Economic Collapse 2011, Fukushima Response will destabilize monetary system.

[timelesstruths]

I like the good old dam and then there is coal and well because there is so much we limit it.

[PeterTroutman]

You see the physical world. I am a very rare expert on money. Literally, one of the few in the world that fully understands it. It took me 4 years of deep study to see the simplicity. Money is in fact linked to the physical world, and a government can't give anything value by fiat. The link between production and money value lies in the fact that the currency may be convertible into a commodity in the future, due to the government ability to tax and form the redemption reserve. 500 char limit =/

[bigcollapso]

@PeterTroutman Very True. The technical world creates the goods and services that the government assigns its tokens to. But the monetary system is exponential, and the energy supply is creeping towards "Heat Death". These two systems are completely incompatible.

[PeterTroutman]

@bigcollapso Nothing you said makes sense. How is the monetary system exponential? Money is something with value which takes least discount in all trade. It is a standard of value and medium of exchange. Without money there is barter. And a sustainable energy system is possible. It is population growth that is unsustainable.

[bigcollapso]

@PeterTroutman Our money is lent into existence. Only the principle is created, not the interest. The interest compounds with time meaning that new debt must be created to service the interest as a function of time. This has many implications. Debt is always greater than money, etc. (Currently about 5*) and the situation gets worse each hour. So the monetary system is a simple exponential function of time.

[PeterTroutman]

@bigcollapso You are only thinking about money from an abstract and incorrect mathematical position.Debt is a promise to repay in the standard money. Money is best thought of as a commodity, as it used to be for most of time, and probably will be again (or equal to by convertibility). I can't mandate that anything you have is of higher value. Neither can the government, or anyone. Money facilitates trade. It is an instrument of exchange, not time. I can cite many examples. Can you?

[bigcollapso]

@PeterTroutman You are missing the most basic point. THE ISSUANCE. Think issuance and the interest function. You are focusing on post issuance.

[PeterTroutman]

@bigcollapso The issuance of what.. money? And our entire "supply" of money does not earn interest. Is that your assumption?

[bigcollapso]

@PeterTroutman he issuance of what.. money? And our entire "supply" of money does not earn interest. Is that your assumption?

Yes, it is not an assumption, it is fact.

[dbakken]

Check out US Energy Facts Explained for US Energy consumption

[mariss711]

The monetary system is for sure collapsing thats a granted, its one of our major divisional factors on the planet and lends to the creation of poverty and war among many other negative affects for the many, and huge huge gains for a very small percentage of the worlds population....so how do we get rid of it, outright, just get rid of it and come up with something new, we invented this monster (money) how do we kill it ?

[mariss711]

One word....Geo-Thermal !!

[dbakken]

The United States is now producing more than 50% of the oil that it consumes. I doubt most Americans know that. The lines crossed in the second half of 2010. It's interesting that we don't see more written about that in the mainstream media.

One can argue that with conservation, improved efficiencies in transportation, alternate energy for transportation, and continued growth in fossil fuel production in the US,

[bigcollapso]

@dbakken Yup, that is what Peak Oil is all about, collapse and less consumption. We are down about 2 million BBD. This will continue as the depression accelerates.

[cdltpx]

I have been saying Jimmy Carter was the last true president we had. All the rest were bought and paid for Carter worked for USA. We can solve our energy problems for much of USA by rebuilding our homes out of concrete go to MDI domes or AI domes these homes are near disaster proof costrelatively the same as a stick built home the kicker is they use 1/3 the energy of a traditional home. Drop KWH of a home that much you can go solar and wind in no time. You go from $100k in panels to $33.3K

[cdltpx]

I have been saying Jimmy Carter was the last true president we had. All the rest were bought and paid for Carter worked for USA.

[hitssquad]

8:37 "The nuclear industry is already relatively-low eroei by most people's estimation"

You're calling eroei's on the order of 500:1 "relatively-low"?: nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistr­ibution "The Rossing mine in Namibia mines Uranium at an Ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors."

.

What would you call "relatively-high" then? A million to one? A billion to one?

[ChrisSweden]

@hitssquad But the mining is not the only step in the process, is it? What about construction, maintenance and cooling of the power plants for instance?

[hitssquad]

@ChrisSweden "But the mining is not the only step in the process"

That's right. That's why it says: "the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors." That means that all steps in the process -- including the most energy-costly, enrichment -- are being considered in that analysis.

[hitssquad]

@ChrisSweden "What about construction, maintenance and cooling"

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/OneCompletePa­ge "The following table displays the source and the amount of energy required to produce 1 KW-Hr of electricity from the Forsmark power plant. The table includes the energy used in construction of the plant, mining the Uranium, enriching it, converting it to fuel, disposing the waste and decommissioning the plant. The Forsmark plant is assumed to run for 40 years. There is an additional

[hitssquad]

"0.026 grams of Uranium consumed in generating this one KW-Hr of electricity. This 0.026 grams includes the Uranium used to generate power at Forsmark and the Uranium consumed by the French Nuclear Power plants that produced the electricity that enriched the Forsmark Fuel.

