Renewable Energy to Save the Planet? A Soho Forum Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ส.ค. 2022
- Texas A&M University's Andrew Dessler vs. Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy, at the Soho Forum.
reason.com/video/2022/08/31/d...
-----
Does the world need to rapidly convert to using renewable energy to save the planet from global warming? That was the topic of a Soho Forum debate held at the Sheen Center in New York City on Monday, August 15, 2022.
Andrew Dessler, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A&M University, argued that fossil fuels are endangering life on the planet by causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. He contended that solar and wind represent safe, reliable, and cost-effective means to decarbonize the electric grid.
Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy during the Obama administration and is the founding director of New York University's Center for Urban Science and Progress, argued that making large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions aren't necessary to protect the earth. He also contended that doing so isn't cost-effective and that it's immoral. Koonin is also the author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Intro edited by Regan Taylor; interview body edited by Brett Raney.
Photos by Brett Raney.
It drives me crazy how Dessler is always talking about wind and solar being the cheapest energy. He did not get nearly enough pushback on this as it's a huge part of his argument. Wind and solar are only cheap because they supplement a grid powered by fossil fuels. He did concede that they get more expensive as you go from 20%->30%->40%, etc. But this is exactly what he and every other green energy proponent want. The cost of a grid primarily powered by wind and solar would be exorbitantly expensive. This is why there are no real world examples of this. If wind and solar are so cheap you would think that you should be able to find one place in the world that has done this given how many left wing voters are in favor of green energy.
And if you look at Germany the nation that has arguably gone farther than any other down that road you see they now depend on nuclear power sold by France and a mix of gas and oil from Russia and spend far more than most of Europe including themselves of only a few years ago but France is great on energy costs.
If wind and solar were truly cheaper and better people would voluntarily use them.
Dessler did say they are cheap because they are a supplement to fossil fuel-based grids. That was Dessler's response to the goose who didn't understand (like you) why batteries weren't included in the cost. Jeez they don't teach listening skills in school anymore and we get you...
@@BakersDelightSam He never said they are cheap because they supplement a fossil fuel grid. The whole point is batteries should be included in the cost
@@cumicon You are a good example of someone who didn't read(listen) the whole text. For your convenience @51:20 the question you asked, was asked.
tl;dr : Once you get to 70% renewable the costs outweigh the benefits. Congratulations you now support green energy, ffs.
Dressler opens up about a lady melting in an unairconditioned apartment who can't afford power. He then goes on to describe how a solar/wind grind would require demand repression at peak usage which would create a situation like the one above.
Another thing a lot of people don't know is that peak management like that will result in massive in-situ diesel generation.
Think about that: We're going to start burning diesel fuel in a bunch of places we weren't before because that gets the fossil fuels off the power company's books.
His hypothetical of that lady assumes pretty awful innovation between now and then. After something like that its hard to take him serious after that.
@@SJ-co6nk Like Germany found out with their aggressive renewables push that ended at about 40% renewables in their energy mix and which resulted in actually worsening their quality of air. That's because lignite plants, that were intermittently used to cover the baseload deficit from solar and wind, don't like to be cycled on and off (their startup/warmup phase is the most polluting one).
Such is their competence at presenting their "case" that I often think these people deliberately undermine their own arguments.
@@SJ-co6nk Yep. That's what's happening in Australia.
Dr Koonin, has not said getting away from fossil fuels is wrong. He just doesn't want to bankrupt the world to do it.
AD: "I agree with Dr. Koonin, we need a reliable grid. We can have both wind and solar with a nuclear back up". Ok Andy, just pulled that outta your hat. If we had nuclear we could dispense with solar and wind.
Except for all the drawbacks of nukes, unless we live in a fantasy world where there are none...can I join you in yours? haha
@@BakersDelightSam Will you lookup & comment on my post for this video?
Mr. Adhastair: Can you reply to my post on this video too?
@@BakersDelightSam yeah, a fantasy world where people think that wind and solar are reliable !!
@@BakersDelightSam such as?
Amazing just how many more minutes Dressler was speaking than Koonin, yet came up short in the debate.
WE NEED MORE OIL.
Steven Koonin is absolutely brilliant here.🙂 I could listen to this guy talk common sense all day.
@Le Ed Well anyone who actually believes in this stupid Net Zero agenda is a blinkered moron. Unfortunately there are a lot of over-educated idiots out there... this man, Andrew Dessler included. History will judge these people as dangerous misguided fools. The 'climate crisis' is manufactured baloney. This agenda will lead to social unrest, political upheaval and mass starvation, particularly in the developing world. There is a special place in Hell for these Net Zero zealots.
China's deploying 150 nuclear power plants over the next decade or so, in addition to solar and wind megaprojects.
China fired up their 1st thorium nuclear plant in 2021.
We're always playing catch up because of short term thinking and financial returns.
