Everybody forced here, being 22-23, slight basketball hobby, six box number two picker team style. Anwar has the Celtics and the Rockets, Bo B, Pelicans, Chun Wei, Mavericks and Wolves, Darren L. Kings, Eric B, Nugs, Jazz, Irene with the Nets, Jack L. Warriors, Jeremy D. Clippers, Justin C. Wizards, Kai H. has the Pacers, Kevin B. Lakers, and Cavs, Kevin T. Grizzly Sons, Mark D. Thunder, Marvin N. with the Spurs, Mitchell H. Raptors, Robert P. Blazers, Robert J. Bulls, Sacco has the Pistons and the Magic, Sal K. Nicks, Thomas T. Bucks, Victor F. Hornets, Wade T. Sixers, Wendy J. Hawks, U.S. Heat. Good luck, y'all. Let's start it up. Gotta get my, uh, my court sides down. Gonna have to run suicides until I get them. I just almost started having the breakers do push-ups and laps and just things like that and sit-ups for every, uh, every, even like minor thing like that. Calling out a parallel wrong. If you say, if you say teal instead of aqua, I'm like, all right, that's it. Five push-ups. Tri-color concourse, Donovan Mitchell, Cavaliers. I saw him saying Chris. Yeah, man. Holmgren concourse, Caleb Houston, got a concourse scope, A.D. Lakers. Courtside K.D. Tim would not. I think most of us probably wouldn't. I was gonna say, I don't think I would. Sean wouldn't. Snapshots, Rick and Jabari Smith Jr. Rockets. I was not either. Tri-color Thompson Warriors. I don't think any of us would. Scotty Barnes. It's a cool courtside. Well, we all, we all, we all be more in shape. Yeah, for sure. Probably ripped after like three weeks. Light blue concourse, Simons Blazers. I have 299. That's another guy who is gonna be putting up huge points if a game gets traded. Got Sohan. Got unstoppable Yolkich. Concourse Silver Beale Wizards. Yeah, right, Chris? Yeah, for real, Chris. That's a good idea. I'll just, I'll let Rich know the plan. Jabari Smith Jr. We make Rich do it. I don't know if he'd make it. Keegan Murray to 2.49. Rookie Auto Kings. Nice. There we go. Heck yeah. Congrats, Kings. Silver Rookie Premier Level Shade on Sharp Blazers. Nice little pack there. I don't know who that was for. I don't know. Is that for me? Yeah, I appreciated it so. No, thank you. I appreciate that. It's the bowl bowl jersey. It makes me look thinner and in shape and athletic when I'm really not. Like, oh, he's got a jersey on. He knows what's going on. Premier Level Maroon for Zengis Wizards to 175. Will Boat Champs. 199. Nasir Liddle on the jersey auto for the Blazers. That's also a bowl bowl jersey. He's like the thinnest person in the league. As far as like height adjusted. Tri-color concourse rookie is Johnny Davis Wizards. Is it a haircut? That might be. I like it. At first I was like, man, I don't know if I did the right thing. And now I'm like, I like this. It's awesome. Jay Nivey. Oh, here we go. There's the, what do you call it? The copper, there's another term. It's copper Jalen Juren rookie concourse for the Piston. Nice Duren. It's like a, those are print lines. Those aren't scratches or print lines. I'll send a box and wrapper. That's not damage, but the print lines are pretty noticeable. You kind of see where they connect in the middle. So it runs down here and then across here. Like those jerseys, no, no, no bags. Yeah, it looks good with the copper. And a Jabari Smith Junior Premier Level. Let me find it's copper something. They're called copper plaid. Oh. Copper plaid. Yeah, good looking stuff there on the Duren. Nice card pistons. There's an Akbaji, Taitai, Silver Concourse Kiehl's for the Knicks. Taitai Washington Junior Rookie Jersey Rockets. Silver Jama Rants. And a Scotty. Yeah, Shane gets it. Premier level purple is a Bam out of Bio Heat. Number 299 for the, I already saved it. Christian Wood. Yeah, my hairline was kind of man anyway. It's just very genetic. All the, all my mom's side, all the men have like that hairline where it just goes back and then, you know, yeah, kind of like that.  My grandpa was like that forever. But I don't want to, I don't want to be like in between. Cause I like, like that medium length, not medium. There's like, not quite short. You know what I mean? Tri-color Concourse Chris Paul Sons. Cause my hair is straight. So let me just, let me just get it down to the, to the roots. Got Matheryn. The end of the buzz. The skin fade with the buzz. Shade on sharp. You've got to 2.9, Wendell Carter Jr. In-flight auto magic. Yo, the In-Flights look good this year. They always look good, but I, I like this. Also Wendell Carter, underrated. Go Carter. Go Carter. Tri-color Concourse Caleb Houston magic. Dude, you would not catch me dead at a Sonic. You saw Sonic commercial. Jaden Ivy. Only had it twice and it's, it's not. Rookie Nemhard Tri-color Pacers. Christian Wood. Yeah, the In-Flights do look nice. Wesley. None of a Mitchell snapshots for the calves. Concourse Paul George scope clippers. Usman Jang, courtside rookie, the Thunder. If I just pause for like a split second on the, the courtsides, I'll get it right. Andrew Nemhard. Cause I don't go into like auto mode. You know what I mean? Yeah. Maroon Debuck Sons to 175. Got Coloco. So guys, we only have a handful of spots up today over here. Matt is live on channel two. Ripping Chronicles football. He's got 61 watching over there. That's awesome, man. Concourse Silver Scotty Barnes for the Raptors. Bulls, Dale and Terry to 99. Rookie Jersey. Silver Premier level Rookie J and Ivy for the pistons. He's like Naruto running almost. Oh shoot, he is. That emote and, and Fortnite is hilarious. I almost bought it. I was like, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. Blue Premier level Jamal Murray for the nugs. Could you imagine losing somebody? They just started Naruto running. Started running around. 249. Unstoppable Kade Cunningham Pistons. Silver Concourse KD Sons. I've never been inside of the Sonics, only know. Yeah, you can't go inside. They only have to go to the outdoor, yeah. Kegan Murray, Rookie Concourse, or sorry, Concourse, Rookie Jersey Auto. Silver. Here we go, it's a 199. Nice card, Kings. Kings have a good break here. Two Kegans now. Silver Premier level Bane Grizzlies. I agree, Chris, their drinks are pretty fine. Yeah, if you're gonna grab like drinks and like tots, cool, yeah. Like a pretzel or something. That's how you do it. Don't get anything with like meat. Concourse White, Clay Thompson to 149 with the goggles. For the Warriors. Cherry Limey, that sounds pretty fire. Not gonna lie. Nerd Slushie. Ben Carrow and Fuego is Curry and Concourse Blue, Donovan Mitchell-Cabs. Added to 249. You got a Nerd Slushie? Yeah, dude. Is it good? Yeah, it's got nerds in it, it's so good. Bate got a Silver Premier level Trey Young for the Hawks. Get him Houston. Silver Premier level Rookie Christie Lakers. Kennedy Chandler Grizzlies, Rookie Auto to 99. I had a burger last time, it was not good. Yeah, don't sleep on their burgers.  