Comments for "Sexy Dancing vs Peak Oil" Video at VideoSift.com

By Crosswords

Crosswords (http://www.videosift.com/member/Crosswords) — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:59:21 -0700

Until the majority of 'easy' women start dropping their panties for a Toyota Prius instead of high performance sports cars or those land yatch SUVs, shallow guys will continue to go for the gas guzzlers. So floozies, its up to you! Only you can save America!

By RhesusMonk

RhesusMonk (http://www.videosift.com/member/RhesusMonk) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:01:58 -0700

Funny, I find the girl on the left far more attractive than the one on the right. Maybe she should audition for this guy: http://www.videosift.com/video/Nerd-Porn

By arvana

arvana (http://arvana.videosift.com) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:28:14 -0700

Funny, I thought the girl on the left was the girl on the right.

By NetRunner

NetRunner (http://www.videosift.com/member/NetRunner) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:29:16 -0700

^ BTW, it's the same girl on both halves of the screen.

By siftbot

siftbot (http://www.videosift.com/member/siftbot) — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:04:11 -0700

Tags for this video have been changed from 'peak oil, dancing, sexy' to 'peak oil, dancing, sexy, oily cassandra' - edited by calvados

By Enzoblue

Enzoblue (http://www.videosift.com/member/Enzoblue) — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:39:02 -0700

Or simply spend 1 year's war cost on renewable energy technology and we solve the problem overnight.

By stevenzissou

stevenzissou (http://www.videosift.com/member/stevenzissou) — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:46:30 -0700

Did anyone else mute the video and fire up winamp?

By deathcow

deathcow (http://www.videosift.com/member/deathcow) — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:31:30 -0700

OMG she is a mega hottie, especially muted stevenzissou!

By Bleedingsnowman

Bleedingsnowman (http://www.videosift.com/member/Bleedingsnowman) — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:45:40 -0700

If everyone switch to a hybrid car right now the effect on oil consumption would be less than 2%. If every skyscrapper in the country replaced its windows and slightly modified its design consumption would be reduced by more than 40%. We hear about hybrid cars because someone can make a profit off of it.

By JAPR

JAPR (http://www.videosift.com/member/JAPR) — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:00:52 -0700

Now I think of boobs whenever I see a gas station. Somehow I think that's not what she was aiming for, but I don't really remember what she was talking about.

By schmawy

schmawy (http://schmawy.videosift.com) — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:33:22 -0700

Those are some ugly shoes.

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://gunrock.videosift.com) — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:16:02 -0700

Wait, what was she talking about again?

By antonye

antonye (http://www.videosift.com/member/antonye) — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:57:46 -0700

She needs more oil...

By deathcow

deathcow (http://www.videosift.com/member/deathcow) — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:46:25 -0700

She's channeling JLH a bit.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Sat, 10 May 2008 06:57:05 -0700

I've got some peak oil for her... hur hur hur.

In spite of the BEWBS she's very right. Try ~~watching~~ listening a second time, it helps and you have more blood for your head.

By Bakalex

Bakalex (http://www.videosift.com/member/Bakalex) — Sat, 10 May 2008 16:48:33 -0700

Silence ! Woman !

Go dance for the troops who are defending the oil from the axis of evil !

By rottenseed

rottenseed (http://rottenseed.videosift.com) — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:00:00 -0700

peak what now?

By Skeeve

Skeeve (http://www.videosift.com/member/Skeeve) — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:06:58 -0700

She's hot, but she's also full of crap. There is an estimated 1.75 trillion barrels of conventional oil worldwide (mostly in Saudi Arabia). If we continue to use about 30 billion barrels of oil per year we would run out in 58 years. The Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada has at least 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, doubling that rough estimate to 116 years. There is a further 235 billion barrels in the tar sands of Venezuela.

She says tar sands (among other energy sources) wont make up for a fraction of the oil we use but she should have checked the numbers - tar sands make up about 2/3 of the world's oil.

I totally agree that we should reduce our dependence on oil and work towards more efficient and more environmentally friendly sources of energy, but using the same inaccurate scare tactics that people have been using for decades is not the right way to do it.

By Jinx

Jinx (http://www.videosift.com/member/Jinx) — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:10:28 -0700

I actually listened to the girl, but now I'm going to watch it again with the sound turned down. Sorry

By Tiver

Tiver (http://www.videosift.com/member/Tiver) — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:18:13 -0700

The problem Skeeve is that these tar sands aren't as easy to extract the oil from. The amount of total gained energy from extracting the oil is less and the whole process is more costly. Though to me this seems to suggest the price of oil will continue to steadily increase. I don't really agree with the thought that the supply of oil will drop rapidly, or that the price will sky rocket. I do think the price will go up fast enough to cause us to have to change our ways of life, but not as bad as depicted in this video.