@@jtjones4081 The problem with solar and wind farms is that there are few places on earth where this kind of technology is productive and worth investing in as an alternative to fossil fuels or nuclear. Germany is an example of the stupidity of Net Zero policies. The Germans have invested billions (€150 billion) on solar and wind farms. These morons forgot that Germany is neither a windy nation nor a sunny one. And instead, to appease little Greta and the psychopaths at the WEF, that genius Angela Merkle shut down their nuclear power plants...... just before the Ukraine war and the U.S blew up the Nord Stream pipeline supplying an abundance of cheap and plentiful Russian gas to fuel their light, medium and heavy industries, and to keep the lights on and centrally heat those German homes. The Germans have been forced to go into the forests to chop wood to keep warm in winter. The Germans have been FORCED to go back to burning dirty Lignite coal to power their nation. You must have quantities of cheap energy to maintain your scientific and industrial base. The German economy is heading for the toilet thanks to their investment in wind and solar and Uncle Sam blowing up Nord Stream. This current limp and supine German government is toast, the German people are furious. The news is making its way into the population. They KNOW who really blew up their gas pipeline and who to blame for their high inflation and energy shortage problems. Net Zero is bullshit on stilts.
Germany, the industrial powerhouse of Europe is dying. You can thank Net Zero and that sock puppet Joe Biden for that.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen a Soho forum debate where the presenters actually addressed the question the way it was worded.
the first sign of a weak argument is purposely reframing the question. it's the intellectual equivalent of diverting a question about government safety nets in an argument against communism or an argument about gun rights into an argument about school shootings.
WE NEED MORE OIL.
So what sre all the weather mod projects such ad H.A.R.P and H.A.M.P doing to effect this! What is psycom 101 he mentioned?
Imagine being collegially educated and enter a debate using a graph that the only data point is a personal opinion.
This video provides much better data. This guy was such a bad debater: th-cam.com/video/R7FAAfK78_M/w-d-xo.html
Which graph is this? I only listened to the debate so i missed it
@@justinle998 the graph in the opening was made by him
Exactly what I was thinking.
@@kirmie44 I agree..... it's nothing but opinion.... very weak presentation.
Nothing says "I'm an egotistical fear monger" like bringing covid into the conversation about the earth's naturally changing climate.
Yeah that was the moment, I knew this guy is ideologically possessed and not thinking rationally. Only appeal to emotion and catastrophizing.
Not to mention how incredibly wrong all of those predictions were.
If wind and solar work as great as the vaccines, mandates, and shut downs, we’d be totally screwed.
Also they way he said it. He claimed that the lack of hysteria about old people dying of an infection at their normal life expectancy was "normalizing death".
a few grandmas die vs sacrificing the development of a new generation. everything is tradeoff. we just need to embrace some form of suffering which western globalist liberal types refuse to understand.
@@aungkyawmoe8023 You are not entitled to trade other people's lives, it is everyone's choice what to do with his own life and for whatever purpose he pursues.
Wow that finishing line from Professor Koonin was a blast. Turns out his counterpart had previously attacked him on incorrect terms through media.
That’s what lefties do, attack… unfortunately…
And now that creep Dessler says on Rogan that he won’t debate anymore. As the science is settled 🙃
Interesting: supposedly there are 2 replies to your post but none are visible. YT is sh@d0w b@nn1ng as usual I guess.
The guy says you dont use Nuclear. Its like saying you want to fly to the moon but you don't use Jet Fuel. How is this guy taken seriously. Nuclear is the only serious alternative to hydrocarbons
Central planners never decided that burning wood must be done. Never decided on peat or coal. Never decided on oil or whale oil or blubber or dung. Never decided on nuclear, wind or solar. But now that they are making the decisions, you can expect progress to end and poverty to increase while totalitarianism becomes the norm.
Whale oil or blubber
Me seeing the girls downtown: Energy crisis averted
kerosene saved the whales
"you can't let the free market design the grid." - Dessler
Yep, just another central planner.
Edit: later in the same debate..."I'm a believer in the free market" - Dessler
Apparently not.
@@Oatriumph that should show you his credibility . I would really like for him to explain how they go about calculating how much of a hurricane is caused by climate change. Since he doesn't as far as I know have access to a quantum computer yet. This video could be titled "dessler pleads the case for why people should notice him and increase his funding"
@@jesse123185 what credibility?
Steve Koonin is well prepared with facts. Great debate. Thanks for sharing.
WE NEED MORE OIL.
Lol he talks about Hurricanes being affected by warmer temperatures when we are literally in the calmest hurricane season in decades.
I've heard that there will be fewer but more powerful hurricanes. Like Dessler mentioned regarding water levels costing more when it floods your home, the more powerful hurricanes become very costly at some point.
@@BakersDelightSam The IPCC predicts between 2% and 20% more powerful by the 2060s. Even 20% stronger wouldn't be that costly, especially in a far richer world.
@@yamishogun6501 That was actually 3% to 37% from the projected change of rainfall shown in 3.4.4 of that IPCC report. The report in chapter 6.3.2 then goes on about the impacts, which state that the relationship between the intensity and damages is probably non-linear and a 10% increase in wind is associated with an increase of 30-40% more damage.
I hadn't read the report before; really good, and thanks for the tip!
I'm here in South Carolina from April to September waiting for my first hurricane and its just non existent. Just a lot of rain due to me living in a swamp.
@@BakersDelightSam I have yet to see evidence on a global basis.
Dessler gets savaged in every single one of these debates, lol
Yep, and it doesn’t matter which libtard you put up there, they all get shredded because they are demonstrably I wrong.
Na, u just think that cos u are a reality denier..
I first heard Steve interviewed on a podcast here in New Zealand. I then watched his TH-cam about Unsettled then bought his ebook. We have the same problem here in NZ with the Labour and Green Party alarmists. Hopefully, he will come back for a visit to NZ. He was brilliant in the debate.