I got to sleep. Concourse Light Blue to 299, Donovan Mitchell-Cabs. Malachi Branham. Culver's is like 20. I don't really get like actual fast food burgers anymore. I can't do it. Really? I'll do like Culver's because they actually cook food there. Like yeah, it's fast food, but like they make it to order. You know what I mean? On Fuego KD Sons. Concourse Tri-Color Rookie, Chet Holmgren for the Thunder. No, we don't have any of the cup. We got 10 to 15 Ks. I've got how many we ripped but we ripped all of them for group breaks when it first dropped. And it's tough to get more of. Rookie Concourse Scope is AJ Griffin Hawks. Hardy Concourse. There's a Silver Concourse Bo-Champ Bucks. Keegan Murray, Premier level. John Morant Grizzlies on the Jersey Card. Yeah, I used to like it when I was younger. Like it used to be solid. Premier level Rookie Maroon is Nemard Pacers. Number to 175.  Rookie Red Auto Wizards is Johnny Davis. It's a 99. Oh boy. Tri-Color Rookie is Kaloko Raptors. Shade on Sharp. Tri-Color Rookie Concourse, Nemard Pacers. Tri-Color Premier level, Lamello Hornets. It's a Porzingis Quartzside. I'll show them. Whoa, seriously? Okay, hang on. Let me see these. White Concourse Rookie, Jaden Ivy. There we go. It's a 149 Pistons. Congrats, Pistons on the White Ivy. What's up, Austin? You guys got to see these shop walk-ins. Concourse Silver Rookie, Jaden Williams for the Thunder. You never know what's gonna, I feel like Pondstar's never gonna know what's gonna walk through those doors. Donnie's on vacation. I think he's on vacation. Donnie's back tonight? Maybe. I made a schedule. I don't know it. Check out these walk-ins. Look at this, look at this. They're off-centered, they're low-grade, but still. We just see the next one. Ooh. Man, it's so sick.  It looks like it. That's just your Wednesday morning with Lane right there. Good morning, walking. Walk-ins. That's so sick. I've never held one of those hanks that hasn't been like slabs. What do you have? I know. You haven't held it real or not? No. The smell. Really? Really. Not even kidding, it's the smell. I believe you. Smell it already? Yeah. It smells it up. Smelly, smell, that smells, smelly. Concourse try color out of bio for the heat, no, that can't get mad. That can't come out of what it's in right now. I would not take that out. The only time that should ever come out is if it goes to get authenticated slash graded. Robert awaits in 99. On the Lakers Jersey Auto, big shot Rob. Purple color match too. Blue Premier level Harden going to the Sixers. It's 249. Just their Alma crack. Yeah. Yeah.  Trey Young Unstoppable. Scope Premier level Hero Heat. I just go to the Almanac stack and I just buy all the cards that are there. That's what I do. Get them all myself. No more. Scope Concourse to Soon Moo Bulls. Palo Premier level. Matherin Concourse. Silver Concourse, Halliburton as a pacer. Chris Paul Sons. All knee. Game used Jersey card. I don't believe so, William. Concourse, Light Blue, 299, Brandon Ingram Pelicans. And Ricky Christian Brown for the nugs. You speak Welsh? I don't think so. You speak anything other than English? You don't think so? You speak anything other than English? I should speak Spanish, but I don't. Silver, Ricky, Jabari, Smith, Junior Rockets. Walker Kessler. Snapshots is a yokich. Got silver, Bradley Beale wizards. Jade Hardy. Tricolor, Ricky, Premier level, Kennedy Chandler Grizzlies. Ricky Field level, or court size, Jade and Ivy. All right, sorry about that, guys. Got Premier level, Maroon. Jaylen Williams, Ricky for the Thunder Nights. J-Dubb to 175. Got a Bajie, Ricky, Premier level. Diabata and Fuego, Zion. Concourse, Silver, Ricky, Taitai Washington, Junior Rockets. To 99, Jaylen Suggs, Magic on the Jersey Auto. Tricolor, Concourse, Marcus Smart for the Cs. Yante Murray. Diabata, Silver, Concourse to Mulmury, Nugs. Boy, Markinin. May we'll see something. Can be it or a harden or something. Concourse, Ricky, Silver, Marge on Bo-Champ, Bucks. To 99, Spurs, Mono Ginobili in-flight signatures. Nice hit, Spurs. Legend hit. Concourse, Scope, Maxi for the Sixers. Got the Rosen. Silver, Damian Lillard Blazers, Premier level. Keegan Murray, there's A.T. Griffon to 75. Hawks, Jersey card. Premier level, Blue is DeRosan Bulls. Number to 249. To 99, Nick Julius Randall on the Jersey card. Concourse, Red, Rookie is Yovitch to 199 for the Heat. Unstoppable, Donovan Mitchell Cavaliers. Concourse, or not Congress, but a Premier level Tricolor, Vacelle Spurs. Scope, Premier level, Paula George for the Clippers. Peter Keegan Murray. Gold, Chris Middleton, Premier level. Bucks, two of 10. There we go. First gold. Stopper, Robert. Awesome, Gold Middleton. And a courtside Cade. Christian Brown, Concourse for the Tricolor. Steph, Concourse for the Warriors. Chris Paul. Can y'all, Matt is live on channel two with Chronicles Football Release Day. Tricolor, Concourse, Rookie, not Rookie, but Kevin Porter Jr., Rockets, non-Rookie, obviously. Shit, Holmgren, Caleb Houston. Light blue Rookie, Concourse, Keegan Murray, Kings. Number to 299. King's killing it, man. Last box of Six Box, number two. Joe's here. And what up, Joe? I know Zebra yet. I think they're rarer in basketball. I don't think they're like one per case on average in basketball. Agbaji, Concourse. Scope, Concourse, is Levine for the Bulls. Silver, Concourse, Scotty Barnes-Raptors. I don't know, Shane. I think as you said that, he's gonna be honest with you. Yeah, you just brought him into it. Jersey card, Rookie, Jake, LaRavia, Grizzlies. Maroon, Premier level, Rookie, Bochamp, Bucks. To 175. Got Sohan, Shade on Sharp. Future, Chet Holmgren, Silver, Colin Sexton for the Jazz. Al Horford to 99, Jersey card, Hawks. Hawks, Al Horford. That's a real thing. Concourse, Red, is Bradley Peele Wizards. Number to 199. Ty Ty, you've got a tri-color Concourse to soon move for the Bulls. Courtside, Rookie, Coloco, Raptors. Wesley, you've got a tri-color Concourse, Rookie, is Julius Randall. Sorry, not Rookie, Julius Randall. Nicks, Nemard. We've got Tri-Color, Premier level, Drew Holliday, Bucks. Jabrax with Junior, Concourse, Bays. Purple, Premier level, Donovan Mitchell Cavaliers. It's a 99. Nalakai Branham and Fuego, Silver, Yanis for the Bucks. Silver, Concourse, KD, Sons. Jay Will, Bochamp to 199, Jane Ivy. Rookie, Jersey Auto, Pistons. Pistons did really well. We'll get that in a mag for you, Pistons. Scope, Premier level, Rookie, Durran Pistons. Jay and Ivy, Concourse. Silver, Premier level, Ingram Pelicans. That will do it. All right, give me one sec. We'll do a recap, everybody. The Ivy is cut long. We'll have to top with that one instead. All right, so we have the copper plaid of Jalen Durran Pistons. Really did well here. Gold Middleton. Jerseys of Arabia. Chris Paul. John Morant. Ty Ty, Washington. Dale and Terry, AJ Griffin. Julius Randall. Al Horford as a hawk. Autos of Montegnobley. Wendell Carter Jr. Keegan Murray. Keegan Murray. Nassir Little. Kennedy Chandler. Johnny Davis. Robert Ori. Jalen Suggs. Rookie, Jersey Auto. Pistons, Jaden Ivy to 199. And a Rookie, Concourse, White. Pistons, Jaden Ivy to 149. Thanks again, everybody. Moving on to number three.