So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. Normalized to 1 GigaWatt

[hitssquad]

"electrical capacity, the energy required to construct and decommission the plant, which amounts to 4 Peta-Joules (PJ), which is repaid in 1.5 months. The energy required to dispose of the waste is also 4 PJ and repaid in 1.5 months. In total this is less than 0.8% of the all the electrical energy produced by the plant."

.

Given that some of the energy of the fuel would be consumed in the construction of a plant, a simple way of increasing the EROEI of the fuel would be to run the plant longer.

[bigcollapso]

@hitssquad Ah yes, you have now reached the point of this video.

[hitssquad]

@bigcollapso "you have now reached the point of this video."

Why are you dodging the questions?: "You're calling eroei's on the order of 500:1 "relatively-low"? [...] What would you call "relatively-high" then? A million to one? A billion to one?"

[1x93cm]

i think they're clueless really- they live in an ivory tower and devise theories that just dont work here on the ground- neither do the grand schemes because they are concieved of inside a bubble and researched in a bubble

[valhala56]

You are going to get negative comments about what you said about President which is all correct by the way but the one the reasons many despise him is that they saw him as a "Debbie Downer" when he tried to get Americans to focus on energy. Americans unfortunely didn't get the message then and sorry to say not many do now.

It's all very odd how a concept as simple as Peak Oil that so many people have diffuclty understanding all the implications, that has been something I have asked myself...

[bigcollapso]

@valhala56 You and I are both the "Problem Solving" type. We know that the best and usually only way to solve a problem is to get it out there and put the best minds that you have at it. There is a different mind set among some, "I am optimistic, give me hope, it can't be that bad". I have seen aircraft and software companies driven into destruction with that mindset. Glad to see you here, hope you are doing well.

[valhala56]

@bigcollapso I'm doing ok, depiste the enourmous human trajedy of the Fukushima Crisis, and the ongoing BP Oil situation in the Gulf, which I don't think is over...all terrible tragedys they are intelluctaly interesting to see how they will be resolved.

Like movies playing out in real time, the brave Fireman and staff at the Fukushima plant going in an enviroment of extreme hazard, & the sucide mission it could be.

[bigcollapso]

@valhala56 The Fukushima Crisis gets all the press, but the quake and tsunami devastated so much that it is hard to believe. Miles and miles of towns that are just gone. I wonder when it will happen here, probably California. It seems like the earth is getting on with it's changes that we were lucky to avoid for a while.

[dbakken]

@valhala56The United States is now producing more than 50% of the oil that it consumes. I doubt most Americans know that. The lines crossed in the second half of 2010. It's interesting that we don't see more written about that in the mainstream media.

One can argue that with conservation, improved efficiencies in transportation, alternate energy for transportation, and continued growth in fossil fuel production in the US, "we" really could be energy independent.

[valhala56]

@dbakken I don't know where you get your info but the US imports 70% of the fuel it consumes. Where the hell do you get 50% or are you just it makeing up? Cite me a source, Lindsey Williams, LMAO.

[bigcollapso]

@valhala56 It is true that if you look at the recent trends, the consumption is falling a lot and the production is going up. The number looks to me like it's closer to 50% now than 70%. If someone looks at this and thinks that it is a positive development, they are taking away the wrong thing. It means:

1. The peaking and low EROEI of global supplies puts the USA's low EROEI stuff in the running. (financial collapse ahead)

3. Still using 22% + of global and accelerating depletion of 2% supply.

[valhala56]

@bigcollapso Cite me a source where is says we are importing only 50%. Is consumption or Demand destruction in progress? Yeah but tell me where you get this 50% number at other then an educated guess.

Now the person you are agreeing with is implying i his own words that we will tame this beast with alt energy & other efficenys so don't worry.

Hey that's fine with me if you want to go into the delusional camp. Be my guest. We will soon see the chaos from the higher prices.

[bigcollapso]

@valhala56 OK. I didn't want you to think that I went into the delusional camp. EIA 1st quarter update. Crude Oil Production 5.55mbd, imports 8.63mbd. That's 64% imports.

Liquid Consumption 19.01 mbd, Imports 8.85 mbd. That's 46.5%.

Just wanted to not leave this handing out there.

BC

[valhala56]

@bigcollapso Just watched a ABC news vid on Peak Oil that I got off CollapseNet. They said the IEA figures were wrong, the IEA was overstimating Oil in the ground and not yet produced. This was proven by some Swedish Physicists in the Vid.

But hey I am open to any new possibilities that people say are happening in the US. I just hear a lot about Natural Gas Fracking which is an extreme method to get NG but hey if it cause some people to have fire coming out of their faucets, well deal with it.