The Future of Energy | 2023 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 มี.ค. 2023
- What will fuel the future of civilization? Major advances in energy production, and the urgency of the climate change crisis, are re-shaping the conversation about what we use to power our world: fossil fuels, wind turbines, hydroelectric, solar panels, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.
With the recent breakthrough at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) National Ignition Facility, nuclear fusion has emerged as a leading candidate. Many see the ability to harness nuclear energy as a clear positive for reducing our impact on global climate, while some are skeptical of its practicality and safety for everyday use.
#Energy #ClimateChange #NeildeGrasseTyson #AsimovDebate #ScienceDebate #Technology
How will science, engineering, and geopolitics shape how the future of energy unfolds?
Join Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium, and our panel of experts from various sectors on this issue for a compelling discussion about today’s energy landscape and what we can expect in the future.
Watch all the past Asimov debates: • 2022 Isaac Asimov Memo...
For a full transcript of the debate, visit: www.amnh.org/explore/amnh.tv
2022 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Space Pollution
• 2022 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2020 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Alien Life
• 2020 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2018 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Artificial Intelligence
• 2018 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: De-Extinction
• 2017 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation? • 2016 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2015 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Water, Water
• 2015 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Selling Space
• 2014 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
• 2013 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light • 2012 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything
• 2011 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2023 Asimov Panelists:
Peter Keleman
Arthur D. Storke Memorial Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
Olivia Lazard
Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Tammy Ma
Lead, Internal Fusion Energy (IFE) Initiative, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Anna Shpitsberg
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Transformation, U.S. Department of State
David Wallace-Wells
Columnist, New York Times
The late Dr. Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific and influential authors of our time, was a dear friend and supporter of the American Museum of Natural History. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate-generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work-bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.
***
Subscribe to our channel
th-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
Check out our full video catalog: / amnhorg
Facebook: naturalhistory
Twitter: / amnh
Tumblr: / amnhnyc
Instagram: / amnh
This video and all media incorporated herein (including text, images, and audio) are the property of the American Museum of Natural History or its licensors, all rights reserved. The Museum has made this video available for your personal, educational use. You may not use this video, or any part of it, for commercial purposes, nor may you reproduce, distribute, publish, prepare derivative works from, or publically display it without the prior written consent of the Museum.
© American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Once a year is not nearly enough! Love these debates
Can you believe people still sit around and watch commercial television? - With cool interesting stuff like this for free 😁👍
Hey. I’m a recovering ignoramus. Please recommend cool platforms I can meet other recovering ignorami?
I wish these would happen more frequently than once a year! Great stuff! Thanks a lot!
Nice to see others today experiencing how we as little kids felt in the 60s and 70s of the Wizard of Oz appearing once a year.
No. Or it wouldn't be special. It's a memorial, not a show.
I have found that, in these talks, the moderator doesn't disperse the conversation between ALL of the 'debaters' well enough. A very few of the debaters vastly dominate the conversation. Also, the constant interruption by the moderator is annoying and only sometimes as funny as might be assumed. I would like to hear from all of the guests in a more equal way. The interruptions by the moderator also, at times, cause confusion in the communication from the guests.
Im glad Neil Degrasse Tyson is the host.
My one major "complaint", if you wish to call it that, about Dr Tyson: he does not emphasize nearly enough that science is EXPENSIVE. That technology is EXPENSIVE. That one should NEVER EVER TAKE FOR GRANTED or ASSUME that some technology will continue to progress into the future. That technology happens ONLY because people CHOOSE to make it happen. They can CHOOSE to be STUPID, instead, and slow down progress.
1:05 Surely we'll all rejoice if that happens. But as much of an optimist as I like to consider myself, I have to tell you, if by 2050 there is ANY fusion power plant generating net energy, I will be SHOCKED. Any size, just one plant, price no object (for the time being). ONE PLANT. I won't say it's impossible, but that's really out there.
Wallace Manheimer at the National Fusion Energy Research Labs agrees. It is far off in the future, in the next half of the 21st century, at best. Late 21st century? Too optimistic?
@@Orson2u A lot will probably depend on progress in superconductors. Raising the critical temperature, critical current density, critical magnetic field. That could do a lot to reduce the minimum size of a reactor. And then, smaller reactors can be built faster, and more can be learned more quickly.
I think it's safe to say that no working fusion reactor, of any kind, could ever be made without superconductors. That was a key development. But on the upper end, even with the best superconductors we can imagine, it may only be possible to make a magnetic field just so strong, because the constituent materials can only be strong, and at some point the magnet would have to break down.