The next pillar is the pillar of mutual responsibility. It's about saying I as a person with mental health issues have some responsibility for taking action to getting better. And I as a manager of a team have some responsibility to supporting all members of my team to stay well or to recover. But it's not about separating those two and giving all of the responsibility to one or the other party. It's not about going, oh yeah, Jono is really stressed, but it's because he's getting divorced. So that's not a workplace issue, so I don't have to do anything. Or it's not about saying, I'm really stressed because my work hours are incredibly long and I'm not getting along with my team member. So it's not my fault, it's their fault and they have to fix it. That's not being mutually responsible. That's somebody playing the victim. And we'll talk more about stepping from victim thinking into empowered thinking and mutual responsibility is part of that. Collaborating as workforce and work environment to work together to be mutually responsible regardless of the cause, regardless of the fault or the blame but work together in mutual responsibility to keep people well and to help them recover. So do you think that mental health is more the individual's responsibility or the organisation's? If you think there's an imbalance in there, then consider what can you do to implement more balance in that? Again, it doesn't come down to who's responsible or who's at fault or who's to blame or how this started. It comes down to who's gonna be responsible and the best answer is both of us together. From an organisational perspective, your employees viewing mental health as your responsibility and something that management needs to be looking after or is it something that they also recognise is their personal responsibility to collaborate and work on together with the organisation? Hi, I'm Emmy Golding, Director of Psychology for the Workplace Mental Health Institute. We hope you liked the video. If you did, make sure to give it a thumbs up. We have more and more videos being released each week. So when you subscribe, you'll get a notification letting you know when a new one's just been published. So make sure to hit that subscribe button and don't miss out on this vital information for yourself, your colleagues and your loved ones.


another day, another haircut. Do you like this one? No, please, don't tell me! Okay Shoshanim, as you can see I'm in an excellent mood and I apologize for this. I know you're not used to it. Gradually, it's traumatic, but you will get used to it. So today we are going to discuss the biggest controversy in the world of psychology. It is very telling that no one on YouTube has heard of it. It shows you the disconnect between Akadem, the ivory towers, universities, higher education and the world of YouTube were self-styled experts, or the only experts. So today we are going to discuss the mysterious P factor. Get your minds out of the gutter. That's P, like the letter P. Peter? Right, the P factor. My name is Sam Vaknin and I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited. I am also, unfortunately for many of my students, I am also a professor of psychology. On we go to the controversies and arguments and fights and fistfights and artillery barrages when it comes to the P factor and mental illness. This is first in a series of videos I'm going to do about the P factor. But before we go to this relatively new construct, I want to make a few comments. When I went to Vienna last, I gave a speech kind of, a part of a training to several psychologists and psychiatrists and I was astounded that the vast majority of them had confused bipolar disorder with borderline personality disorder. Only one of them got it right. To my utter shock, they were also not amenable to any attempt to correct their misconceptions. They insisted to the end that bipolar disorder, which is essentially a mood disorder, is the same as borderline personality disorder, which is a personality disorder, as the name implies.  And these are the people in charge of treating thousands of patients in mental institutions and so on and so forth.  So I went back home and started to read on things and then I was reminded of an article, I think it was published in 2011 or 2012, which had actually suggested that there is a common denominator to all mental disorders, all mental illnesses. Mental illness itself had been reduced to a single factor, the P factor. So should we continue diagnosing people? Should we continue to adhere to lists of symptoms or lists of behaviors, such as the ones included in the various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or the International Classification of Diseases? Is this the right approach, categorical or even dimensional? Or is all of mental illness reducible to a single factor known as the Psychopathology or P factor? Should we focus on symptoms or should we focus on labels? Is labelling people helpful or should we merely try to ameliorate, mitigate the symptoms? Are we on the right path when we administer generalized treatments or should we tailor each and every treatment to each and every individual specifically customize it? All these questions also tie or are linked intimately to a field of psychology known as psychiatric epidemiology. When we try to understand trends in mental illness, for example, is depression increasing in the wake of COVID-19? Are anxiety disorders more rampant and among which demographics, which cohorts, which age groups or populations in the wake of the pandemic? When we try to answer these questions, we are firmly in the territory of psychiatric epidemiology. But then how can we answer these questions if we don't use labels anymore, if we don't use diagnosis anymore? Are we to be reduced to listing symptoms and then just discussing the prevalence and incidence of these symptoms in the population and then in which population? Is depression not real?  Is anxiety unreal? Or are there merely symptoms of something more profound, something deeper, something abysmal? Are we coping with a hidden occult monster with multiple faces, a multifaceted chimera? Is there something in there dark, penumbral and underlying lurking in the depths of the human soul? The shadow, the dark part, is it there and just emanates in different forms throughout life? This is indeed the consumption underlying the P-factor. Comorbidity is a classificatory problem. Comorbidity, the diagnosis of several mental health disorders in the same individual. Comorbidity is the outcome of an outdated and wrong classification system, say the protagonist of the P-factor. Not so, say the antagonist. Diagnosis are real, labels are real. The P-factor is a statistical artifact and the battle rages. This is World War III in terms of the state science of psychology and psychiatry. I'll read to you a few quotes. For millennia, we have put all these conditions in separate corners. That's neuroscientist Anke Hammerschlag at Vrier University in Amsterdam. He says, but maybe that's not how it works biologically. Another scientist in the paper, published in 2013, wrote, mortality has not decreased for any mental illness. Prevalence rates are similarly unchanged. He is wrong by the way they went up. There are no clinical tests for diagnosis. Detection of disorders is delayed well beyond generally accepted onset of pathology, and there are no well-developed preventive interventions. Yes, this is a very good description of the state of the art of psychiatry and psychology. There is no reduction in endpoints. In other words, there's no curing, there's no healing. There are no clinical tests, not rigorous ones. Most of them rely on self-reporting and other such nonsense. The detection of disorders is very late, too late very often, and there's no well-developed prophylaxis, preventive measures. It's a sorry and said state. And the peak concept is a new hope. The peak concept is a recent idea. Universally, it's accepted that the father of the peak concept is Benjamin Leahy, a psychologist from the University of Chicago. Together with his colleagues, he published a paper in the year 2012, that's precisely 10 years ago. What he did and his colleagues, they studied the symptoms and prognosis of 11 mental disorders. It was one of the biggest studies ever conducted. More than 30,000 people participated. To their complete bafflement and surprise, they found out that the distribution of diagnosis was captured largely by two groupings of dimensions familiar to child psychiatry since the 1960s. Internalizing and externalizing. Internalizing and externalizing are powerful concepts. We divide personality disorders this way. For example, psychopathy is an externalizing disorder. Borderline is widely considered to be an internalizing disorder, as is dependent personality disorder, schizoate personality disorder, and so on. Narcissists are usually externalizing, but not always. At any rate, the internalizing and externalizing dimension is a very powerful form of taxonomy. It's a very powerful classification. It makes sense suddenly of mental illness. It sheds light on dynamics, etiology, development, outcomes. And because it is such a wonderful organizing principle, the authors of the P-Factor decided to use it. It emerged from the study, actually. They discovered that all 11 mental disorders which were unrelated could be easily understood and grouped into internalizing and externalizing disorders. Now, just to explain the terms, internalizing means inward looking. Internalizing disorders are usually based around fear or distress. Externalizing means outward looking and is usually explosive. So substance abuse would be externalizing. Conduct disorder, later psychopathy, would be externalizing. ADHD actually would be externalizing. The disorders cataloged or categorized as internalizing or externalizing are not clear cut. They overlap. The border is blurred. The boundary is fuzzy. And this is one of the main arguments against the P-Factor. But we'll come to it a bit later. Let's first hear what Leahy, L-A-H-E-Y, what Leahy and his co-authors had to say in the original paper exactly 10 years ago when I was much younger and a lot more handsome. They said, in our culture, we may expect people who experience one