A No-Nonsense Look at Climate Change and Petrocollapse

Peak Moment 81: Former energy analyst Jan Lundberg opens by singing "Have A Global Warming Day" and closes with "The Depaver's Song." In between is an unabashed look at climate distortion, peak oil, and declining ecosystems, all bringing a necessary collapse of our "pigging out" economy. He envisions a future with radically curtailed energy use, and people coming together to find local solutions. [www.culturechange.org]

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Jan
• Lundberg
• petrocollapse
• energy
• peak
• oil
• climate
• change
• Have
• Global
• Warming
• Day

[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.

[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.

[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]

@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"

[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.