With better software and models, it may be possible to accelerate progress in designing and building better reactors. In particular, I wonder if stellarators will eventually win out over tokamaks. Stellarators are more complex to build, and software could help a lot with that; on the plus side, they should be more stable, and in fact, reliable operation of tokamaks, without disruptions, for long periods, may never really be possible. Stellarators apparently don't have the same problem with disruptions.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 Most of the things you mentioned are nothing compared to the main problem that must be overcomed first, but you didn't even mentioned !
The efficiency of that achieved ignition was only around 1 % !!! We cannot even imagine what kind and how many new discoveries/inventions have to be made before engineers could bring up that efficiency by factor of 100+ !
@@SliderHarDCorE I assume you're talking about the efficiency of ICF (hey, it's been a month since I even watched the video). My comment is about fusion more generally, by ICF, MCF, or anything else. MCF is much closer to breakeven-indeed, it will surely go far past scientific breakeven, and probably past engineering breakeven also. But even then, we still won't have a working power plant. It's a bitch, for sure. Getting that extra push to Q>1 requires building machines of gargantuan proportions (although there are designs coming along that will surely be pushing the scale back down pretty soon).
TBBH I don't care much about ICF. It proved scientific breakeven, but it's like, "Who cares?" It's embarrassingly far from engineering breakeven. And if it ever gets there, by then I don't think anyone will care.
If I had to bet (though I wouldn't because this whole thing is so uncertain), I'd bet on stellarators. They're harder to build than tokamaks (well, ITER is super-hard, but just from its sheer scale), but in the end they may work a lot better in practice.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 It's hard to connect your posts to anywhere in the video because your timestamp is wrong. They talked about fusion no early than min 26 and only about that one first ignition event, but maybe you meant to put 1:04:20 where they talk about "infinite power"😄 for everyone.
So i was talking about the fact that in order to power those lasers who produced 2 MJ and got out 3 MJ in that ignition event, they consumed close to 295 MJ of energy. Even she mentioned about that here 31:45.
There is no point in thinking about size reduction, if there are not any clear prospects for net production viability on practice.
Love the annual debate !
But please give them comfy rotating chair ! :P
Closed loop systems don't have to use fracking for underground water system flow.
Eavor (a Canadian company) use such a system and it becomes a very versatile system when you are not tethered to fracking for geo thermal.
Thank you for this video.
I've been waiting for this year's debate.
It's not a debate. It's a panel discussion.
I like the systems mind of Anna but I just don't see that future being feasible with the state of our political/industrial complex. Olivia is spot on. We need sustainable mindset. We need to think long term but with focus on anythingnwe can do now, breaking through engineering political and corporate barriers.
Also having energy systems won't be helpful if no one can afford it or won't be accessible in certain areas..
Thanks for the great talk!
Isn’t it that our political/industrial complex isn’t feasible with the future we need? And why would we allow dollars to be a functional barrier to something like energy? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, nature is a complex biochemical and geophysical system(s), but economic is a construct. We can always create money, or value it differently, or forgo it entirely. I really think it is important tot start with what is absolutely necessary, and cannot be controlled, everything else is superfluous.
Awesome job putting this together again! Loved the panel and guest appearance of Jamie ☢️⚡️🧪
Have been waiting it all the year long! Yes, this would way better to have two conversations a year. But in any way, thank You! ❤
Awesome stuff, just wish it was much longer
I hope more people start watching these!
Asimov was incredible, and this debate is the least we can do to remember him, his books will remain relevant for milennia to come.
Beautiful sense making and points beyond the realm of conversational norms.
I never anticipated that this discussion would be too dumbed down to be useful, but I suppose I should have. It really is. To get anywhere with this subject, you have to get into a little basic math, and some charts and graphs. Sorry to have to bring that bad news, but surely it can't really be news. This is not rocket science…except that, at times, it kind of gets to that level.
Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988
Really love this kind of discussions ❤ but still believing we can change climate is not sane.
I do live off grid using mostly solar panels where there is low light. The strategy is having enough solar panels to fill the batteries at 100% in a few hours only. So, whenever there is a bit of sun, you refill fast. The rest of the time, bi-facial panels will still generate a few kWh per day in the worst conditions. I made it through 9 days without sun this fall; +- 5kWh of production per day or less, still enough for internet and a computer!
Well done! What sort of battery(s) are you using?
@@AlignmentCoaching Silicon dioxyde / lead crystal. I hope to try LTO soon.
much respect, thanks for the info!
You are a small rounding error. There are not enough solar panels and batteries to go around. There is not enough land area and raw materials to do it with solar. You need nuclear energy for process heat and electrical generation.
I don't live off grid, but have a 12kW PV rooftop array, and 10kW of battery storage.
In summer, my reliance on grid power is around 10%. This will be my first winter with batteries so I don't have the numbers yet, but I expect my grid dependence to be less than 40%. With the exception of hot water, my home is all electric, and my car is electric.