fear to experience other fears. And for people who worry to be unhappy, et cetera, et cetera, it seems less likely that people in our culture expect antisocial individuals who abuse drugs to also worry, be fearful, and be said and guilt-ridden. In other words, the assumption going into this gigantic study was that some people are fearful and distressed and worrying and so on, and some people are happy-go-lucky, antisocial, grandiose, and so on. But the data that had emerged integrally from the study showed this to not be the case, not talking for everyone involved. The statistical model that best explained the data that had emerged from the study implied some higher-order vulnerability factor. Both these categories, the internalizing and the externalizing seem to be founded on a common factor. And it seems like we were faced with a grand unifying theory of mental illness. There is a single psychopathology that then somehow, in a manner which we are not sure of, somehow breaks this single psychopathology, breaks into externalizing and internalizing disorders. No one knows why, no one knows how. When this factor, the psychopathology factor, was removed from the models, the correlations between the groups became weaker, and this suggests very strongly that this common factor was responsible for the frequent co-occurrence of externalizing and internalizing disorders. In other words, this p-factor, psychopathology factor, seems to be the reason for comorbidities. Comorbidities just reflect the fact that all mental health disorders have a common genesis, a common foundation, a single etiology. And so much a bit later in 2014, John Caspy, who is a former Israeli in the psychologists and epidemiologists from Duke University in North Carolina, published a study that was 2014. Even his colleagues went further. They demonstrated that so-called thought disorders, disorders like schizophrenia, mania, bipolar, obsessive-compassive disorder and so on and so forth, these are called thought disorders. They demonstrated that thought disorders were also correlated with externalizing and internalizing disorders through a common liability. Liability is another name for the psychopathology factor. Liability implies that there is some deficiency, some defect, some deformity, some problem, some issue, some disorder. That's why it's called liability. And it seemed that even thought disorders, which are universally believed to be biochemical, biological, even thought disorders were somehow connected intimately with externalizing and internalizing purely mental disorders. And they were connected or correlated via a common factor, a common liability.  This changed the picture completely. This created a storm within psychology and psychiatry circles. Mathematical models which underlay or underlie the P-factor proposition were then scrutinized to the core and to the bone, and it's time for a mini break. Yes, she's back. Now you understand why I'm in a good mood. The problem with the P-factor is that it is the outcome of statistical manipulation. Many claim, as we will hear a bit later, many claim that the psychopathology factor, the non-denominator of all mental illnesses is merely a statistical artifact. The problem is that mathematical models sift through huge data sets, huge databases, and what mathematical models are supposed to do is to find patterns, patterns and connections, synoptic views that the human mind wouldn't even consider. But this raises a very powerful objection. Mathematical models are not objective. They are not impartial. They are not the eye of God. They have inbuilt biases of their own, and they can lead to something known as apophynia, or pareidolia, finding patterns where there are actually none. In the case of the P-factor, critics accuse Caspi and his colleagues of using models that are predisposed to over-generalize models that exaggerate the overlaps between disorders. Of course, if you use such models, you will find overlaps. If overlaps are built into the model, if generalization is built into the model, that's what you're going to find. In 2017, the psychologist and statistician, Ritvan Bork, from the University of Amsterdam, wrote the following. We already knew before Caspi and colleagues even started their research that they would come up with a general factor as a matter of mathematical necessity. Now, this sounds very academic and very cold and detached, but actually it was a devastating critique. It implied that Caspi and colleagues introduced the P-factor into the outcomes. It was not there, but they have used statistical models and mathematical tools that guaranteed the emergence of a common denominator of a single factor. This is as close to murder as you get in academic circles. The accusation resonated through and through, reverberated, and there was a bloody mess. Current diagnosis share several symptoms. In other words, the same symptoms appear in multiple diagnosis. Consider, for example, insomnia, irrational moods, irrational thoughts. All of them occur grandiosity, which is a cognitive distortion. Grandiosity occurs in multiple disorders. For example, in the manic phase of bipolar, in psychopathy, in borderline, in narcissism. And so because many diagnoses share many symptoms, it may appear erroneously that they share a common etiology. In other words, it may appear mistakenly that they are one and the same, that there is a common denominator, an underlying foundation, a factor that is common to all of them. But actually there isn't. It's just that they are all very similar to each other. Maybe the classification system has to be changed. Maybe our differential diagnosis are not strong and clear enough. Maybe it's not completely clear what's the difference between, for example, narcissism in borderline, or narcissism in psychopathy, or even borderline in psychopathy. So we have a bad classification. We need to rewrite the diagnostic and statistical manual using, for example, a dimensional model, all right and true. But we shouldn't discard the baby with the bathtub, with the bathwater, with the bathroom, with the apartment block. That's what Van Bork is saying. He's saying bad mathematics can lead to the optical illusion of a common factor where there is none. And the reason is that our diagnosis are not sufficiently demarcated. They're not sufficiently separated from each other. They share too many symptoms. Now Van Bork's view is that these diagnoses are primed to be correlated with one another. A computer model would simply be picking up on the positive correlations that already exist within this psychiatric classification. In other words, if I were to feed a computer the description of a narcissist, the description of a psychopath, the description of a borderline, the computer may mistakenly reach the conclusion that they're all one and the same because they share many symptoms, many cognitive distortions, many psychodynamics, and so on and so forth. Indeed, by the way, the etiology of these disorders, at least narcissism and borderline, is very similar. So perhaps there is something in common. It may not be a single psychopathology factor, but I think personally, and I've been saying it for well over 30 years, I think that yes, all mental health disorders are somehow connected, definitely in the field of personality disorders and definitely cluster B personality disorders, in my view, are one and the same. And it's not only my view, it's the view of the majority of the world, the international classification of diseases. Edition 11 has adopted this view. And now it's a common view. Consider, for example, an analogy, water quality and biodiversity. Van Bork argues that biologists don't study a single factor. They don't study, for example, the health of the oceans or the health of the seas. Instead, biologists rely on plausible explanation of data. They realize that high water quality allows for life to vary, allows for more diversity of life forms. And more life forms improve the quality of the water. There's a positive feedback loop here. But they don't discuss, biologists don't discuss generally the health of a lake. They go deep, they differentiate, they break down, they analyze. Van Bork's criticism is that the P-factor model is overly synthetic. It does not allow for analysis. It doesn't allow for fine-graining and fine-tuning mental illness, which is a highly complex phenomenon. Van Bork says that in the case of mental disorders, a positive correlation between symptoms can be explained by a similar way of interconnections without recourse to the P-factor. Van Bork, one symptom leads to another. A blossoming of anxiety releases the seeds of substance use disorders. You and you are anxious to become depressed. One symptom leads to another. It's a chain. And the common experience of guilt in depression, for example, creates the grounds for paranoia or psychosis and so on and so forth, in the infinitum, that symptoms are connected to each other in chains doesn't mean that they all emanate from a single identifiable source, say Van Bork and his collaborators. Caspi retaliated or retorted in 2020. He published an article, by the way, one of the main collaborators of Caspi is actually his wife, the clinical psychologist Terry Moffitt. And they published a study. And in this study, they avoided the main pitfall, which I think had been justly criticized by Van Bork. They avoided computer models altogether. What they did is they simply arranged the data neatly, graphically, beautifully in mattresses and tables and so on. And they arranged a lot of data. And they didn't use a single computer model. They didn't use statistics. So Van Bork's main objection had been removed. And again, as you look at the data in this article in 2020, as you look at the arrangements of symptoms and so on and so forth, it's quite visible to the naked eye that there is something common in there. There is some commonality. This study was much smaller than the original study in 2012. It included only 1,000 people. It's limited to New Zealand, which is not representative of the rest of the world. And that is the British understatement of the millennium, probably. But still, it gives some indications. And it was longitudinal in the sense that Caspian collaborators followed people over