This debate is just savage. Steven is way way more prepared. Has better and more facts. Better arguments. And is even better in stage-craft. Wow.
The deep breaths that you can hear later on in the debate that I assume are coming from Steven are an excellent example of restraint that I'm not capable of..I'm so glad we have him to debate and inform the other side of the green movement.
His breaths were my favourite parts of the debate.
No one asked the question "if solar and wind are the cheap option, won't the market choose it without government coercion?" Come on soho forum.
Also have to fix the externalized costs problem.
@@gregbell2117 you going to need to fix the externalized cost of individual's respiration, their food's respiration, and their food's food's respiration as well?
What do the utilities know? Aren't they the experts on what source of electricity should be on the electrical grids? Utilities are not building nuclear power plants. Is that because utilities don't know what is good for them? Utilities don't want to piss off liberals and build nuclear? Or maybe it is because utilities know the costs of the different sources of electricity. Utilities are adding new wind power, new solar power, new natural gas power plants, and batteries for electricity storage.
These discussions cannot be overrated. We live in times where nobody listens to the other side. By hearing the arguments of the other side, we get a more balanced view on the situation, and by hearing the arguments of the other side, one can observe where who is wrong.
Steven Koonin graduated school at 16, and has a PhD from MIT. It's clear from hearing this debate that the man is a genius.
A genius at LYING. Ask him to post his tax returns. PAID-FOR LOBBYIST of the API
Wake UP and get a fucking CLUE.
it's clear. that he is a crank and a cynical shill for the fossil fuel industry
He was also provost at Caltech.
and clearly lost his mind and his conscience
@@edwardj3070 His arguments sound pretty logical and convincing to me. I appreciate it's not consistent with the narrative of some leftists, and I appreciate that the left likes to weaponise virtue as a way of attacking people, and get personal, but logic and facts win the day.
The most repulsive thing about the "green energy" pushers is that they never just try to sell it to you. They can only frame it as something you should be morally forced to do, instead of trying to make you actually want to do it. If solar is really so great and so cheap then that's all you would need to say for people to adopt it en-masse. And if we stopped subsidizing it then maybe it would actually become cheap enough for us to do so
A very good analitical observation.
WE NEED MORE OIL.
"They never just try to sell it" to us because, for 99% of us, there's no cost-benefit to renewable energy.
10 minutes of fear porn, lying by statistics, "non quantitative" graphs scaled to emphasize the doomsayer prophecies he cannot prove and conveniently drawn uniformly on the "bad" side. NASA's paleoclimate reconstruction proxies suggest the planet has been even warmer than it is now - no one's blaming humanity for that - so he moves the goal posts to the fact that the temperature rising "too quickly" - too quickly for who? As he said he's not going to see the next century, and the rest of humanity will adapt. If that includes a reduction in population, how is that different than what Europe is currently facing with 1000% electricity costs and burning wood because "nuclear energy bad"? Newsflash: burning wood for energy is worse than burning coal with regards to carbon emission and the impact in natural carbon recycling because plants are what process atmospheric carbon.
Notice the way he glibly glosses over China.
As Thomas Sowell so well said,
’’There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs’’
We tried wind and counterbalance in the UK. Electricity went up 250% in September 2021 as a result of the wind failing to blow
I’m insulted by the comment that oil and gas companies want the current high prices. It’s the opposite, green energy producers wants their competitors to have a higher price. Endless circular argument but is 100% inconclusive.
WE NEED MORE OIL.
I’m insulted that he seems to be implying that no one is making money on wind and solar. He is bizarrely ignorant.
He then went on to say that wind is solar is already doing better. Great, then this debate is a moot point, as the market will address it adequately.
It doesn't matter if oil companies "want" prices to be high or low. The market dictates prices.
They _have_ built small modular reactors ..and run them successfully.. In submarines and carriers.
Those reactors use highly enriched uranium, not something the government wants in the public sphere. What is preventing the advancement of nuclear energy in the USA is the US government's regulations. That is why both India and China will beat the USA to gen 4 nuclear.
I just wonder the cost per megawatt on these cenários 😂
@@ricardokenji1 Economies of scale. Modular reactors could be mass produced. The tech dates back to the 50s with Rickover
@@lukeasacher mass production results on cheaper production, that does not necessarily equals “cheap”, cost per watt efficient. Electric cars are mass produced, still, they are not a cheap investment (specially without tax incentives).
@@ricardokenji1 Gibberish. Learn some econ at misesmedia and come back afterwards.
Saves consumers money? Then why did my electric rates got up over 200% in less than 12months in Texas?🤔
Price of fossil fuels, lack of winterisation.
do you remember that winter when your electrical system failed?
@@Gisiebob Honestly, these people probably forgot what they said by the end of a sentence. Thinking they have the cognitive ability to link price increases to anything but Biden is wishful thinking.
@@Gisiebob yeah that's because 30 percent of the grid was running on wind power. Renewables can't go a krupt because they eat up subsidies. They eat more subsidies per kilowatt hour they produce than fossil fuels do. Spend a million dollars, get 1000 kwh in oil. Spend 500k dollars in wind, get 1 kwh. Being a windmill factory is a business that cannot fail when it can't deliver.
@@funveeable if there were no wind turbines would the grid have been any more winterized as was suggested after 2011?
