A No-Nonsense Look at Climate Change and Petrocollapse

[mphello]

Hey, peakmoment: please remove all anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denying trolls. Unless you allow 911-hoax-theorists, too - who pretty much overlap completely with AGW-deniers.

[peakmoment]

@mphello, I believe that global warming is no hoax and is backed by serious science (and observation), and the mainstream story handed out about 9/11 is also deeply flawed. But I want to keep the comment lines uncensored except for flaming, obscenity, vulgarity, disrespect, and just plain advertising.

It's helpful to have folks like you point out to the trolls that their position is unfounded. But then, it can be comforting to be an ostrich with one's head in the sand.

[shamanik1320]

the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a joke, its a elitist tactic to tax us for things that arent a problem, come on when have corporate interests ever cared about the environment but now they're all more than happy to go along with this phony science. wake up. google climategate. there is no scientific consensus, only a bunch of corporate enslavement and stupidity.

[peakmoment]

@shamanik1320, you need to separate out science and empirical observation from what The Powers that Be do with that information. Corporate control using such info to dumb us down and control us: I'm with you on that. Phony science or lack of scientific consensus: you're sadly mistaken.

[aggressorwolfen]

He makes many valid provocative points. This apocalypse is not going to be dodged and it's severity is only dimly perceived. What detracts from this interview is the interviewer who is insufferably glib and amateur who is constantly trying to upstage her guests.

[HansVerbeek]

Fascinating: Lundberg predicts the financial collaps of oktober 2008 one year before it happened.

[Hamish121212]

Dont give up your day job :)

Great videos - keep up the good work!

[DFORCE1969]

we are living through either the death knell or rebirth of our species;Co-operation or annililation.

[CandianBear]

Business needs to see climate change and peaking of oil as the greatest opportunities ever presented to Humankind for innovation and ingenuity. Without business, our collective response on the community levels will not make enough of a difference... Paul Hawkens the Ecology of Commerce is absolutley correct - business has to be a part of solution.

[peakmoment]

Business is centrally involved in everything we do. In Peak Moment # 75, Michelle Long of Sustainable Connections talks about how businesses are moving her community towards sustainability.

[JonThm]

Molecular nuclear fusion turns water into power, with no CO2 or toxic death!

[JonThm]

Man could not make teh weather if he wated to!

[peakmoment]

Humans can, however, affect the atmosphere. The ozone holes caused by chloroflurocarbons is a recent example; the reduction in ozone hole sizes because we stopped using CFCs tells us human activities at this scale can and do indeed affect the weather.

[pythonline101]

A much-needed reminder of the consequences of over-consumtion and over-reliance on a limited and very-slowly-renewable energy resource. The answer lies best in self-reliance in energy production - solar panels or windmills if we have room on our houses.

[peakmoment]

Unfortunately your numbers don't comprehend climate science and the actual reality on the planet. We have more carbon in our atmosphernowe  than the earth has had for 200 million years. Read James Lovelock's Revenge of Gaia, or James Hansen of NASA.

I do not support nuclear as an energy source: too many problems with radiation, security, and waste. Nor does guest Jan Lundberg.

[JonThm]

Global WArming was PR thought up by the nuclear power lot. CO2 just supports lie on Earth - including your own! CO2 levels go up in an ice age! Down in a warm period.

[peakmoment]

How I wish this were true, because then we could deal with this on a social level. I think the polar bears struggling with the increased breakup of arctic ice, and the thousands of scientists in many fields, have overwhelmingly conclusive evidence otherwise.

[JonThm]

The photo of teh drowning pollar bears was histgoric footage - it happens, get over it! See my blog on now to do safe, clean and cheap nuclear FUSION. We ahve since the industrial revolution and steam power.

[sweetpotos]

Holy shit, these ecologists have really just drifted off into the absurd. Does he really think that state power and capital will simply disappear just because we are running out of oil? We have to prepare people for a fight. When the shit hits the fan, we are going to have a brief opportunity to take on the state and build a new society, but thanks to people like this we will be totally unprepared and will try to plough fields with donkeys and live in teepees.

[rspawn]

People like this *are* preparing to build a new society: lower energy use, higher energy efficiency, local energy and food production.

