GREAT speech. I do one to put one tip that maybe can help in the future. Close to the end ~28 you say something along the lines of "I will TELL you where to get more resources on that" in references to survival metrics. What about using words like "I can show you" or "I have some more unbiased sources that you can refer to". I find people, especially Americans, hate the words "tell you". They say stuff like don't tell me what to do or I don't care what you tell me. Alex you can walk between rain drops and you keep improving all the time. Best of luck to you in the future.
In March 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation.
There are a number of misleading terms surrounding the energy issues. There is “off grid “, there is the “ renewable grid” and there is the “mainstream grid” Off grid is really distributed generation, where energy is produced on site for the needs of the residents. This in the developed world is generally “ cottage country” , where the wealthy have vacation homes in remote areas or planned communities , cooperative groups often focused on religious or other common beliefs. The majority of people in the first world are connected to the main electrical grid. Only the scheduled mainstream grid has the energy density and dependability required for industrial development. In the the developing world communities are moving to distributed generation, producing power for the use of households with minimal distribution , house hold or community solar wind and hydro. Only hydro can provide energy for industrial development. The renewable grid doesn’t actually exist , it’s, our old distribution system,with large centralized solar and wind generation sites. We know that renewable energy sources with the exception of hydro cannot support the industrial grid. We are asking the developing world to give up industrial development to remain in the renewable power world . California is discovering what it takes to remain a developed economy . Unfortunately the present political climate is moving California away from development . Where I’m writing from still hasn’t figured out that we can’t even heat our homes without the industrial grid. We must decide whether to live in an industrial society or decide who gets live.
Lets first look at this from incoming light. The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% of that is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated in the Earth's black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, the planet must heat.
Now let us look at this from the secondary greenhouse gases position. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is it both absorbs and releases infrared photons. Once released, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.
As the atmosphere warms, the differential temperature decreases between the ocean's surface and the atmosphere, blocking the ocean from releasing its heat. In addition, about half of the 37 gigatonnes is going into the oceans, also blocking the infrared heat from escaping the oceans and preventing the atmosphere from warming as much as expected. This is where 93% of the additional heat is being stored. This additional heat in the oceans will not only melt the ice caps but will allow vastly larger hurricanes to form and travel at much greater distances. The imminent threat isn't sea level rise but a future of massive storm surges. This website gives a more detailed explanation. www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
As the temperature rises, the Hadley cell will increase in size, blocking moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranian ocean, consequently pushing the Mexican and the Sahara Deserts north. This will turn Europe and the North American Continent into desert regions. The Sahara desert itself becomes a wetland again. Unfortunately, the temperature will be too high for us large-brained humans to survive and thrive in these conditions. Due to the increase in Arctic temperature, the Thermohaline circulation will slow down allowing the Equatorial region to heat even further, increasing cyclones the size of the last interglacial period when massive chunks of the reef were thrown on top of cliffs. These websites give more detailed explanations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/30/why-climate-scientists-are-so-obsessed-with-two-mysterious-boulders-in-the-bahamas/?.f2d0b8923baf
Since there seems to be an issue with fossil fuels, the question is what to do about it. This is my answer. If anyone has a different solution, I'd like to hear it. Let's begin with BTUs out vs BTU in by the energy source. Corn 1.3 Solar PV 9 Natural gas 10 Windmills 18 Light Water Reactors 80 Coal 80 Hydropower 100 LFTR and TWR 2,000 Now, consider deaths per terrawatt. Coal 161 Oil 36 Biomass 12 Peat 12 Natural gas 4 Solar PV .44 Hydropower .10 Light water reactors .04 LFTR and TWR .003 This does not include the one to two million people that die from cooking with carbon-based fuels. Solar ovens are by far the better way to go. As you can see LFTRs and TWRs are the most cost efficient and safest energy supply possible at this time. We should easily be able to reach $0.02 to $0.03 per kilowatt-hour. That brings the price of everything down substantially. Building small mass-produced modular breeder reactors would also make windmills and solar panels exceptionally cost-effective. We could have the population producing the majority of their own energy leaving nuclear energy for industry. Or we can continue with this absurd global warming debate.
Let us now talk about the multiplier effect. If we build breeder reactors first and use that electricity to produce solar panels, the BTU multiplier effect would be 2000*9=18,000 to 1. Considering a coal-fired power plant has a ratio of about 80 to 1, that figures out to be about 18,000/80=225 times the increase in efficiency. Doing so would flatten out the hierarchies of the world, creating vastly greater independence worldwide. This would accomplish exactly what the murderous communists attempted but badly failed at.