(thanks for motivating me to look further into this by the way)
8:37 This is my schematic, it means literally nothing. But if you can see I drew a standard distribution, and if you look below, you'll see words. You'll see how I drew the standard distribution over the words that include negative words. I think this really illustrates the point and the message. Thank you very much.
I literally defended these people until I actually listen to them and realized they were not scientifically minded. I don't know ultimately the answer to these questions, but I cannot defend intellectually dishonest and stupid arguments even if the underlying thing they are trying to say is correct. If the scientific community is dumbing themselves down because they don't believe the public can take the nuance of the actual truth, I'm going to have to bow out of that one, and default to skepticism.
Koonin has become one of my modern day heroes, thank you!
By the way, who is this Michael Mann looking Jonathan Gruberesk sounding alarmist guy? I almost feel bad for him, almost...
He's some random physicist. You know, physicist with a PhD from a thesis.
I guess having that number of degrees does not guarantee truth or integrity . Dessler in my opinion is doing what he does strictly for the grant money. Where Koonin stands on foundational granite, Dressler stand on shifting sand with his finger in the air to see where he should go next. Immoral sot.
Dessler got beat up in this debate. This is why Climate Alarmists are failing in their cause: "Here's a quote from Rolling Stone...."
Lol, i like the fact that the spambot chose your message to attach itself to. What does it mean?
@@BakersDelightSam They're watching...
hahahaha
We have the data, you have the talking points and fracking billionaire money. Unfortunately, truth doesn't pay that much compared to convenient lies.
@@thepoo1234 you mean data from rolling stone? Ha!
you’re wrong. Climate science and the IPCC has proven nothing.
Our first and foremost goal should be human flourishing.
Cheap and abundant energy is the key for that. Dressler speaks about energy rationing which means that in Dressler's world energy will be an expensive commodity. That's a way backwards in any scenario. "Climate change" is NOT an emergency! That's a blatant lie and I could argue him to the ground on those premises.
Dessler should talk to he Navy about the utilization of small nuclear reactors, since he thinks they don't exist, I wonder what powers a Nuclear submarine?
Literally the worst debater I've seen in one of these
@@kirmie44 you should watch the bill Kristol debate, or the baskar-gene epstein debate if you want to see someone do a really bad job of explaining their position
@@alexw6311 got some links. I complain but I have some masochist leans
@@kirmie44 th-cam.com/video/LxdXqAkgOVs/w-d-xo.html
They are super cheap too! Moron, they cost more than 100x wind and solar combined.
The summary @ 1:24:00: Koonin politely, masterfully wrecks Dessler, nothing more to be said.
If solar is the cheapest energy source ever then why does it need a lobby group? Why would utility companies choose a more costly solution?
If people want to go to renewables, fine: there are good reasons to get off fossil fuels besides climate change, but, you need to make renewables work before you throw away tried and true sources of energy.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE EVERY YEAR DUE TO FOSSIL FUELS!!!
(Billions of people don’t die every year due to fossil fuels.)
From what I've heard, nuclear energy would fill that role fine, but establishment politicians are too scared because to them: nuclear energy=Chernobyl.
@@CaptainSpiffari
Climate activists all oppose the one viable clean energy option.
Plus instead of going off of fossil fuels completely why not just reduce fossil fuel consumption a bit AND PLANT MORE TREES which consume that CO2 and produce oxygen?
@@KoshN
Who should plant how many trees where?
Wars over oil will be replaced by wars over minerals.
Unfortunately, the uniquely high energy density of fossil fuels is required for the entire solar panel and battery manufacturing process.
I love the argument that it's expensive to cool your house in rising temperatures, while ignoring that it's equally expensive to warm your home in winter and more people die from the cold each year. Global warming will inevitably cost less and save more lives as far as this single issue is concerned.
Dr. Dessler talks about the harm to people from air pollution due to burning fossil fuels. What about the massive use of wood (deforestation) and cow dung in much of Asia? Travel to Delhi some winter and ask if natural gas would be better, and the answer is an unqualified yes.
True, but most of those are sunny year round countries, so cheap solar would be much cheaper on the household scale. And no need to lug gas canisters around. Natgas makes sense for grids and for heating homes in cold climates, not for people that use cow dung to cook their food.
@@Embassy_of_Jupiter Disposal of megatons of equipment that reaches the end of life? Where and how would this be disposed of in places like India?
Dude: By 2090 temperatures will be X
Same Dude: We can't make long term projections because we can't account for innovations.
Excellent 👌
54:00 How can you only look at retail prices without taking into account the differences in subsidies for different types of energy sources?
If wind and solar are already cheaper today, why aren't 100% of consumers switching over? We all want to pay more? We hate clean energy and keeping our money?
It's cheaper now because they've manipulated the prices to reduce its use. Like I said above the normies will be happy to eat the crickets cuz they're " cheaper " than $15 a pound hamburger meat .
because that is the price of infrastructure. people with existing infrastructure have an incentive to drag folks heels so they can keep getting payed with what they already have.
Some would like you to believe that today is the hottest it's been in human history. It's not even the hottest it's been in recorded history. One thousand years ago during the medieval warm period it was warmer. In the 19th century the mini ice age ended, in New England it snowed in June and the Thames river in London froze. If we are comparing the temperature to when we were in the mini ice age then that's making it seem a lot worse than it actually is. The climate changes, that's just something that it does. During the younger dryas we went from a climate roughly that of what we have now to the worst years of the ice age in just a few decades.