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:42:37 -0700

peak me, baby....

By NetRunner

NetRunner (http://www.videosift.com/member/NetRunner) — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:58:19 -0700

>> ^Skeeve:
She's hot, but she's also full of crap. There is an estimated 1.75 trillion barrels of conventional oil worldwide (mostly in Saudi Arabia). If we continue to use about 30 billion barrels of oil per year we would run out in 58 years. The Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada has at least 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, doubling that rough estimate to 116 years. There is a further 235 billion barrels in the tar sands of Venezuela.

She says tar sands (among other energy sources) wont make up for a fraction of the oil we use but she should have checked the numbers - tar sands make up about 2/3 of the world's oil.

I totally agree that we should reduce our dependence on oil and work towards more efficient and more environmentally friendly sources of energy, but using the same inaccurate scare tactics that people have been using for decades is not the right way to do it.

The main reason the "scare tactics" aren't effective is because there's always a fleet of people who want to come out and say "That's not true! Everything's fine, we've got decades to worry about it! Why do anything until it's all gone?" People choose to believe the rosier picture. I guess that's human nature.

The reason she says tar sands won't make up the difference is because it's a lot harder to extract.

Case in point, from the Wikipedia page on the Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, it says that only 10% is able to be economically retrieved. That estimate is out of date, since that's based on an oil price of $69/barrel, and it's ~$125 right now. So, more oil will be extractable, but only because of the higher price.

You're also assuming fixed demand, but in reality demand is going up, and is expected to rise exponentially as nations like China and India start buying cars en masse.

The only reason we won't actually run out of oil is because we use a free market to distribute it. Given a diminishing supply, and rising demand, price will grow rapidly. People will have to curtail their use of oil, simply because they won't be able to afford to use it anymore.

If there's no comparably cheap alternative, there's going to be a global economic crash the likes of which we've never experienced. Cheap alternatives, if they can be found, will take years to develop, and decades to implement.

We knew all this in the 1970's, but decided not to invest in developing an alternative. Mostly because a bunch of people, backed by the oil industry, came out and made an argument essentially saying "eh, we've got a long time to worry about it, don't develop alternatives!"

Telling people the truth (a "scare tactic" of the worst kind) hasn't worked. She figured maybe men will listen if she does a sexy dance while speaking the truth.

Guess she'll have to try something else.

By jwray

jwray (http://jwray.videosift.com) — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:30:08 -0700

U-238 is 138 times more abundant than U-235. U-238 breeder reactors work, but are more expensive to operate than U-235 reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to extract the half that's unused is currently more expensive than mining fresh uranium. But as oil runs out, energy prices will go up, and more expensive ways of generating energy will expand. Uranium power generation based on breeder reactors could power the world's current rate of energy consumption for at least a thousand years with current proven uranium reserves, but nobody's even bothered to look at more expensive ways of recovering uranium. In the long run solar will have to be part of the solution. The earth receives 4*10^24 Joules of energy per year from the sun, while our worldwide fossil fuel consumption in 2004 was 4*10^20 Joules.

Solar thermal generator plants can store energy via phase change to be more reliable. For example, Solar Tres stores 6,250 tonnes of molten sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate (assuming a density of 3g/ml that's about a 10m x 10m x 20m tank). This is enough to provide a 16 hour buffer for the generator (600 megawatt-hours). So it can generate continuously at peak capacity except in winter. Electricity demand is always higher in summer than in winter, because in the winter your random electrical appliance electricity use supplements your environmental controls (almost all used electricity is converted to heat) while in the summer all of your electricity use works against your environmental controls (generates more heat that your AC has to remove).

If about 0.1% of the surface of the earth were converted to solar power stations, that could supply all of our current energy use. But the rate of consumption is increasing exponentially as population increases exponentially and THAT MUST STOP. Who's going to vote for the global 2-child policy that will probably be necessary to avoid annihilation of the environment and subsequent annihilation of mankind? Mankind needs another big round of moral progress to save itself from itself.

By EDD

EDD (http://www.videosift.com/member/EDD) — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:13:36 -0700

I call bull on you, sir. Back up and reference your would-be data.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
If everyone switch to a hybrid car right now the effect on oil consumption would be less than 2%. If every skyscrapper in the country replaced its windows and slightly modified its design consumption would be reduced by more than 40%. We hear about hybrid cars because someone can make a profit off of it.

By Names

Names (http://www.videosift.com/member/Names) — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:34:26 -0700

Beware, "beef barbecues" are just as bad as big mean oil companies. We need the government to save us.