Earlier this year, I published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebuts a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition. It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available. The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this. Previous attempts to rebuke Mr. Epstein and Ms. White, such as the one written by Jody Freeman, have failed because the writers have as little understanding of history, fuels, energy, and real solutions as Epstein and White do. You can read my complete rebuttal at www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/02/19/511177-immorality-arguing-that-there-s-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels.html. Marc J. Rauch Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher THE AUTO CHANNEL
The Auto Channel Your arguments and even your title don’t appear to be well thought out. At all. Fossil fuels caused war eh? What about all the other was in history? And even if the case can be made, more people have been saved by fossil fuels for sure. Hospitals, farming equipment, trucks etc have all majorly contributed to a decrease in mortality around the world. Climate related deaths have decreased by over 95% in the last few hundred years. So basically it improved the lives of billions of people and maybe over 100 million died in wars caused by their own governments which you conveniently blame on fossil fuels lol. Also, your title makes one wonder how you define morality.
"The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by or fought over petroleum oil." So the Nazi's were killing Jews over oil? There is a reason Alex didn't humor you with a debate. You're a religious zealot who makes wild claims and fear mongers. Your entire article is filled with wold claims like the one above. If you don't want to use fossil fuels than get off them.
"If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are" "The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters" you completely contradicted yourself, when it's good, it's the inventions and when it's bad, it's fossil fuels.
Great talk, Alex. We need more clear thinking people like you, especially in energy. Keep up the great work!
Alex, this is one of your better presentations.. clear, concise...and absence of superfulious adjectives.
What a great talk. Human flourishing is definitely our goal.
For what time period? Just now? No consideration for the future?
If we don't flourish today, there may not be a future.
@@Thaheadband33 Epstein is a huge proponent of Gen, IV nuclear power which is our energy future, safer and cleaner than anything we have today.
Alex's work is critically important !! Thank you, Alex.
Brilliant
GREAT speech. I do one to put one tip that maybe can help in the future. Close to the end ~28 you say something along the lines of "I will TELL you where to get more resources on that" in references to survival metrics. What about using words like "I can show you" or "I have some more unbiased sources that you can refer to". I find people, especially Americans, hate the words "tell you". They say stuff like don't tell me what to do or I don't care what you tell me. Alex you can walk between rain drops and you keep improving all the time. Best of luck to you in the future.
Great point about the “greenness” of North Korea.
Good job, Alex.... Thank you.
Great speech
Good work Alex
Yes Barbara, Philosophers, who needs them.
In March 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation.
Intermittent audio. I have headset on and still can't hear.
It isn't just looking at its side effects, but only looking at its negative side effects.
Emotion almost always trumps logic.
Go Alex!!
Alex, British college kids need you bad !!! Take klennexs for them, and guards for you !!!
I like what he’s saying, but I want to see more facts and stats. Even science he’s found for his basis of his stance which I think is a great stance.
I'm 32 and I just decided to become a philosopher.
Alex could debate the average person, who supports "climate change" and hates fossil fuel, and tear them to pieces for 5 hours straight
watch Alex debate Bill McKibben- it's on UA-cam- he mopped the floor with Bill
lol the north korean analogy was very funy
But Apple hires philosophers, as programmers, just for this very reason, how to think properly.
There are a number of misleading terms surrounding the energy issues. There is “off grid “, there is the “ renewable grid” and there is the “mainstream grid” Off grid is really distributed generation, where energy is produced on site for the needs of the residents. This in the developed world is generally “ cottage country” , where the wealthy have vacation homes in remote areas or planned communities , cooperative groups often focused on religious or other common beliefs. The majority of people in the first world are connected to the main electrical grid. Only the scheduled mainstream grid has the energy density and dependability required for industrial development. In the the developing world communities are moving to distributed generation, producing power for the use of households with minimal distribution , house hold or community solar wind and hydro. Only hydro can provide energy for industrial development. The renewable grid doesn’t actually exist , it’s, our old distribution system,with large centralized solar and wind generation sites. We know that renewable energy sources with the exception of hydro cannot support the industrial grid. We are asking the developing world to give up industrial development to remain in the renewable power world . California is discovering what it takes to remain a developed economy . Unfortunately the present political climate is moving California away from development . Where I’m writing from still hasn’t figured out that we can’t even heat our homes without the industrial grid. We must decide whether to live in an industrial society or decide who gets live.
