Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,928 Posts
That was a good video. I was already aware of nearly all of that, though the perspectives it offers are fairly profound.

We plan on buying our first home in 2012 or 2013, and we've made a goal to be off the grid within 10 years of home ownership. Our criteria in a property are two things: As many acres as possible, and a water feature such as a creek. You can build shops, barns and house additions, but you cannot build a creek. A source of fresh water is paramount to self sufficiency in so many regards.

It has always been a goal of mine to be self sufficient. I'm not sure why exactly, but it's always been something that has appealed to me.

In the event of world economic collapse, all Insight owners are automatically welcome in our compound. :) lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
I just finished watching this video and how true it is. The world has a limited amount of resources, which countries and an increasing world population is going to be competing for in the near future. In fact, it's happening already.

Sent from my Autoguide iPad app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
This looks like a possible new energy source that was not discussed in the video, and could really change things.
LENR-CANR.org
New site
COLD FUSION NOW! | - Free Energy For All Mankind!
As a Ph.D. former research scientist, I am very skeptical about the promises of so-called cold fusion. If this were based on real science, scientists and corporations would be all over it. Unless physics has it all wrong (or I don't understand cold fusion), the amount of energy required to initiate fusion could not be produced chemically. "Cold" implies low energy, so I don't understand how any low-energy process could initiation nuclear fusion. If this were the case, wouldn't cold fusion be occurring naturally?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
A really well done appraisal of the world as we know it, and where we came from and where we are headed, and why.
There's No Tomorrow - YouTube
I agree! Unfortunately, there was no explicit mention of "growth" including population growth, the real basis of current and future problems. Hopefully, most of those who view this animated cartoon would understand that serious future problems will be almost impossible to solve without a decline in human population. This decline will occur one way or another. Choosing to reduce our population by limiting the number of children born to 1 per couple would certainly be far less dire than a decline due to disease, famine, war, etc. which are inevitable with continued population growth. It's too bad that people don't seem to understand that having more than 2 children per couple is adding to the serious problems that their children will face. The desire to have more than 1 child seems rather selfish considering that the children will be faced with greater problems than their parents.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It looks real to me

Art,
follow some of the links about cold fusion,
MIT, CERN ,NASA, DARPA, and many prestigious labs are all getting positive results.

100% nickel in, copper and iron are produced in the reaction, as much as 40% of the nickle is converted to copper after months of over 500% excess thermal output relative to the electric heater that gets it started. After it gets going, the pressure of the hydrogen and the temperature you let it reach is the throttle, and it can run with no further energy input for months, on a small container of hydrogen, which is consumed at a very low rate in the process.
A thermos sized core could heat not only the hot water, but space heating and electrical, for an average US home for a year.Of course this is all so new, and the basic physics is still being worked out,that the amount of optimization that is possible is still unknown.

The 10KW Rossi unit that has been demonstrated and tested in the labs above has a core the size of a D battery, and it runs for daysproducing over 10KW of heat as hot water or dry steam.

A Mr fusion machine for our Insights may be just around the corner.
At first the name cold fusion was a sure way to not get published, but now, everyone is looking into it, as it seems to be real.
Edmund Storms has some good videos on You tube.

Paladium and heavy water was what Fleshman and Ponds used, but there are several other methods that also produce even more excess energy, with some results showing thousands of times the thermal output compared to what it took to heat it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,007 Posts
Rossi's going to be revealed as yet another fraudster.

Thorium reactors FTW.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
I'm scared guys.
I believe this will happen for a very good reason, although this may not be the most desirable thing to think about, depending on your point of view.

During the production of my Insight Tail two years ago, we have five brand new, full size pickups in the neighborhood.

I feel that most people have no idea how dependent we are on oil, and what it means to us if we don't have it in plenty.

The silver lining, is that all this will bring better focus to our lives. And that will truly be a good thing.

Jim.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,820 Posts
A friend sent me this link.
A really well done appraisal of the world as we know it, and where we came from and where we are headed, and why.
There's No Tomorrow - YouTube
A nice introductory video ... even if with a clearly negative bias.

Are there issues? Absolutely!
But, I personally see several parts differently than presented in that video.