several years. So there was a rich portrait of the evolution of mental health and mental illnesses over the lifespan. And so suddenly, suddenly it became strikingly visible. Without the intermediation or intervention of computer model statistics, mathematics, it's clear to the naked eye. It's totally, totally dishonorable that mental illnesses are not static entities. They're dynamic. And not only are they dynamic, but they shape shift. They morph into each other. That's something I've been saying for many, many years, long before Caspian. I kept saying that personality disorders shape shift and that they morph into each other. And that the symptoms are common because all personality disorders are one and the same. And this is striking support for the assumption of a P factor, a psychopathology factor, that is a common denominator in a single source of all mental illness. Successive surveys have shown that depression tends to become substance abuse. Anxiety tends to become depression. ADHD leads to thought disorders such as schizophrenia, depression and psychosis switching places. It's all very evident, not only in this study, but in clinical practice. Any therapist and psychiatrist would tell you this. So there, the analogy between biology and psychiatric diagnosis is irrelevant is not true and is very misleading. Biology is essentially a taxonomic taxonomic science. It started as a taxonomy botanic the botanic science of Carlos Linus and it's a taxonomic science. And if we want to borrow any metaphor from biology and apply it to the life of the mind, it would be the split between animals and plants. But with species that metamorphose. In other words, the closest analogy to mental illness in the field of biology is actually evolution theory. Exactly as evolution is founded on certain very basic principles such as natural selection. The entire field of psychology and psychiatry can and should be founded on commonalities like the P-factor and some basic dynamics. P-factor plus one or two dynamics give you the entire diagnostic and statistical manual and that is the truth. In biology life forms grow, transform, they become wholly unrecognizable. A cocoon becomes a butterfly. But a cocoon become a chrysalis and then grows wings and becomes a butterfly. So the three forms are kind of distinguished from each other. If you see a cocoon, you wouldn't guess it could become a butterfly. If you see a butterfly, you would never believe that it used to be a chrysalis. So in the same with mental illness, if you see a depression, you will not tend to link it to anxiety. And if you see anxiety, you would not think that it has anything to do with schizophrenia. If you see schizophrenia, what's the connection with ADHD? But actually, yes, they're all one and the same. They are like the cocoon, the chrysalis, the butterfly. Three phases of the same organism, three stages in the same dynamic. It's a unifying view of psychology and psychiatry that I've been advocating for decades and I'm very excited that it's coming to fruition. Nothing to do with me, but still I'm excited to be on the right side of history and the right side of psychology and psychiatry. Caspi says that the shape-shifting or serial comorbidity seen in his studies confirm the existence of a common liability underlying all mental health disorders. Common liability that simply germinates at different times in our lives. Of course, everything in psychology and psychiatry has its critiques and Caspi is no exception. So critiques wonder about the generalizability of the study from New Zealand. But this is not a strong objection because we have by now other studies from different locations and they all demonstrate the same. For example, there's a study from 2019. It's a longitudinal study and it was in Denmark and it used health registers in Denmark. We found identical patterns, serial mental health diagnosis through the lives of nearly 6 million people. So mental health disorders, shape-shift, they transform, they grow, they change and recognizably they become one and the same. They are very fuzzy. Caspi found mental disorders that first emerge in childhood or young adulthood and then discovered that they are far more likely to show this pattern of serial comorbidity. That's a very important point. The earlier we catch mental illness, the easier it is to fix and heal and cure for life. What Caspi had discovered is that mental illnesses that first emerge in childhood tend to shape-shift and morph and become more severe in adulthood. But if we intervene in early childhood, there's no mental illness later in life. Regardless of how severe the initial morbidity was, regardless of how severe the initial disorder was. Early intervention is the key in psychology and psychiatry. The epidemiological studies or surveys conducted over the past three decades show that more than three-quarters of all mental disorders emerge before the age of 25. So if we were to diagnose people before the age of 25, we will prevent 70-80% of later life or late onset mental health disorders. The P-factor concept applies not only to adults. It applies mostly, I think, to children. It's much more visible and discernible, clear and crystallized in early childhood and early adolescence and young adulthood. The thing is that early onset of mental illness, for example, borderline personality disorder, conduct disorder, ADHD, autism, early onset, predicts much more severe, much harder to treat conditions. ADHD becomes schizophrenia in some cases. So it's crucial to screen for mental illness starting at age five. Latest eight borderline emerges fully developed at age 12. Early intervention would be a powerful way to prevent patients from spiraling into mental health crisis. And so if the P-factor is a common seed of adult psychopathology, could we prevent it somehow? Is there a way to reverse the P-factor or, I don't know, uproot it or transform it or transmute it somehow? Can we use drugs? That's a common enemy. Can we develop a single weapon like a vaccine or something? And how do we deal with the multiplicity of symptoms? All these symptoms, according to the P-factor approach, share an internal single vulnerability. And yet not a single drug can deal with all these symptoms. Not a single intervention is known to work with all these symptoms. So how do we penetrate through the veil of the symptoms? How do we go deeper and deeper and deeper into the earth to use Jules Verne's phrase? How do we go into the earth so that we locate the pernicious and nefarious and malevolent P-factor, surround it and kill it in its cradle? Mina Weisman is a psychiatric epidemiologist from Columbia University. And she says, the P-factor is a very interesting topic. Others disagree. Some psychiatrists say the P-factor is show business. It's not science. There are, and I'm quoting, there are some common pathways that link disorders to each other. But that's like saying that there are a lot of physical disorders that involve inflammation and are related to each other through a common mechanism.  This, by the way, is a very wrong objection. It's true that if you look at multiple biological disorders, multiple medical conditions, you can see a common thread or a common symptom. For example, inflammation. Inflammation appears in several hundred medical conditions. But inflammation is not the cause of these conditions. It's a manifestation of these conditions. And these conditions, good conditions are not linked to a single organ. Mental health is linked to a single organ, the brain. That's how we, that's our current thinking at least. I believe that there, the body has multiple brains. And I believe that one of the main brains is actually in the intestines, in the gut. But leave it aside. Right now, the orthodoxy, the mainstream thinking is that all mental illness is a reflection of processes in the brain. Something is going to arise in the brain. So inflammation is a bad example. The inflammation can happen in any organ of the body, in any part of the body, while mental illness happens only in the brain. So if there is a P factor, it will be a brain factor, not a systemic factor, not something that happens in your feet, for example, or in your eyes, or in your brain. And so studying the activity of the brain seems to be intimately linked with the idea of the P factor. What about neural pathways? What about dopaminergic pathways? Neurotransmitter pathways? What about neural circuits? The truth is that if you look at the literature in neuroscience, there is something that stands out almost immediately. All mental health disorders share the same neuroscience. When you go down to the level of multiple unit activity, neural circuiting, neural pathways, etc., etc., you discover that most mental health disorders share the same neurology, activate the same areas of the brain. There was a meta-analysis in 2018 and it found that communication between brain circuits involved in vision, in thought, in motivation are similarly hyperactive across many common psychiatric disorders. And that's one of several hundred studies that I found. All of them say the same thing. Regardless of the type of mental health disorder, the same brain circuitry activates and interacts. Now this is strongly, powerfully indicative of a common factor. It seems to lend incredible support to the idea of the P factor. How we perceive the world, for example by a vision, sensor, sensory input, and how it is translated by the brain, these are core components of mental disorders. So Caspian others say that a common P factor may lead to more effortful or less efficient processing when internally generated thought and externally generated sensory information compete for attention. The same text appears in the 2018 study. The same brain circuits are targeted, for example, by psychedelics. And so this explains, I think, the promising results in trials with psychedelics. Psychedelics now are beginning to be commonly used in depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcoholism, same with hypnosis, hypnotic state, hypstates, trance. Same brain circuitry is targeted regardless of the problem. When you treat someone for a smoking problem or for PTSD or for aversion or whatever with hypnosis, you are targeting the same brain