No it wasn't lol. You're really trusting bs temp assumptions of 1000 years ago? I know exactly what you're referring to, and it's been shown to be farcical on numerous occasions.
@@Bc232klm cite your sources please.
No one denies that the Climate changes lol (except maybe flat earthers or creationists). If your trying to imply something about the climate change debate you are creating an obvious and irrelevant strawman.
@@godlikemachine645 It can't.
It wasn’t warmer in the medieval warm period than today however there was a lot of drought in america then. Also obviously it’s been warmer throughout history everyone knows this.
Storage for renewables. Like it’s nothing. Wind and solar are cheaper at the source, but not delivered to the customer.
Why don't we ever hear the potential benefits from a warming climate? Northern countries such as Canada, Greenland, Russia would benefit greatly. For some reason, we only hear about the negative impacts.
because as vehicles get more fuel efficient , they use less fuel, the oil companies have to maintain their profit margin somehow....enter climate change, that way you will feel better when they charge you more for less fuel.
Great we can have warmer weather in northern Canada, but what would that mean for middle America? Also, things are potentially going to get colder before they get warmer as cold air moves south. If this is all a ploy by Gas companies then why do they lobby so hard against reform. Look up that Exxon lobbyist who got stung a few months back.
@@alexh2790 Seems like we would have warmer weather in Middle America too. Something akin to South America. Not as panic inducing as some would lead you to believe. Granted, it would probably suck for people on the equator. But that's all we ever hear about.
Because a scared population is a controlled population. Just look at Covid.
Because most people don’t live in these countries. I also suspect you don’t either. However lots of people live near the equators where drought is getting worse
"maybe you spend a little to much money here or there" this is the comment of professional professors who have never worked.
The pro-green guy promoted converting everything that can be electric to be electric (appliances, vehicles, etc). How does this impact the grid capacity forecasts?
Justin Amash asserts that electric vehicle usage is 4x that of air conditioners so...just take California's current population of 40 million, their current inability to meet demand with less than 5% EV usage, and figure they need to somehow raise their grid output by 152x.
And even if they do somehow manage to find that much energy production, what do you think the cost of electricity will look like? Germany's 1000% increase in electric prices will look like a fond memory.
Dressler lived through the Texas winter power outage which was caused by moronic decisions by government and he wants the government to be more involved in designing energy grids. #Priceless #IdiocracyIsHere #GovernmentDoesNothingRight
#FreeMarket
Do plants want a warmer, wetter world with more CO2?
Yes. "Global Greening".
A scientist friend told me there is a point where excess co2 does not suit most plants.
I don't understand the mechanics.
Steven Koonin was superb! Andrew Dessler was terrible. He started with a chart supposedly showing 30,000 years of historical temperature, actually it was -20k and +10K, so complete fantasy about the next 10,000 years. It didn't show any of the known warm and cool periods like, Roman Warm Period, Dark ages, Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Of course those highs and lows totally disprove the contention of 'unprecedented modern warming'. Sad, Dr. Koonin couldn't get a high caliber debate opponent, but I guess this nit-wit Dessler is about as best that can be found on the alarmist side. Texas A&M should let this un-scholarly individual go.
::********🔝🔝🔝🔝🆙
Thâñks før wãtçhīñg
Ïñböx thē ñümbêr åbøvê ī gôt sömēthîñg tø shōw yåh********.,
As a graduate of Texas A&M I concur. I would used the word "Funded Bot" in place of nit-wit, but nit-wit works too. A&M owes the world an apology.
Those periods are represented in the date, but they are tiny blips so you have to zoom in to see them. Of course they're not not going to be noticeable on a 20k year timescale
@@deek0146 His dot representing today is far higher than any previous point. Some would argue the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today, but even if you disagree it should be somewhat close. His highest point prior to today is ~7000 years ago. I'm not sure what that refers to. Some have speculated about an Egyptian Warm period, but I don't think it's theorized to be that early. but my guess is this graph could have been drawn by a child and shown just to get dramatic effect. Very Shoddy work!
@@williambaikie5739 Medievil warm period mostly affected europe and didn't really impact the global average. The warm period 7000 years ago was called the Holocene climate optimum, and was still colder than today, although warmer than 100 years ago
Andrew Dessler uses a lot of fear to make his points. The arguments aren't always on point. But still a great debate!
Fear is a basic technique of lefties. It's their substitute for facts.
If you throw a trillion dollars at a problem, you're going to find people who say it's a problem
It seems like this Dessler makes a lot of assumptions based on wishful thinking. Usually a sign of someone who thinks they are smarter than they actually are.
For some mysterious reason he thinks that everything around electricity will get cheaper with time which is a nonsensical assumption.
@@wbaumschlager He cited his sources.
@@thomasdarlington4916 There is no source for false = true.
@@wbaumschlager He gave examples where electric power, e.g. photovoltaics, did get cheaper and showed that the dollars per kWhr are less than coal. That seems to be true from what I can tell. Do you think that's wrong, and if yes why?
@@thomasdarlington4916 Your are confusing "something" with "everything"". Electrical equipment is going up just like the general prices are going up.
Damn that last five minute take down was brutal. :D
Yeah, I thought the bit where Koonin was having a hissy fit about being called out as a climate denier was pretty sad. Mainly because he is and doesn't want to be called names, the big baby! But it looks like he needed to appeal to ad-hominem attacks to make his case, he thought.