#1>
Human Population growth rates have already begun to peak as well in many places ... for a variety of factors ... not only is this ignored in the video ... but they try to suggest the opposite of what is actually happening ... yes total population is still growing ... but the rate is already showing signs of decline ... just like we see signs of decline in oil production... even though there still is oil production... In short we are also near Peak Population Growth ... which will also go into decline... Link

#2>
The video suggest more efficient technologies result in more net energy use ... this is deceptive ... Despite population growth of raw people numbers in the U.S. the average energy use per person has been nearly level ... efficiencies of energy use are increasing as fast as population growth... See attached bellow.. despite about ~50% more total people in the U.S. from 1970 to 2008 , the net average energy use per person has been nearly level... during the same time we added computer's the Internet, Cell Phones, AC , etc ... we added all these energy consuming things ... yet the average energy use per person has not changed much sense 1970s.

#3>
As fossil fuels become more expensive they make alternatives more cost effective... every $0.01 increase in oil increases the cost effectiveness of oil alternatives... so while the video showed the increasing oil trend it ignored the decreasing RE costs ( see attached bellow ) ... and the logic of the connection between them... It further ignored our current disproportionally larger incentives currently paid to Fossil Fuels over RE ... see attached ... that is a policy choice artificially supporting the current cost effective ratio between fossil fuels and RE.

#4>
The video looked at the negative side of food for a growing population ... but it ignored the current positive data trend ... In the U.S. despite the increased population of about ~35% from 1982 to 2007 , due to improved agricultural techniques we have been able to feed those increased number of people with less farm land planted ... see attached ... our growth rate has been slower than our agricultural food production improvements.

etc ... etc...
it goes on and on.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
While the word is out if you chose to believe it, and many people are doing the right thing from the energy and sustainable resources point of view, it is a matter of too little too late.
India and China are putting cars on the road at an amazing rate, and are buying up much of the copper and other materials required to modernize their infrastructure. Have you bought some copper wire lately? Price has nearly doubled in the last 2 years.

Population in some countries is level and declining, but the world population is anything but declining, and all of them will need food and energy. Growth is not sustainable in a fixed size earth.and we don't have any more worlds nearby that we can move to.

Of course, a giant solar flare, asteroid impact, or severe climate change, could get things back to basics pretty quick, if we want to worry.

As far as Rossi,
MIT has one of his devices running in an open experiment, NASA has several that they are evaluating. Labs all over the world are finding excess energy in their experiments. Japan has a huge cold fusion research program, as they are operating in emergency mode after they Nuclear accident, and need an alternative quickly.

I for one will be leaving a space in the rear hatch area of my Insight for my Mr Fusion machine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,820 Posts
it is a matter of too little too late.
We'll see.
But I don't see the data pointing in that direction... if anything the data looks to point in a different direction.

India and China are putting cars on the road at an amazing rate, and are buying up much of the copper and other materials required to modernize their infrastructure.
I don't see that changing anything.
  • They only do those things because they are still cost effective at this point ... as they get more expensive they won't do it anymore.
  • The use of recyclable materials like copper , aluminum , are not consumables ... unlike fossil fuels they can be reused over and over again ... the worst thing that happens to their cost is that we have to pay more real prices for them ... instead of the artificially deflated prices caused by the exploitation of lower economies.
  • When developing countries can't afford to put cars on the road then we see a point where the richer countries will likely follow after them... the richer can always afford to do things that are less cost effective than the poor can ... that we even see these poorer countries do this is a good indication of how cost effective it still is.
Have you bought some copper wire lately? Price has nearly doubled in the last 2 years.
And it is still used were it is the cost effective option.
As the price changes so does the cost effectiveness of alternatives.
For some Applications utility companies use Aluminum because Copper wasn't cost effective ... this isn't a recent event and has been happening for many years.

Population in some countries is level and declining, but the world population is anything but declining, and all of them will need food and energy.
The growth rate of the entire human global population is slowing.
Yes it is still a positive growth rate ... but the rate itself is not growing ... it is obeying a bell curve like shape ... same concept as peak oil.

1 Billion Total Humans 1st achieved after millions of years in 1800
2 Billion Total Humans ~1930 ... 130 years later (average ~0.5% yearly increase)
3 Billion Total Humans ~1960 ... 30 years later (average ~1.5% yearly increase)
4 Billion Total Humans ~1974 ... 14 years later (average ~2.0% yearly increase)
5 Billion Total Humans ~1987 ... 13 years later (average ~1.75% yearly increase)
6 Billion Total Humans ~1998 ... 11 years later (average ~1.6% yearly increase)
7 Billion Total Humans ~2012 ... 14 years later (average ~1.1% yearly increase)

The growth rate of total human global population peaked back in the 1970s ... and the growth rate has been in decline ever sense.