circuits, although the presenting signs and symptoms, the problem, the issue, the issues are different. So, and it's very reminiscent of the human genome. In the human genome, there is an enormous overlap between the genetic risk factors for psychiatric disorders. Actually, the same gene arrays, the same groups of genes are implicated in almost all mental health disorders. In 2009, as early as 2009, there was a study by the Swedish National Registry, and it showed that bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have the same genetic risk factors. And so the very old distinctions, first suggested by Krevelin, the very old distinction between psychotic and mood disorders is in great doubt now, because they share the same genes, these disorders, depressive disorders, mood disorders, and psychotic disorders. They have the same genes, the same genetic foundation and the same brain circuits are activated. What is the difference between them? Just the symptoms, the way we observe them, the way we see them from the outside. But we have already learned via Caspia and others that symptoms shape-shift across life, across a lifespan, symptoms flow, merge, transform into each other, in an eternal dance. In 2015, the same people who published the study in 2009, they were working at the Kaolinska Institute in Sweden, a very prestigious academic institute. So in 2015, the same researchers extended the sample. You remember that in 2009, they studied schizophrenia versus bipolar, and they reached a conclusion that genetically it's the same disorder. So in 2015, they decided to study another six disorders, a total of eight. And they found out once again that it was a common genetic factor for all eight mental health disorder groups. They all emanated from the same mutations and disruptions in the same gene arrays. This provides further support for the P-factor, shared genetic risk, shared brain circuitry, probably shared psychogenesis, shared factor underlying mental health. Only between 10 and 36% of the predisposition to mental disorders comes from genetic risk factors.  I am the greatest opponent of trying to reduce mental illness to genes or to the brain, to neuroscience. I think it's nonsense. But still, there is a contribution of genes, of genetics.  And these contributions are quantifiable and they are not small and they are shared. The variation between mental health disorders is associated with genetics, for example schizophrenia and bipolar, non-genetic environmental factors, especially mood disorders and anxiety disorders, and brain circuitry. Today we have added a fourth factor, chance fluctuations in the womb. So, accidents in the womb. If you put these four factors together, you get 100% explanation of the origin and development of mental health disorders. And what is amazing is the commonality, how a very small number of genes, a very small number of brain circuits, a very small number of fluctuations in the womb, a very small number of environmental factors, for example, abuse, can account for the majority, if not all, mental illnesses. The p-factor might represent something very fundamental. But the question is what? We are talking about a psychopathology factor, but what is it? Can we capture it somehow? Can we weight it to something? Can we use a useful metaphor? What is it? Maybe it's only distress or impairment of some kind. Mental illnesses, after all, are stressful. They are debilitating. Maybe the p-factor is only a statistical marker of humans suffering a hard life. Caspi doesn't believe that. Caspi says that the p-factor is something distinct from distress or impairment or deficiency or even the environment. He thinks that harsh, unpredictable environments in childhood are common to all psychiatric diseases. Because if you look at every disorder, the core of each disorder is some sort of aberrant way of viewing or seeing the world. It's the paranoid ideation. So Caspi says that when we are subjected to abuse in early childhood, we tend to develop a paranoid view of the world, the secondary delusions of paranoid ideation. We tend to see the world as hostile, how to get us. The boy who thinks that everyone is against him later diagnosed with contact disorder and when he grows up, he becomes a psychopath. The skinny girl who looks in the mirror and thinks she's fat and develops eating disorder. The teenager who thinks he's guilty for his parents' divorce or drinking or depression, etc. So these are all paranoid ideations. And Caspi says one of the most interesting origins for much of this aberrant thought comes out of harsh and inconsistent and unpredictable early environments. Those kinds of experiences that set up the anticipation of bad things happening, catastrophizing. Or they set up the anticipation of being rejected. They set up the anticipation of being violated. They set up anticipation of constantly being threatened and things going wrong. Things, you know, being unalterable and thereby spiralling out of control. So I think a lot of it is about those early experiences and what those early experiences do to you. They distort our expectations about the future and that's why they are so consequential. Caspi, through the p-factor, harks back, goes back to the very, very, very beginning of psychology, which is essentially psychoanalysis. Modern psychology in the body and mind of Freud was built on this understanding that adverse childhood experiences, A.C.E., they are the reason for the emergence of psychopathology and mental illness in children, adolescents and adults. Coming back full circle, we're coming back home through the most hyper-modern studies. Caspi is through 2020. Caspi and others are biologically inclined, oriented. And yet they are forced to reach a conclusion that early childhood experiences, especially adverse ones, determine who we are. And this is, of course, supported by the biggest study ever conducted in psychology, the adverse childhood experiences study, the A.C.E. study. Linking the p-factor to harsh environments is not a way to blame parents, it's just a way to elucidate the importance of early childhood in two ways. Early childhood is critical when it comes to mental health.  And the second thing is early intervention in childhood could prevent mental illness. And that's regardless of the quality of parenting. Now, of course, harsh childhood environments are usually brought on by dead parents.  Dead parents or dead mother, like using or borrowing Andre Greenstone from 1978. So if the parent is absent, depressed, selfish, the parent instrumentalizes the child, parentifies the child, physically abuses the child, sexually abuses the child, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This is a bad parent. This is bad parenting. Not good enough parenting. Of course, that's a precondition. Precondition for a harsh environment. But a harsh environment could be a pandemic. A harsh environment could be war. A harsh environment could be the demise or death of loved ones such as granny and grandpa. A harsh environment could be peer mediated. You could be in a bad school with bad peers.  These are all harsh environments. So parents are only one factor. By the way, in adolescence, parents are much less important than peers. So that's not the refrigerator mother theory of autism or the schizophrenogenic mother theory of the 1950s. It's not about blaming parents. It's just about throwing light on the criticality of early childhood. Many difficult experiences happen outside the home, as I mentioned. But for example, being bullied is a risk factor in developing late life or late onset psychotic disorders. The environment in childhood is critical and the parents can have a huge contribution by establishing a safe zone at home. A secure base. The problem is not only parenting. The problem is society, a social system that fails children. Fails children by not providing them, for example, with appropriate mental health treatment.  That's a failure of society. And society pays an enormous price. Mental illness is destructive. It is a huge economic cost. And it would cost only a fraction. If we were to invest these resources in childhood, the damage would be only a fraction of what it is later in life. Unemployment, poverty, emotional neglect, domestic abuse, they're all common factors and denominators underlying the diversity of mental disorders. But pandemics and wars, I mean, all these, it's all true. But parents can create a secure safe base at home. And society can provide early mental health intervention, psychotherapy and medication if needed. Early on. This influence, this congruence of a safe home and a society that cares, compassionately provides resources to prevent mental illness. It can prevent most of mental illnesses. We don't know what the P-factor is. It's a little like dark matter or dark energy in cosmology. It's a force.  It's there somehow. We know it's there, but we don't know what it is. Symptoms, genetics, brain activity, they all somehow correlated with the P-factor. It's a little like gravity. It pulls these elements together somehow. It is also probably a statistical artifact. There is an aspect of P-factor that has to do with statistics. But if we were to eliminate statistical examination, we would eliminate all of modern psychology and psychiatry. You can say modern psychology and psychiatry are pseudoscience and the statistics is a fig leaf. Just disguising the pseudo element in these pseudosciences. And I agree with that. Actually, I've made several videos making exactly this claim. But there's still a word out there. Ignore psychology. Ignore psychiatry. They're mentally ill people. No one can deny this. So just observing them and classifying them is not enough. We need to understand what makes them tick.  The P-factor raises the possibility, the tantalizing possibility that targeted interventions in childhood measures to ameliorate, mitigate and reverse budding, nipping mental illness in the bud, prevention of abuse, treatment of mental disorders of parents, not only of children, cognitive behavioral therapies in schools. Why not? This could reduce the incidence and prevalence of all mental health disorders and enable or re-enable or empower the disabled. Is there a more noble agenda? If there is, I'm not aware of it.