They do not promote living in teepees - as you might know if you'd have watched some of the other episodes of Peak Moment. And they don't even mention donkeys.

So your claims are absurd, a distorted caricature at best - where did you get those ideas?

[lundbergbl]

oh dad, you never cease to surprise me.

[JonThm]

Lets do molecular nuclear fusion - details on 'Fusion on Earth' group.

[peakmoment]

Fusion may become one energy source in time. But as physicist James Lovelock notes, we need energy sources NOW, and fusion has yet to be developed on the scale needed.

[JonThm]

We have done molecular nuclear fusion without knowing in since the industria lrevolution. We cna generate all our heat and power, with just a whiff of He, TODAY!

[JonThm]

Not ion the futre! We do nuclear fusion today, via steam power. We can get all our energy that way! With no CO2.

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "fusion has yet to be developed"

True (other than fusion-explosive-powered steam engines, which are essentially available now). However fission is available, and its fuel supply is large enough to produce nuclear electricity at current rates for a half trillion years.

[peakmoment]

Recent reports say we are approaching peak uranium. Plus nuclear electricity requires a great deal of petroleum (mining, transporting, refining, building, etc.) I believe Richard Heinberg has determined we have less than 50-100 years of uranium.

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment

If that were true, why is the fuel cost for nukes less than a half-cent/ kWh, while the fuel costs for diesl-electricity is 5-21 cents/ kWh:

topkwh. 50webs. com

For April 2008 and March 2009, heavy-fuel electricity was 5 and 11 cents/ kWh, and diesl electricity 8 and 21 cents/ kWh.

"The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2008 was 0. 49 cents/ kWh. "

nei. org/ resourcesandstats/ nuclear_ statistics/ costs

[hitssquad]

Erratum: the April 2008 and March 2009 figures should be chronologically reversed. Thus:

"For April 2008 and March 2009, heavy-fuel electricity was 11 and 5 cents/ kWh, and diesl electricity 21 and 8 cents/ kWh."

The lower costs for March 2009 were because of a steep decline in oil prices, relative to April 2008.

[peakmoment]

The analyses I've read (Richard Heinberg's Powerdown) suggest we look at the ENTIRE costs of any energy source: building infrastructure, processing, refining the fuel, transporting, dismantling, (and with nuclear disposal of spent fuels) -- and when all those costs are put in place -- nuclear is not cost effective. Which is why private investment has lagged and governments have done such huge subsidies.

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "nuclear disposal of spent fuels"

That cost is priced into the fuel cost we were just discussing. Did you visit the link?:

"Funds Committed for the Nuclear Waste Fund

$31.4 billion (1/10th of a cent per kWh of electricity generated at nuclear power plants plus interest since 1983). Of the $31.4 billion, $9.5 billion has been spent. Payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund are included in the fuel costs."

Also, spent fuel doesn't necessarily need to be disposed-of.

[hitssquad]

(Spent-fuel disposition, cont.)

Spent-fuel can simply cool in-place on inexpensive concrete pads.

images. google. com/images?q=nuclear+spent+fue­l+storage+casks

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "processing, refining the fuel, transporting"

Those are all priced into the fuel cost.

world-nuclear. org/info/inf02. html

Enrichment is the most energy-intensive part of fuel production, and it can be entirely powered by nuclear electricity.

"building infrastructure"

This represents the largest portion of nuclear power cost. The longer a reactor is run (decades, centuries), the lower its lifetime infrastructure cost per kWh.

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "dismantling"

Decommissioning.

world-nuclear. org/info/inf02. html

"For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power (ie they have to be paid or set aside securely by the utility generating the power, and the cost passed on to the customer in the actual tariff)."

[hitssquad]

(Decommissioning, cont.)

"Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced."

Also, nuclear powerplant lives can be extended indefinitely. If a shutdown ever were desired, a plant could cheaply be put into SafeStor mode.

[hitssquad]

(Decommissioning, cont.)

google. com/search?q=site%3Aworld-nucl­ear. org+safestor

"Safe Enclosure (or Safestor): This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years."

[peakmoment]

From Clark, Vermont Law school (paraphrase): Fuel costs for nuclear are low. It is the capital costs that are out of this world. Fuel costs for solar/wind/geothermal/hydro are zero, which is much cheaper than nuclear.