Further increases in the cost of things will only put more pressure to further decrease the net population growth rate.

At the current rate of a declining growth rate ... I might see the total population peak in my life time.

Growth is not sustainable in a fixed size earth.and we don't have any more worlds nearby that we can move to.
100% agree.
I hope I live long enough to see the wide spread transition to a more sustainable human system... It is a slow process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
A nice introductory video ... even if with a clearly negative bias.
I would characterize it as a "realistic" bias.

Human Population growth rates have already begun to peak as well in many places ... for a variety of factors ... not only is this ignored in the video ... but they try to suggest the opposite of what is actually happening
My complaint was that explicit mention of population growth was missing from the video. I watched it again and still found no explicit mention of population growth being a problem. The video did mention that economies are growing at 3% per annum on average which can't be sustained. Population and standard of living growth both drive economic growth, so even when (if?) the population stabilizes, billions will be demanding a higher standard of living which cannot be provided. So I think that a forced decline in population and standard of living will occur which won't make people happy.

Current economies are Ponzi schemes that require continued growth to function. Those countries whose populations have stabilized or are declining are trying to increase birth and/or immigration rates rather than changing the way their economies function :-( I'd love to hear knowledgeable non-idealistic economists discuss how economies must change to become sustainable. Maybe this isn't possible without unpopular standard of living declines (cf., Greece).

Despite population growth of raw people numbers in the U.S. the average energy use per person has been nearly level ... efficiencies of energy use are increasing as fast as population growth
These efficiencies will be swamped by the developing world's billions who cannot afford the technologies responsible for these efficiencies.

As fossil fuels become more expensive they make alternatives more cost effective... every $0.01 increase in oil increases the cost effectiveness of oil alternatives... so while the video showed the increasing oil trend it ignored the decreasing RE costs ( see attached bellow ) ... and the logic of the connection between them... It further ignored our current disproportionally larger incentives currently paid to Fossil Fuels over RE
Until some significant RE technology is capable of providing variable base loads or until electricity storage technologies support the economical storage of large amounts of electrical energy, RE technology cannot replace fossil fuel and nuclear electrical generation, can it?

The video looked at the negative side of food for a growing population ... but it ignored the current positive data trend ... In the U.S. despite the increased population of about ~35% from 1982 to 2007 , due to improved agricultural techniques we have been able to feed those increased number of people with less farm land planted ... see attached ... our growth rate has been slower than our agricultural food production improvements.
What you categorize as "agricultural food production improvements", others would categorize as unsustainable food production techniques. The increased use of petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides has improved food production tremendously while creating huge problems. The "green revolution" is being reversed in many locations because of these problems. Genetic engineering of food crops is certainly fraught with the possibilities of serious unintended consequences. Continued conversion of forests to agricultural fields and desertification of former agricultural areas isn't sustainable.

The inefficient conversion of soil nutrients to animal protein is not sustainable, so meat production has to be replaced by vegetable production. But the billions in developing countries are demanding more animal protein, not less.

The current free market craze, especially in the U.S., has done little to reverse the trend toward the total collapse of fish populations in the oceans. The free market solution would be to fish wild fish until it's unaffordable and then resort to fish farming which is causing tremendous problems. But there always seem to be enough wealthy people to pay the ever-increasing prices of wild seafood, so as has happened to several fish species, the free market is unlikely to prevent a total collapse of all fisheries eventually.

Too much optimism that technological solutions will solve so many serious problems can result in inaction to delay the worst of the problems ahead. Too much faith that the free market will take care of everything, the rejection of science (e.g., human-caused climate change), and the belief that some god will take care of us make me very pessimistic about the future of the human species. The Earth will survive regardless, and some species that we won't have taken down with us will survive. Fortunately, I have no children and will die before things get really bad.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,820 Posts
My complaint was that explicit mention of population growth was missing from the video. I watched it again and still found no explicit mention of population growth being a problem.
It was a little subtle ... it was the bacteria in a bottle example ... then they do a visual parallel with a lack of multiple earths.