Mari kita melihat pilihan C, di mana kita mempunyai biomas gasifier. Jadi di sini, apa yang kita lakukan adalah kita mempunyai biomas gasifier di mana kita mempunyai biomas gas. Kemudian kita mendapatkan gas produsor. Gas produsor ini mempunyai diesel engine, engine fuel fuel. Ia boleh juga pergi ke engine spark agnesi yang sederhana, supaya ia boleh menjadi, tetapi engine fuel fuel juga mempunyai sederhana diesel. Kemudian ini dibuat ke pump. Dan ini adalah output energi. Jadi kita mempunyai 3 gigajin. Sekarang, untuk engine fuel fuel ini, biasanya ada perjalanan setiap perjalanan dalam keadaan yang berpunyai biomas gas produsor. Jadi, terutamanya, apa yang kita melihat adalah, kita melihat sesuatu seperti 75% perjalanan dapat dibuat dari gas produsor dan 25% datang ke diesel. Apabila kita melihat ini, kemudian apa yang kita akan lakukan adalah kita akan melihat 3 gigajin, yang di dalam pump. Dapatkan efisi pump dan mendapatkan perjalanan yang diperlukan di sini. Jadi itu bermaksud 3 divided by 0.75. Jadi ini akan menjadi 4 gigajin di sini. Sekarang, dari 4 gigajin, mari kita katakan dengan terma energi, 75% akan dibuat dari biomas gas produsor. Jadi itu bermaksud 4 x 0.75. Ia dibuat menjadi 3 gigajin sebagai perjalanan produsor 3 gigajin. Jadi efisi pump adalah 0.7. Jadi kita boleh melakukan 3 divided by 0.7 adalah perjalanan pump gas. Kita boleh kemudian memutuskan ini dengan kaliurefik value biomas dan kita akan mendapatkan banyak biomas yang kita dapat. Dan kita dapat melihat nombor-nombor ini. Dan kemudian, basically what we get is in this case, we have 75 liters of diesel. Remember we earlier had 290 liters of diesel and this is 754 kgs of biomas. So if the biomas price is 2 rupees per kg, then the total operating cost will be 2 x 754. Plus 75 x 50. You can check this. This comes to about 5258. So let's compare it with the diesel engine pump instead of 14500. We are getting now 5258. So of course the operating cost reduces. However the capital cost increases because now we have the gasifier. There is also it is more tricky in terms of operation and maintenance. We will see that in terms of CO2 now, the CO2 emissions will reduce because the biomas is considered as carbon neutral and we can then calculate. This is just going to be roughly what we calculated 75 x 290 into 0.9 is what we had calculated tons. So the amount of CO2 reduces significantly in this option and of course but it's a costly option. There are other things that one can think of and then we have, there is now a move to have solar photovoltaic based pumping. So you can look at this. Now one of the issues in all of this is that the distribution companies because of the agricultural pump sets and the theft which is there, agricultural pump sets, many cases have been given, were given free electricity. So with the result that typically distribution companies have been making significant losses and you can see these are the in different years with the Sude scheme based on the government estimates reasonably large loss components. So one of the things that the distribution companies are thinking of is to try and look at supporting agricultural pump sets moving to solar and of course there is a capital cost involved. So typically what happens is you will have the solar PV modules and then you will have the pipeline for the, there is a schematic for a particular company with a solar pumping system and when we look at this, this is typically how it will look in the field and the advantage also is that in many of these cases if you have some storage, it is possible to then pump whenever you have the solar and then you can use it in the pump, use this in the field if you have the water storage and that maybe there are many different types of configurations which we can do and you can see that you have different modules of arrays going from 900 watt peak to about 2.7 kilowatt in different kinds of centrifugal pumps or submissible pumps and the large number of possible configuration. So this is another option which we can see and in this if you look at the efficiency and when we talk in terms of this it is going to be only the pump and then we have some kind of power electronics and then you have the PV incoming solar radiation. Power electronics is fairly efficient will be of the order of let's say 0.95 or even more. Pump we had said, pump efficiency we had said 0.75 some of these submissible pumps etc might have slightly lower efficiencies so PV modules in the field may have efficiencies ranging from 15 to 20%. So from an overall efficiency point of view this is you may find that the efficiency is lower than the efficiency which we had from the oil but please remember efficiency is important provided the resource is constrained. Since this solar insulation is relatively free we don't have to pay for it and it is not constrained then the efficiency may not be the criteria when we think in terms of solar. So with this we complete the part on the example that we saw. Now we would like to look at another example and that is for a car we would like to see is it possible to think in terms of a fuel cell based car and how would that compare with the IC engine based car. Okay, so in this example we are going to just I'll just show you some of the numbers and you can calculate it yourself we are not going to do the detailed calculations like we did in the earlier example so that you have already gone that. Now when we think in terms of hydrogen there are several researchers and several energy professionals believe that hydrogen is going to be the future and hydrogen is in general it's a secondary fuel. So when we think in terms of a pathway to have hydrogen we can have hydrogen from a variety of different sources we can start with fossil and then we can do cracking and the shift reaction and then get hydrogen and that's the largest the steam methane reforming is the largest chunk of hydrogen production it's today it constitutes more than 90% of the hydrogen produced in the world. We can look at hydrogen from nuclear we can look at hydrogen from solar both and we can look at photochemical, biophotobiological hydrogen from biomass gasification, fermentasi so there are a whole set of possible ways in which we can get hydrogen. After we get hydrogen we can use that hydrogen in a fuel cell to give us electricity and this is compact it has no emissions with it and no moving parts so it's and it's high efficiencies unfortunately it is still very costly and the life is relatively low so this is why fuel cells and hydrogen has not become as common as one expected it to be so we will look at two applications for hydrogen one is an application where we are looking at distributed power generation so we want to generate power and in the case of distributed power generation we have many different options let's look at an option where you have so here we are looking at not the grid but it's an isolated system we can have the diesel engine generator or we can have a gas engine fired by natural gas gas engine generator and in the third case we can have essentially a hydrogen based option so these are the base cases we can have compare it with a fuel cell hydrogen option in the second case for the vehicle the base case can be IC engine for petrol or diesel and the second base case will be CNG engine so if we look at the option for power generation from diesel we can see the generator the diesel engine, transport of diesel oil mining and refining and this is very similar to the system that we saw for the pump we have put down typical efficiencies we can multiply it and the second option is when you look at natural gas natural gas the same thing generator you have a gas engine then natural gas transport natural gas extraction again you can see the efficiencies are pretty good in the case of fuel cell we now let's look at natural gas giving us the natural gas having the extraction then we have natural gas transport and then we are using that natural gas in steam methane reforming to get hydrogen that hydrogen is used in a PEM fuel cell which can have efficiencies to 50% and then you get electricity and when we look at this if you look at the distributed generation you find that you can do these numbers now convert it into primary energy and we find that in the overall case for the A1 which is based on oil we are getting point about 0.25 kgs of crude per kilowatt or similar kinds of things for natural gas in the case of fuel cell the overall efficiency is slightly lower and it's