisment at the end is proudly announcing that it takes 40 hours of heating up to 1500 degrees and polishing etc. to make each ceramic bezil for each Rolex watch!!! I guess reducing energy consumption doesn't apply for the wealthy elite who own Rolex watches.
There was a reason why food crops have come to be grown in large farms. Its more efficient to grow food that way. Nothing against locally grown crops, but the solution is to come up with transportation that runs on sustainable energy sources, not just for every community to grow their own. How about electric trains that run off wind / hydro power as an idea?
@SuperNolimetangere link?
I am not saying your are wrong, but where did you get the data on uranium and thorium reserves vs current energy consumption? I looked and could find it, could you please provide a link. Thanks.
Exactly, there is no need for oil, the technologies for a forward - better path is available.
@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!
As much as I would love to live in a cleaner world, the party really isn't quite over yet. Recently we have discovered several more oil deposits, and with future technology, will have access to several that we know are there now, but can't get to. With this, it's estimated we have enough oil for several generations to come.
At 0:02, in the lower left, some digital objects collapse into a pile. Anybody know what that was?
Thanks. :)
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 am not trying to attack you, but you didn't see the message in this talk: Focus on the solutions, not the problems.
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??
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?
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.
We can start the transition by implementing alternative energy available now for everyday use and then research to improve it.
@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.
awesome !
5 stars
It is indeed!
But sometimes i whish i`ve never seen it :-/
Rickrussel that's still a hell of a lot of energy for one bottle...
the transition town i'm in is working on the problems of capitalism with growth & the monetary market system etc.
Why cant people of US all develop cities like New York where you need no car to live?
Thanks sherlock
Think Locally, act Globally.
Think globally, act universally -__-
nice video :D it's all a challenge
inspiring..:)
I wouldn't say that the issue is oil, but more what is AFTER oil? Like you said our lives revolve around oil, but there are alternatives. If we can control thermo-nuclear energy, we will have a near limitless supply of energy, if we can have a society fueled on hydrogen, we will have a near limitless supply of energy. The only problems are changing our way of life and being able to control these powers. Change has always been deemed heretic, it will be hard to turn away from oil use.
@abram730
Solar is nice, but it simply doesn't have the needed energy density.
So the answer to oil-independence is to plant your own garden?
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.
@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.
@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.
@ Loathomar from Intoduction to Environmental Geology Forth Edition, by Edward A. Keller
@linghun Local food wasteful and unsustainable?? Please explain, I would be extremely interested in how you came to this conclusion.
we will find energy source to replace oil. we will innovate design to use energy for efficiently.
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.
The issue is, Oil is needed for our way of life. There is no alternative to oil on this planet. People fail to understand that hydroelectric and wind/solar power is NOT possible without crude oil. You cannot have industry with mechanics or anything that isn't hand made. When the oil runs out, we'll be reset to tribes that hunt and gather. No tires for vehicles. No computers. No shipping or mass transit of any product. No assembly line. No food ect.
And it tastes good too!
Any plutonium 239 is also known as "Weapons-grade plutonium" which would be the same grade as the world would have in the 65,000 know nuclear weapons. So we should then be able to turn these weapons of mass death into tools of mass life (ei tools to product massive amounts of energy). A sort of swords to plowshares to the n-th degree. Does that seem correct?
we no longer need to mine Uranium, Uranium it can be harvested from Warheads which the US may be doing with Russian warheads its also not the only fuel available for reactors, just remember that Nuclear doesn't necessarily mean the use of Uranium, or any heavy mining activity at all... Fusion reactors now are viable and work... check out Nuclear reactors and you will see that there are many more options than the reactors that you think about when you hear the word "Nuclear"
Nuclear/renewables could theoretically provide maximum of two fifths of global energy supply? Everyday world uses ~16TW of energy. Everyday ~86,000TW of solar energy hits the earth. Solar price-performance is improving exponentially. That's just solar. Modern farming needs to be modified anyways, and I think food production can be maintained with certain caveats of course.
thanks, I would like totalnerd747 source if he has one. I am by no means a nuclear engineer (electrical my self), but couldn't we use energy from nuclear weapons to generate nuclear power? I mean in 1985 the world had 65,000 active weapons and, while I do not personally know the means, I would guess that there was a way or a way could be invented to use these weapons for power. Even if your current tech only allows us to use U-235, that should mean we could use others soon, does it?
I agree. Why mine for a fuel when the sun is pumping down onto us
MrqLaw because the elites wants money and satiate their greed
How many people are willing to give up their modern conveniences. My guess would be zero...
a Closed system engine useing plasma actions i made a bloody weed eater engine and it works fine no ex=ost no intakes the electrodes is two in two out the outs are diode style same as the in comeing charges a tiny even atosphere
I'm just afraid that we're going to be facing the same problems, like in the video, "we can't create new land and new energy systems with a click of a mouse". It will be a long and hard process but I just don't agree with it because it's something that you just can't take back, and it will have a huge negative effect on the traditional land. 2/2
when all else fails, insult all those holding opposing views without justification and dismiss their ideas! Right edgrot?
i can't help but laugh at part, "We have the elves in the form of China." Brilliant comparison
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!
Actually there is enough uranium to on the dry land to provide all the world energy needs for 5000 years. And there are many other fissile materials.
Correct!
The question is : is there enough planet?..
Um, yes it is that, at least for some ( a lot ) of people.
this guy sounds almost exactly like Yahtzee, the infamous video game critic.
we're screwed!
Fusion power a pipe dream? I think your being a bit vague. Did you mean "cold fusion" being a pipe dream. Our sun is a large fusion reactor
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.
Well there is a type or reactor called breeder reactors that can convert the 99% waste from the burner reactors into a new fuel, plutonium 239.
THIS IS MY UNCLE
"Sorry, the party's over." Robert Malthus ~ 1803
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?!?
innovating our way out of problems is just what we do as the sole surviving hominid species. our game has only been played over 250,000 years so just dying out would make us the shortest lived species in known history. do we really want that? just keep innovating, seems to be working so far
This video makes you think. Yes it would be nice to have solar but not all solar. We also need energy plants. People have their own opinions but what do you think is better for the earth...?
anyone interested in the future of energy, look up the Tokamak.
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.
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
cool :)
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.