The video did mention that economies are growing at 3% per annum on average which can't be sustained. Population and standard of living growth both drive economic growth, so even when (if?) the population stabilizes, billions will be demanding a higher standard of living which cannot be provided. So I think that a forced decline in population and standard of living will occur which won't make people happy.
That's the back side of the bell curve.
Supply and Demand ... if the poor people of the 3rd world demand 1st world stuff , but don't have the means to supply what it costs ... then they don't get it... the 3rd world and the poor of the world will be the first to take the hits and will take the hardest hits.

I'd love to hear knowledgeable non-idealistic economists discuss how economies must change to become sustainable. Maybe this isn't possible without unpopular standard of living declines (cf., Greece).
Maybe ... I'd say the standard of living for those in the U.S. has increased significantly ... while the energy consumption for that standard of living has not.

These efficiencies will be swamped by the developing world's billions who cannot afford the technologies responsible for these efficiencies.
They also won't be able to afford the energy spending devices either ... central Air Conditioning ... Hummers ... modern medical care ... etc.

Until some significant RE technology is capable of providing variable base loads or until electricity storage technologies support the economical storage of large amounts of electrical energy, RE technology cannot replace fossil fuel and nuclear electrical generation, can it?
Of course it can as it is already... what we can do and what we already have built are different things.

What you categorize as "agricultural food production improvements", others would categorize as unsustainable food production techniques.
Possible ... but even if that is the case ... that would be a reverse bell curve ... and eventually the reducing use of land would reverse and we would start a trend in the other direction with more land year after year after year ... we haven't reached that yet ... and even if we do ... we have lots of land we could expand / plant into.

The whole time the prices go up ... making it more expensive to be the obese country the U.S. is today... which leads us to less food person as the price of food goes up.

The inefficient conversion of soil nutrients to animal protein is not sustainable, so meat production has to be replaced by vegetable production. But the billions in developing countries are demanding more animal protein, not less.
Supply and Demand
They are poorer than we are ... they will go without before we do.
As the price goes up more and more ... we will go without as well ... just like most people don't eat very expensive foods like caviar or truffles.

The current free market craze, especially in the U.S., has done little to reverse the trend toward the total collapse of fish populations in the oceans. The free market solution would be to fish wild fish until it's unaffordable and then resort to fish farming which is causing tremendous problems. But there always seem to be enough wealthy people to pay the ever-increasing prices of wild seafood, so as has happened to several fish species, the free market is unlikely to prevent a total collapse of all fisheries eventually.
As the price goes up the % of people who can afford it goes down ... eventually resulting in a net decrease in consumption... not everyone can afford to drive $500,000 cars, or $5 Million dollar homes, etc... even if they want to.

Too much optimism that technological solutions will solve so many serious problems can result in inaction to delay the worst of the problems ahead. Too much faith that the free market will take care of everything, the rejection of science (e.g., human-caused climate change), and the belief that some god will take care of us make me very pessimistic about the future of the human species. The Earth will survive regardless, and some species that we won't have taken down with us will survive. Fortunately, I have no children and will die before things get really bad.
I look at the data I have ... those trends might change ... but that is not the data... until it is.

There are serious issues yes ... will people suffer yes ... will technology solve everything , no ... will free market always be the best option no ... etc ... etc... but I put it in context of what the data actually shows.

Human's might not resolve all of our issues ... that is a real possibility... some of those issues might have major impacts to the whole of the human species ... that is a real possibility ... sure ... and we can look at all the worst case possibilities ... but that doesn't mean that is what the current data actually shows.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
I use to listen to the Art Bell show for many years while delivering newspapers. If I took all the energy used to tell how the world would end Id have an ev that never needed to be plugged in. :)

People come and people go. As one of my disturbed friends I met in rehab back in the 90s told me. All people are good for is screwing and killin. Throughout the years we have had man made and artificial events that keeps the population in check. We are fast to cope, adapt and change.

My only concern is about living more cheaply and reducing my own waste. :)

There is no such thing as free energy, over unity or energy from a vacuum. It is all a scam, like those work from home deals.

If free energy existed that did not involve using an extension cord to your neighbors house we would know about it and use it daily and everyone and their Chinese brother would be sellin it.

Sent from my Autoguide iPod touch app
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,882 Posts
I thought the video made good sense. I have long felt that the problems it points to are real. Population growth is a serious problem and just makes solutions all the more difficult. Growth coupled with the low IQ of most of the populace makes the outlook pretty grim, IMHO. Mankind - only good for killing and screwing - I like that;)

Opinions as to how current data is to be extrapulated can differ, but all logical interpretations conclude that oil is a limited resource and that all replacements are problematic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top