similar to the fuel cell if you take a higher efficiency of fuel cell of 50% then it goes up to 37% so it's very similar to the natural gas cycle if you can go up to higher efficiencies from an efficiency point of view it's almost similar when we are taking it from natural gas but the interesting thing is from a carbon dioxide point of view this turns out to be better and we can see that in the case of with an efficiency of 0.5 we are getting now 0.136 kg of carbon per kilowatt as compared to 0.187 or 0.211 kgs of carbon for crude oil or natural gas so from there is an incentive to go for fuel cell hydrogen from a CO2 point of view and of course if we get the hydrogen from renewable sources or from biomass that would be an even better incentive so this is in terms of the distributor generation option we get the option for hydrogen vehicles as compared to IC engine vehicles so if we look at the chain that we had we have the vehicle you have the petrol filling station, the petrol transport the refinery transport and crude oil production and that's the fossil fuel chain hydrogen chain will be vehicle filling station, hydrogen storage and delivery, the pipeline transport hydrogen production center and the primary energy source that we have we take an example with a small vehicle, a small size passenger car Manuti 800 petrol field 37 BHP brake horsepower which comes out to 27 kilowatt this was the largest chunk of Indian passenger market in 2005-2006 today that share would be lower because you have the other models but just to give you for the example this is an example we had done some came back you can make this as a basis now when we calculate this we have to calculate all on the same common basis so what we have to do is we have to see what is the weight that we put on the vehicle because based on the weight that is there on the vehicle the power requirement will change and then the fuel requirement will also change so we take the weight of the empty vehicle the body excluding the engine and the tank and that for the 800 manuti 800 was 550 kg assume a certain number of weight of the passengers that is 350 so that this becomes 900 we have the coefficient of drag and the coefficient of rolling resistance the frontal area and then we have to presume a certain amount of travel we have done this calculation 100 km of travel per day now look at based on the amount of range or the amount of time that you have to you can use before you refuel we can decide what is the capacity of the tank and I will upload a paper where you can see the details so basically the petrol tank is least in terms of weight because of the 40 kg cng tank is 140 kg and fuel cell turns out to be 130 kg and the engine 60 kg 60 kg and then this is 15 for the motors and 15 so that's 30 so total if you see this is 160 kg and cng is about 200 here it's 100 so that's the difference in weight that difference in weight so what we do is if you look different kinds of drive cycle and you can look at there is the automobile research association of India which does work on different kinds of automobiles the drive cycle basically shows you the speed versus time trace typically and then there is there are different drive cycles for highways and for urban in the case of urban driving mainly it's the road conditions and the traffic that limits and then so you have certain amounts of acceleration deceleration so if you see as compared to the European drive cycle the Indian urban drive cycle has a lower average speed rapid accelerations as compared to 23.4 km per hour instead of 62.4 so with this drive cycle we then calculate and look at there is a freely downloadable software called advisor you can put in the values over there for choose your vehicle vehicle characteristic and then you can also just calculate it up front by calculating the power required to overcome the drag the frictional resistance and the inertial force and then this gives you the total and then you have the power at the wheel these are the data that we use for the base case and you can take a look at all of this and then with we said we have a certain driving range and then we got a cost in terms of rupees per kilometer so essentially with this what we can do also is we have to have not just a vehicle but we also look at the hydrogen fuel chain that the production production can be from different sources at PV electrolysis wind electrolysis biomas gasification steam methane reforming and then you have a transport which is the pipeline transport storage could be compressed hydrogen liquid hydrogen, metal hydride and this is an area of research and then the utilization which we are talking of is in the PEM fuel cell so in the steam methane reforming what we are looking at is CH4 plus A2H2O and then you can get price of hydrogen based on the price of core so if we look at now the efficiencies you can find for the petrol engine this is the transmission, the IC engine transport of petrol and the oil mining if we look at the gas engine slightly different but almost similar order of magnitude in the case of fuel cell we look at the in here it is the fuel cell efficiency which is the determining factor the motor and the transmission are highly efficient and overall this is the kind of efficiency so based on this you can multiply the numbers and cross check you would find that the overall efficiency of the fuel cell is higher than this that in both the cases in the gas gas engine, CNG it is almost similar and the interesting thing is there is an incentive in terms of efficiency there is also an incentive in terms of the CO2 I have not shown you these numbers but you can cross check and you will see that the CO2 emissions per 100 km of travel is lower and you can actually calculate this from the first principles in India like in most parts of the world we are looking at a transition to electric vehicles and there is a policy where we would like to have much more of electric vehicles in our mix currently of course electric vehicles is a very very small almost negligible percentage of our mix now when we talk about an electric vehicle and comparison of electric vehicle with the IC engine vehicle wether it will result in a saving in CO2 or not will depend on what is the mix of our electricity so there is this interesting graph which is from the world energy outlook of 2019 which talks about the gram CO2 per kilometre of travel and it shows different countries and this is the area and you can see currently this value is the IC engine is of the order of 150 and when we look at an electric vehicle we are looking at something which is actually today it is higher than that and it depends on of course the way in which you do the calculation as the mix changes with this this is going to be so hybrid vehicle the existing this is the kind of difference that we can get as the mix changes with the sustainable scenario the electric vehicle can be significantly lower and so that is the kind of thinking but basically what happens is you can calculate that the relative carbon footprint of IC engine versus the cars depend on the power sector mix and so because of that the tradeoff that we are talking of this is the IC engine which will go through if we looking at the hybrid and this is the kind of thing that we are looking at and so depending on the calculation and depending on the type of mix if a mix is completely going to be more coal in some states that it may actually there may not be significant CO2 savings however of course local emission savings will be there and as our mix gets reduced we can the share of CO2 in electricity mix gets reduced we can actually move towards something like this much lower value and that is the kind of target thinking of so just to summarize what we have looked at in this module is how do we calculate and compare different truths from the primary energy viewpoint and we start by drawing the energy flow diagram put down efficiencies and then compare them with primary energy there are different sometimes the two different sources are then we are comparing coal versus oil and then we can also calculate the total CO2 emissions over the chain we can compare not just based on the energy but then we can see what is the relative scarcity and from an energy security point of view what is the tradeoff between these fields we will take this forward in the next module where we will now go to the next step where we talk about net energy analysis and we will look at everything from an energy viewpoint