By Payback

Payback (http://www.videosift.com/member/Payback) — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:35:58 -0700

This is bullshit. There are no turbo SUV's. Real men use blowers.

By nazdorovia

nazdorovia (http://www.videosift.com/member/nazdorovia) — Sun, 11 May 2008 17:13:58 -0700

Wow. That was...so depressing.

By E_Nygma

E_Nygma (http://www.videosift.com/member/E_Nygma) — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:38:06 -0700

combining this serious audio material with that scandalous video material made me realize i saw and heard nothing... exactly the same as modern day broadcast media. maybe she has a future after all.

By deathcow

deathcow (http://www.videosift.com/member/deathcow) — Sun, 11 May 2008 23:41:04 -0700

huhuhuuh you said breeders... and huhuhuhuh you said blowers

By ShakaUVM

ShakaUVM (http://www.videosift.com/member/ShakaUVM) — Mon, 12 May 2008 04:29:49 -0700

Nuclear is the answer to our energy problems, but it's not very politically correct to support it, even though our current coal power plants spew out, well, an infinite amount more radiation than nuclear plants, since nuclear plants don't actually emit radiation. (http://yarchive.net/nuke/coal_radiation.html)

We need to get off foreign oil -- the falling dollar and the middle east both demand it. Why haven't we switched to coal liqufaction? (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html) My guess is oil interests kill it. Honestly, idiot big breasted peakies aside, it's the solution to all of our oil needs.

By my15minutes

my15minutes (http://my15minutes.videosift.com) — Mon, 12 May 2008 06:22:44 -0700

this hadn't been sifted yet?
very surprising. been out a long time.

i've talked to them, actually.
they pm'ed me in response to a comment i made, and we exchanged e-mails for a while. just wanted some research, and feedback/suggestions.

By E_Nygma

E_Nygma (http://www.videosift.com/member/E_Nygma) — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:02:13 -0700

>> ^Skeeve:
She's hot, but she's also full of crap.

unless she's been eating lots of fiber...

By Hive13

Hive13 (http://www.videosift.com/member/Hive13) — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:11:34 -0700

I'd jump in my gas guzzling SUV and drive to her house for a private dance.....wearing earplugs.

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:22:54 -0700

netrunner:the passion for alternative energies, changes in consumptive habits, and some horrible economic collapse the likes of which blah blah blah, would be better directed towards the affecting herders, those who have created this thing called the world economy, the currencies,and a long look inna mirror, ye who use their systems, yet complain of their antics' results-

All that is needed to be done is to alter the current paradigm...free and/or more efficient use of available energies are here, it is merely hidden, muted, discouraged, etc....

ShakaUVM-"IS" the answer?...What of the alternatives to both oil and conventional-tech nuke plants, to solar, wind, or water??? Are you aware that these are not already available?? Knowledge is power, and those who have their interests in oil, are running one powerful cabal-hidden, man-lock and key, need to know-

By Bleedingsnowman

Bleedingsnowman (http://www.videosift.com/member/Bleedingsnowman) — Thu, 22 May 2008 01:53:57 -0700

If I am accused me of polemics, I stand guilty as charged. But not without reason.

http://www.hennesseyingalls.com/hennessey/product.asp?dept_id=4155&pf_id=PAAAIADJFEHOJHBD&ad_id=froogle&key_id=BigandGreenTowardSustainableArchitectureinthe21stCentury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://www.wisebread.com/sustainable-architecture-and-design-a-book-review-of-living-homes
http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/ConsI.pdf
http://www.wastewater.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://www.wisebread.com/sustainable-architecture-and-design-a-book-review-of-living-homes
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sustainable-Architecture-Low-Tech-Houses_W0QQitemZ170127281000QQihZ007QQcategoryZ378QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem?refid=store
http://www.cleancars.nh.gov/pdf/NHCPS.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Green-Urbanism-Learning-European-Cities/dp/1559636823
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7202410/claims.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_energy_building

I'm sorry my numbers can from a lecture at UNM. But a few of these links give reference to the outcome, you'll have to do the percentages yourself. I may have jumped the gun from 4% to 2%. I apologize. Remember that cars always drive no matter what the emissions register. The books are really worth checking out if you have the time. Sorry it's kind of a mishmash, but I'm sure you will work it out.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I call bull on you, sir. Back up and reference your would-be data.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
If everyone switch to a hybrid car right now the effect on oil consumption would be less than 2%. If every skyscrapper in the country replaced its windows and slightly modified its design consumption would be reduced by more than 40%. We hear about hybrid cars because someone can make a profit off of it.

By Farhad2000

Farhad2000 (http://farhad.videosift.com) — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:01:58 -0700

Smart and hot.