@@BakersDelightSamNo such thing as a "climate denier."
@@BakersDelightSam Even Dessler knew better than to say the nonsense you just said here. Koonin is not a climate change denier. YOU are a climate mastery denier.
@@YashArya01 lol, I had to look up the climate mastery thing. The belief that we can mitigate any damage that screwing up our environment causes. I don't deny that I can master climate, because I'm rich. Good luck to those that aren't. How much does climate mastery cost? Oops, it costs more than just simply fixing the environment with sustainable practices, in both lives and money. You really want to be poor so badly and pay taxes to master climate, but I don't (though I could).
@@BakersDelightSam if climate mastery was more expensive than a rapid switch to renewable energy, you wouldn't need the government to step in with subsidies in favor of renewable energy. This is where our differences in this specific issue come down to our differences in an understanding of basic economics.
The only answer is for the G20 to build about 2000 nuclear reactors within the next 12 years! Carbon free power and with the new tech the waste can be refined and reused 12X
Reason and logic vs imagination and fantasy.
Thanks for hosting these. We need more of this.
Okay, so I"m watching and I"m hearing a whole lot of fear-mongering mixed with false assumptions and half-truthes designed to turn off the logic part of your brain and start you thinking with the knee-jerk emotional part of your brain. This means he knows that if he sticks to pure logic, he'll lose this debate. For example, at 8:20 he hits us with that old classic "If we do nothing..." which COMPLETELY ignores the fact that we're already not doing nothing. We're literally doing EVERYTHING we can already. There are breakthroughs in green energy (wind, solar, battery tech, etc) almost every day from all around the world. We're already throwing everything we can at this issue, but with that phrase, he sets a picture in your mind, and if you're not paying attention, you'll actually believe it, that we're all just sitting around doing nothing, which is the furthest thing from the truth ... which makes the statement a LIE. He's Lying to you. Right out of the gate, he is lying to make his point. If you have to lie to make your point, you have no valid point. End of story and end of debate as far as I'm concerned ... but I'll continue watching to see what other dishonest word games he's going to try to play to get you to stop thinking and start feeling.
37:00 The guy talks about how good their climate models are, which is funny because they've been completely wrong about the last 30 years while it was actually happening, and somehow we're supposed to belive they'll be right about something that's going to happen 100 years from now. If they can't predict the present, how can they possibly predict the future?!
39:15 WOW! Did this guy really just try to sweep SLAVE LABOR under the rug?! F* this pro-slavery POS!
1:03:28 He brings up Fanny Mae Freddy Mac as if they prove that government intervention is a good idea in the market, which ignores the fact that the Fanny Mae Freddy Mac interference in the market is what crashed our economy! Do you even housing bubble, bro?! Do we REALLY want an energy bubble?! This guy has some very dangerous ideas!
1:28:00 F*ing plot twist! Andy co-authored an ad hominem hit-piece against his opponent! F* that guy! He is part of the problem as to why we can't have any real conversation around the climate.
Obama : under my cap and trade plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.
Me : but what if little old ladies die from the heat because they can't afford to pay for power ?
Obama : oh well
They're doing the same thing to meat and someday people will be excited to see that crickets are only $5 a pound when hamburger is $15 a pound .
A massive study from 2015 showed that 17 times as many people die from cold compared to those who die from heat. So the norm is little old ladies dying from cold. Q: What was Obama's plan for that? A: more expensive electricity.
Dessler confuses CO2 and pollution several times.
Finally, more of this please.
Amazing debate. Safe to say Dr coonan nailed Andrew to a cross
I’ve seen other videos with Dessler, one where he debated with Richard Lindzen comes to mind, and he failed to impress then as much as in this debate. He seems to have drank the Kool-Aid long ago, likely because his choice of careers depended on it. I’m not a scientist, just an average human being, but what drives me nuts is the absolute hatred and disdain the promoters of climate Armageddon have for anyone and everyone that disagrees with them or has a different point of view. The pettiness and outright attacks to discredit equally qualified PhD scientists, from all disciplines including all those involved in climate science, totally destroys their credibility. When Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and I’m sure many other governments around the world, cut off funding for anyone or any institution not willing to provide only claims of climate change doom and gloom, honesty went out the window. When the United Nations IPCC only allows climate alarmism in it’s work, integrity goes out the window. When modelling, with all it’s known and unknown limitations is looked as factual data, all hope is lost. I think cooler heads need to prevail. Stop the bickering, stop the politics and work together for a realistic approach.
Excellent comment ❤
It’s a cult, they need to instill fear to control you, not high level arguments like Kooning’s.
about the 60 min mark. Dessler states that the "price always comes in lower than people think it's going to".
I'm going to go out on a limb here, Andrew has clearly never worked in a large scale infrastructure project. They almost always run at least 20% over budget and often hit 100% over budget.
I would love Dessler to be right but I suspect Koonin has the truth of it. Plus while Koonin used meaningful data Dessler quoted Rolling Stone and showed a graph with "really bad" to "really good" as the X-axis. So, err... No.
How does someone take a person seriously who shows a graph stating what the temperatures were 10,000 years ago, and will be 10,000 years in the future when there isn't a weatherman in the country that can even get it right if there is going to be rain on tomorrow's forecast?