From Rep. Dennis Kucinich: A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency"

Energy efficiency (except efficiency at the source) does not produce electricity.

On the consumer side, efficient lamps wouldn't reduce energy usage, since computers do not use lamps, and since computing will soon be virtually the only energy consumer in the world.

news. google. com/news?q=computers+energy+co­nsumption+2030

"IEA expects energy use by new electronic devices to triple by 2030"

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "Kucinich ... Cooper "

Assuming that "100 new nuclear reactors" really means 100 gigawatts of new nuclear, that would be about 800 billion kWh/year, or 80 trillion kWh over 100 years of service. At 10c/kWh, it would be worth $8 trillion.

It might cost $200 billion to build the reactor units - with interest, $300 billion. Production costs might average at 2c/kWh, so they would total $1.6 trillion. No decom is needed since the reactors can be put in Safstor. Total: $1.9 trillion.

[hitssquad]

Electricity from wind and solar cost about 100 times that from nuclear, so their electricity would cost about $190 trillion to produce.

Nuclear ends up costing about $188 trillion less.

[bramcorleone]

Quote: "That we leave the past behind. Technologically in many ways, that require vast masses of consumption and we would maybe reinvent society.." etc etc: ".. We've got to get food out off the grounds.. who has the skill to do what? .. " etc etc: "and we're gonna do some trading.."

So this guy is telling me that we are going to be back were we started to find ourself at the same point where we are now in some couple thousand years??

[peakmoment]

I think Jan's saying that we will have far, far less energy than we now do, just as it was before the industrial revolution. We can't be in the same place we were a couple thousand years ago -- we have billions more people and most of the earth's ecosystems severely damaged.

[VarinaFred]

I agree with most of the commentary. Could use more facts!

[mason104]

1. I think he meant that, in general, college students had a sense that wars, pollution, and over-population, i.e. gifts of so-called civilized life (pharma and agriculture enhanced), were leading the world in a potentially problematic direction.

2. I think he suggested that plastic-related chemicals are ingested through soft plastic containers, which might have some effect on health and alertness or resolve. I don't know anything about that.

[monkey4725]

To bad that generation conveniently forgot all those things in the 80s and got levies and SUVs.

The youth today may not seem as riled up all the time and protesting but I know many people who are changing their lifestyle, which is more important. Too bad many of the great generation of hippies like to criticize the current youth while they were the one ones to continue and accelerate this consumption.

[gazzyjeanne]

One mistake is to link the questionable man caused warming theory with the more objectively verifiable peak oil theory. No wonder people do not feel a sense of urgency. Another mistake is to look for collective government enforced actions rather than individual solutions. There are people who are taking individual action now.

Otherwise, I agree that the collapse will be dramatic and there will be a significant dieoff. It cannot be otherwise on a planet designed to carry 1 billion.

[hitssquad]

@gazzyjeanne "with the more objectively verifiable peak oil theory."

The peak-oil theory was debunked long ago.

juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource

[peakmoment]

Peak Oil does not mean the earth will run out of oil. It means that it will become harder to find, more expensive to extract and refine, and eventually too expensive to be worth extracting. We've got signs of that already -- with smaller oil fields, turning to oil shale and tar sands, drilling 19,000 feet down offshore. Higher-priced oil was part of the economic collapse a year ago.

[hitssquad]

@peakmoment "Peak Oil does not mean the earth will run out of oil."

Yes. We all know what Peak Oil means, and no one has suggested it might mean "the earth will run out of oil".

If oil supplies were not keeping up with demand, why might the prices be so low?

inflationdata. com/inflation/images/charts/Oi­l/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Cha­rt. htm

gasresources. net/LynchM%2006%20(Crop%20Circ­les). pdf

The latest Saudi production cost estimate is Adelman 2005 at $2.11/bbl.

[oldhacks]

check out my new tune about riding trains instead of driving cars.

[dionysusstar]

Another great video. Thanks.

[oldhacks]

check out my new tune about "alternative transportation"

watch?v=YLJH9rLvRKA

great video. love you guys

[DKW2088]

60's generation went to university to change the world for the better? Youth have a more plastic body composition so they don't care?