Great discussion! Thank you!!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Peace is the magic technology we can produce instantly
The only debate where the MC talks more than anyone else by an order of magnitude
It's not a debate, it's a panel of very smart people who know their stuff and some will agree, and some will disagree, but it isn't a debate. Neil will always have tons to say in whatever venue he is at. That's part of his personality. He is a very enthusiastic science promoter as well as an astrophysicist.
Oh my mistake, I thought it was entitled the Isaac Asimov Debate.
@@denislemenoir It was indeed titled wrong. A debate is where there are two sides and they have timed periods within to make their arguments. This was a discussion between a number of people with varying opinions and assertions.
I just started watching this channel, beginning with the 2024. Thank you for setting up this discussion. 80% goes over my head. But nonetheless, it is entertaining and educational.
Not a professional: What about the MIT roll to roll graphene production on a copper substrate. Dissolve some of that copper and expose the graphene to make a copper graphene copper pattern to make a Brownian battery? and using plasma sounds like an awesome idea, but go full circle. Chuck down trash and toxic waste ( past the water bed) and have usable products out of what effectively is a caldron of elements and compounds which you can collect by using heat and pressures. The plasma can be fueled by geothermal energy anyways even by solar and wind.
A great conversation ! Ended where a another hour should have started.
This panel and discussion was excellent!
I hope the next one is about Technological Acceleration. Seems like a suitable debate that is currently taking place. Something that opened my eyes to e/acc were books by Alan Toffler titled, Future Shock, Third Wave, and Powershift. Not to mention Doctor Tyson's explanations of NASA spinoffs. The benefits of pushing our boundaries in how we got cordless drills and the like.
Nice to see people in location.
Tammy Ma's answer make me believe we won't have fusion in 2050, she is a fusion scientist, if she believe we can make it, she will just simply answer "Yes." But she is very coy about the question.
Too many unknowns at present. First step was coming up with expensive experiments. Second step was finding one that seems to work and verify it. Next step is to scale up to create a demonstration reactor. After that would be something commercially viable.
It's always problematic to ask what people BELIEVE. So many things are speculative that the experts believe may be as valuable as the believe of a pastor in his made up story. Not to be taken literally.
It's always problematic to ask what people BELIEVE. So many things are speculative that even the experts believe may be as valuable as the believe of a pastor in his made up story. Not to be taken literally.
It is a really tough question. And, scientists and engineers are wired to not answer in absolutes.
Was waiting for this 🙏✨🕊❤
2024 T O E
GOD DAMMIT. I emailed AMNH multiple times asking when will this year's Isaac Asimov debate be. Never got an answer, and now I missed attending it live. Seems a bit rushed though, this year's debate, and no Q&A at the end.
Hope you get to go to the next one buddy!
maybe kick the headline quoting journalist next time
26:44 - major thumbs up!
NEED A PART-2 way too brief...or better still a whole continuous monthly/6monthly series all the way to 2050 til we get it done! There were things raised in that that many are not aware of such as guest Jamie's venture. Wind, waves, etc. etc. It will spark ideas in others to pursue or support, perhaps even fund. New & suppressed energy technologies explored & researched.
Talking about decreasing co² from cars and not discussing exhaust from ships?
Geology is the limit of supply of both commodities including energy. The geological mechanisms for the formation of most commodities has been well understood for 70 years. Few new reserves to be found.
I'm glad we had some European representation who made clear we need a LOT of change to get this right.
One thing nobody mention is people. We are too many people and we really need to do more to stop this growth. 3 billions would be enough, and yes we will be there or less with our failure to curb the CO2 emissions. Also nobody mention Australia, the biggest coal exporter in the world. Australia is ruled by big companies that are not very kind to the people that live there.
Neil could you see a future without vehicles. Build a system of tubes throughout cities and between cities. Diferent sizes for diferent comodities and put people or goods in capsules and send them. To take it further build cities underground and grow a lot of our food underground. Our planet would be a lot safer for the rest of the species.
This is an example of “ people trying to get away with being smart”
1:19:30 The last five years David is talking about are the recent tail of a process that has been ramping up for MUCH longer. It's just that he only noticed the changes in the last few years.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. All these technologies, etc. take up a lot of time to develop. That said: to deploy them at scale and thus reducing the price through mass production, you need money. Lots of money, which is where the government comes into play. And if their is political will to pay for it, it usually moves much faster in the implementation phase.
Also the biggest source of payment the R in R&D is the government.
Asimov debates are my favorite class.
oh wow. Ive been waiting all through covid!!
For carbon sequestration I'm very much in favor of planting bamboo because it's very fast growing it's easier rather than building exotic plants in Iceland
50:30 The increase rate of renewables (wind+solar) is, right now, just about covering the rate of increase of energy use, globally. You find that discouraging? Really? That's far ahead of where things were ten years ago, AND it's far, far behind where things will be in another ten years. To me, that's a lot more than just "barely moving the needle," to use a popular phrase.