Lets first look at this from incoming light. The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% of that is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated in the Earth's black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, the planet must heat.
Now let us look at this from the secondary greenhouse gases position. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is it both absorbs and releases infrared photons. Once released, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.
As the atmosphere warms, the differential temperature decreases between the ocean's surface and the atmosphere, blocking the ocean from releasing its heat. In addition, about half of the 37 gigatonnes is going into the oceans, also blocking the infrared heat from escaping the oceans and preventing the atmosphere from warming as much as expected. This is where 93% of the additional heat is being stored. This additional heat in the oceans will not only melt the ice caps but will allow vastly larger hurricanes to form and travel at much greater distances. The imminent threat isn't sea level rise but a future of massive storm surges. This website gives a more detailed explanation.
www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
As the temperature rises, the Hadley cell will increase in size, blocking moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranian ocean, consequently pushing the Mexican and the Sahara Deserts north. This will turn Europe and the North American Continent into desert regions. The Sahara desert itself becomes a wetland again. Unfortunately, the temperature will be too high for us large-brained humans to survive and thrive in these conditions. Due to the increase in Arctic temperature, the Thermohaline circulation will slow down allowing the Equatorial region to heat even further, increasing cyclones the size of the last interglacial period when massive chunks of the reef were thrown on top of cliffs. These websites give more detailed explanations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/30/why-climate-scientists-are-so-obsessed-with-two-mysterious-boulders-in-the-bahamas/?.f2d0b8923baf
Since there seems to be an issue with fossil fuels, the question is what to do about it. This is my answer. If anyone has a different solution, I'd like to hear it. Let's begin with BTUs out vs BTU in by the energy source.
Corn 1.3
Solar PV 9
Natural gas 10
Windmills 18
Light Water Reactors 80
Coal 80
Hydropower 100
LFTR and TWR 2,000
Now, consider deaths per terrawatt.
Coal 161
Oil 36
Biomass 12
Peat 12
Natural gas 4
Solar PV .44
Hydropower .10
Light water reactors .04
LFTR and TWR .003
This does not include the one to two million people that die from cooking with carbon-based fuels. Solar ovens are by far the better way to go.
As you can see LFTRs and TWRs are the most cost efficient and safest energy supply possible at this time. We should easily be able to reach $0.02 to $0.03 per kilowatt-hour. That brings the price of everything down substantially. Building small mass-produced modular breeder reactors would also make windmills and solar panels exceptionally cost-effective. We could have the population producing the majority of their own energy leaving nuclear energy for industry. Or we can continue with this absurd global warming debate.
Let us now talk about the multiplier effect. If we build breeder reactors first and use that electricity to produce solar panels, the BTU multiplier effect would be 2000*9=18,000 to 1. Considering a coal-fired power plant has a ratio of about 80 to 1, that figures out to be about 18,000/80=225 times the increase in efficiency. Doing so would flatten out the hierarchies of the world, creating vastly greater independence worldwide. This would accomplish exactly what the murderous communists attempted but badly failed at.
Boxer's IQ is what ? 90 ?
Earlier this year, I published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebuts a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition.
It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available.
The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this.
Previous attempts to rebuke Mr. Epstein and Ms. White, such as the one written by Jody Freeman, have failed because the writers have as little understanding of history, fuels, energy, and real solutions as Epstein and White do.
You can read my complete rebuttal at www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/02/19/511177-immorality-arguing-that-there-s-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels.html.
Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
The Auto Channel Your arguments and even your title don’t appear to be well thought out. At all. Fossil fuels caused war eh? What about all the other was in history? And even if the case can be made, more people have been saved by fossil fuels for sure. Hospitals, farming equipment, trucks etc have all majorly contributed to a decrease in mortality around the world. Climate related deaths have decreased by over 95% in the last few hundred years. So basically it improved the lives of billions of people and maybe over 100 million died in wars caused by their own governments which you conveniently blame on fossil fuels lol. Also, your title makes one wonder how you define morality.
"The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by or fought over petroleum oil." So the Nazi's were killing Jews over oil?
There is a reason Alex didn't humor you with a debate. You're a religious zealot who makes wild claims and fear mongers. Your entire article is filled with wold claims like the one above. If you don't want to use fossil fuels than get off them.
"If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are" "The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters" you completely contradicted yourself, when it's good, it's the inventions and when it's bad, it's fossil fuels.