Climate is not the same as weather. If you can anticipate how a forcing will change in the future (for example, greenhouse gas emissions), you can project climate change into the future according to how that forcing might change. Weather, on the other hand, is much more chaotic and unpredictable because it can be forced by very small changes that are much harder to detect.
@@ILikeGlaciers I understand the difference, was being sarcastic.
"I think you can believe China". Lol.
How like those on Dressler's side of the argument. He writes an ad hominem laden attack piece and then disacknowledges it when called on it. Kudos on being prepared to deal with it with the actual slide.
There is no way to completely transition to renewable energy without nuclear power. The technology has advanced in the past 40 years. it's very safe now. Renewable energy isn't efficient enough to run the entire power grid. The battery storage, and materials needed to produce them are the issue.
Bottom line. Military has tremendous nuclear propulsion but civilian shipping lanes and metro electricity lags undernourished. Values all f- up.
Military doesn't want/can't refuel all the time. Civilian can.
@@BakersDelightSam also, ship reactor designs are classified and the property of the DoD so they are unavailable to civilians.
The military literally has soldiers protecting the nuclear reactors on their submarines and aircraft carriers.
California: Everyone MUST use electric cars. Oh, but don't plug them in to charge. We don't have enough energy on the grid.
Precisely, all within the span of 1 day 🙂
Wait until all the EV owners realize that when electricity
becomes needed for survival, electricity will reek havoc with our grid.
Any one who does not put nuclear at the forefront is not a serious person.
During his elocution, Andrew Dessler actually plants the questions in the audience and then specifies what Steven Kooning has to do to win.
I'm surprised Alex Epstein wasn't in this debate. Steve Koonin did excellent though.
Dessler seems like he's unironically trying to discredit climate science. Okay that's all from me, I'll just watch the damn video.
It is a bunch of crap
Point 2: Andrew Dessler claims that burning fossil fuels kills millions of people. In fact, because of the abundance, affordability and reliability of fossil fuels, life expectancies have risen dramatically over the last centure.
And, as a result, innovation has increased, which has helped create reliable sources of energy, helping people live better & longer lives across a good portion of the world. We already have the capability to start moving towards super clean energy, with nuclear, but our government is tying our hands on developing it, because it doesn't line their pockets like wind and solar contraptions.
And now that creep Dessler says on Rogan that he won’t debate anymore. As the science doesn’t need any debate. Settled vs unsettled lol
To sum it up. Wind and solar are like a car that you never know when it will run out of gas. Or an employee who is only available when he feels like it. Even if they cost less the impact on work capacity makes it impractical.
An unreliable energy source causes more problems than it eliminates. It can only function as a supplemental source.
The cost of energy versus fraction of renewables graph appears to be unadjusted for taxpayer funded incentive programs, both at the individual and corporate levels. Someone, please recalculate this graph adjusting for all taxpayer funded subsidies to arrive are a true free market total cost of energy over time. It's important to understand the true cost, and also realize that poorer countries will not have taxpayer funded subsidies.
Nice to see these two represent the topic. It made me reaffirm thoughts about climate and current policy and how legitimately informed both sides are on the subject.
At best, wind turbines can make up the energy it takes to make them in 3 years. On average, it's about 7 years. The lifespan of a wind turbine is said to be about 20 years, but they require a rebuild at about 10 years which adds a lot of cost back into the wind turbine and requires that much more coal to produce the steel. These make about 6000 MWh per year per MW. So over the lifetime of the wind turbine you might get about 20,000 MWh per MW. On top of that we are seeing massive landfill waste from decommissioned wind turbines - elements that can't be replaced. That's hardly renewable, especially given the mediocre production of energy it represents.
Solar is a little better. Typically there's not much in the way of moving parts and they can be recycled. However, production is limited. We would need to cover enough land the size of the state of Indiana with solar panels to produce power for the United States. (That doesn't include the power to recycle all those solar panels every 25 years or so.)
I'm going to make the observation that wind is basically converted solar power. Indeed, hydroelectric is converted solar power. The observation is this: solar power isn't doing nothing else. If we take solar power for electricity, we are taking it from some natural process it's feeding into. The square miles of land it requires are currently ecosystems that will need to be converted. If we use enough solar power, then we will impact weather patterns and carbon absorption by plant life which is all regulated by sunlight. Solar power doesn't have a neutral impact.
Of course, few people will dig deep enough to find your rational explanation. It's always sell the Sizzle, buy the News. Thanks for taking time to explain the fine print!
This is what the general public should be told, but the powers that be (our politicians, for instance), have an opportunity to become much more wealthy with creating these giant windmills and solar panels, that have a very limited life span, as you pointed out. It's like doing transgender operations: If they can operate on, or give children hormones, they'll be in the medical systems for the rest of their lives trying to manage the awful effects of those "transitions." The medical community gains... you guessed it!... A ton of money.
indoor cooking with Dung and Charcoal is unhealthy, not having cheap fossil-fueled Electricity also kills.
This Dessler is a horrible speaker.
If renewables are cheaper, why is government intervention even necessary to push more people to using renewable? My solar panels are definitely not generating enough as promised and now I am paying double cost to run the same house.
What are the health care costs for mining for solar and wind production.
Joe Rogan made this possible
life doesn't stop when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing. Europe, who has invested heavily in renewables, is currently restarting coal fired power plants.
Germans are being told to stock up on firewood. You know, that thing we've been trying to get India away from since most of their cooking uses firewood?
@@hanamlchl I could be wrong, but when I think about Germany, I don't think about an abundance of wood for heating, certainly not someplace like Alaska, which has places people can specifically go to cut firewood.
@@Agislife1960 They don't have a choice - they turned off all but 3 nuclear plants and Putin closed Nord Stream. It's firewood or freeze.
@@hanamlchl they still a local supply of coal, and even though that’s not ideal, it bets freezing to death, at least until they figure out something different
@@Agislife1960 Their coal supply is simply inadequate. Domestic manufacturing is looking at 10-15x increase in energy costs because residential usage is protected by law against rationing. They're screwed.
Holy smokes, this guy in favor of solar actually was giddy about the example of Fannie Mae helping consumers and the manipulation of that program greatly contributed to the 2008 housing crash. Stunning.
Dessler is concerned for the well-being of low-income communities, but insists that we impose policies that will destroy the energy security, personal mobility, housing affordability and even food security of those same people. Of course.
Everyone knows that levelized cost is hooey. The cost to connect to the grid and to manage the grid stability are excluded… not to mention that despatchable power back up and understated opex are further impediments. Guy is a plonker
I'm so happy the USA isn't participating in Germany's current "green" beta test... I predict Germany's results are going to be disastrous.
Predict?.....dude, the disaster is there already!
The backpedaling is already happening, look at the big controversy with Braunkohle.
TH-cam sticking in a propaganda piece arguing for CO2 reductions is NOT appreciated.
Unfortunately, I did not find Mr. Dessler's argument compelling perhaps he can learn from this and will do better in the future.
Not having an arbitrary dataless graph might be a good start.
During the Q and A session, one person talks about investments by consumers regarding LED lighting and such. Unfortunately, we still live in a world of planned obsolescence. The LEDs themselves are nice, but often the point of failure within these devices is the power conversion from line power of 120 volts AC down to 1.6 to 2 Volts DC at higher currents. These power conversion components can be made much more reliable than they are, but now these LED bulbs that should last 25 years actually last shorter times than well-made incandescent light bulbs (some are still working after more than 100 years).
I've had these LED bulbs since they first came out. A lot of bulbs are pretty bad at being reliable due to this stupid planned obsolescence where the designs use sub-par components and designs for these power conversion circuits that are way sub-optimal and prone to way early failures.
High-efficiency power conversion designs produce extremely low amounts of excess heat so their components can last a lot longer, thereby breaking the hidden greedy planned obsolescence targets that force consumers to buy replacements on a much more frequent basis.
I've been using led bulbs for 10-15 years now, I think I've had exactly one die in that time... It could be that I'm very lucky, or maybe you're unlucky or are buying low quality stuff?
@@finraziel The twisty fluorescent tube bulbs were almost the same kind of thing. Phosphor, mercury, and glass tube material tend not to wear out. The ignition voltage of the tube is several hundred volts, but once ignited, the ionized gas just needs a high voltage low current to run--ideally a Direct Current one. One scheme to lower the initial ignition voltage is to use small incandescent filaments at each end of the tube. Another is to use incident photon radiation. Another is to use magnetic fields. One design that I saw used a light sensor to determine when the mercury vapor had ignited and was ionized and emitting its UV wavelength light to make the phosphorous glow brightly so that the much higher ignition voltage and current could be switched off once the system got started.
This scheme could also be used to turn off the incandescent filaments at each end of the tube to prolong their life lest impurities build up and cause some kind of deposits that oxidize the tungsten. In a cheap bulb or tube design, the filaments would remain on all the time, and the voltage feeding the tube would be done using a ballast transformer resonant with the line frequency and would remain AC rather than being converted into DC at a regulated required voltage. The ballast transformer would use poor components and leak the toxic coolant. Filaments would burn out. All these things would shorten the lifespan of the light fixtures using these cheaper setups. These would be trashed, but the toxic stuff would not be handled securely so would poison the environment endangering the sanitation staff.
Saw a John Stossel news video about recycling. Curb-side recycling needs automation to sort the stuff, otherwise, it is prohibitively expensive, wasteful, and unable to process a huge proportion of plastics.
Less than four minutes into the video and Dessler outed himself as a science denier. That first graph is unfalsifiable speculation, it has no place in a scientific debate.
Oh my bad, he wasn't trying to actually be scientific, he just wanted to seem like the authority of science was on his side! Scientism at it's most obnoxious
That probability distribution graph is a joke, are we just supposed to take it as fact?
Desslers arguments were full of holes and logical fallacy. If so called renewables delivered economy, there’d be no need for subsidies, instead there’d be a headlong rush for it
But, he means that they're economic in the long run of his imaginary economy, the one assuming ~0 interest rates
I like that the resolution is very simple.
Wind is NOT cheaper than gas! When the wind is not blowing the cost per MWh is infinity! And the same if it blows too hard!
At a perfect windspeed of say 20 knots, wind is cheap, other than that it isnt, and once you have built enough turbines and storage to provide 24.7 power it will cost way more than gas.
So when wind is blowing it costs nothing? It's an average you doofus.
@@BakersDelightSam Oh dont be stupid. The cost of the energy is the cost of the turbine divided by the amount of energy produced. Do I have to teach you 10 year old maths?
Kooning: by the way all my charts have links to the references
Dessler: this graph shows my estimate of how bad the future it’s going to be
This to me shows the weight each argument has.
We need more debates like this