It also means fossil fuel consumption is still increasing. That said: energy storage solutions are coming online more and more which makes replacing fossil fuel sources much easier/reliable.
@@autohmae No, it's not clear that it is still increasing. (Note that I was comparing increases in renewables tototal energy use, not to fossil fuel use.) I have stats for combined fossil fuel use, for 2021 and 2022, and there is an increase, but very small-a little less than 0.5%. The picture is a little confounded by lingering fx from Covid. The 2023 figures should be out in a few months, and the trends should be clearer then.
Iceland is sitting on a magma conveyor belt. It can sell and supply Europe's energy
needs probably cheaper than the current cost. Of course, the set up cost initially will be high.
Incredible conversation to witness. More please!
Tammy it's easy to sell the search for the holy grail but in the meantime please stop bad mouthing fission while speaking of diversity.
Can we please have a thorough discussion of options like small modular reactors and coal to nuclear transition?
The moment near the end when she says "we really prefer you just call it fusion" (instead of "nukes") is quite revealing. Fusion is just a make-work program for plasma physicists financed by public money in captured government institutions and FOMO-driven private VCs investing in startups.
The fact they don't really have a superior product to fission nor to any of fission's alternatives in wind, solar, etc., means incumbents need to care a lot about keeping up the hype on the media, propagating false memes of infinite abundance, and of course: branding itself as something different than nuclear power.
One thing of substance in this show, at least: To sequester the excess CO2 already in the Atmosphere involves quantities, and costs, that are NOT prohibitive. Don't believe that. It's bunk. We have already extracted quantities of carbon out of the ground that are comparable. And unlike the original fossil fuel extraction, undoing that is NOT a mining operation. Complete the transition to carbon-free energy, and this is totally feasible. And for the most part, if we do it right, it only needs to happen once.
Carbon capture would cost more than the GNP of the planet. It's not feasible.
All irrelevant and wasteful. CO2 rise is greening the earth, while we are near or over the saturation point where CO2 ceases to be thermogenic in the atmosphere.
1:24:57 Neil explains the common sense and most evolutionary outcome, a common energy distribution network (electricity) where all generation sources compete for the title of most efficient and cost effective per application. He goes on to praise all the competing technologies and says they should compete on their merits and the best in class for electric generation in each category will emerge.
Common sense, he also adds “after that I’m not a fan” which is a reference to the no-growth, de-growth green spectrum of Malthusian thinkers.
The panel goes silent, because the green de-growth cat was let out of the bag and instantly guillotined, that was what the silence symbolized. To hide that one of the panelists said “You don’t mention wind” which was a misdirection out of the cul de sac.
Good job Neil!
Nuclear energy is the answer. Also deploying fission-suppressed fusion hybrid reactors. That is a nuclear reactor that uses high-energy neutrons from a fusion reactor to trigger fission in non-fissile fuels. The reactor has a neutron-producing fusion core surrounded by a fission blanket. The neutrons from the fusion core trigger fission in the blanket, which multiplies the energy released by each fusion reaction. This design can make fusion reactors more economical and allow them to burn fuels that aren't suitable for conventional fission plants, including nuclear waste.
Will these deep holes to access heat eventually cool the earth's core if there are thousands of them around the planet? Will it dissipate heat away from the core? I'm not a scientist, but it made me think about it. If the earth's core cools over time, will that affect it's rotation speed or orbit? Possibly over hundreds of years? Great debate, I'm glad I watched!
I’m not credentially qualified to answer; but no, not even close. I don’t believe test we could even, well, scratch the surface.
Why do you clap? Glory be to you man.
The big problem for nuclear fusion to become the power source of the future is rarely mentioned. This is the fact that the tritium needed for the operation of a fusion reactor has to be produced by the reactor itself. It is possible to breed tritium in a fusion reactor but producing enough of it will probably turn out to be impossible. The reason for this is that each fusion reactor produces one neutron that could in principle be used to create one tritium atom. But inevitable neutron losses and losses in extracting the tritium will cause the yield to be far less than hundred procent. The only hope to make the losses up is to utilize nuclear reactions that produce more neutrons than they consume. Nobody knows if this will be a solution to the problem.
You can get many more than one tritium per neutron. Breeding ratios >1 are easy to show.
@@jakemaddox3861
Enlighten me, please.
CO²: Is it really sane to believe that changing the amount of co² in atmosphere will change the climate?
~57:00 If you succeed in producing large amounts of clean geothermal energy, that would do a lot to actually undermine the biggest use case for hydrogen, which is stationary energy storage, especially at high latitudes.
According to James Hansen of Columbia University 1.8 million people have been saved by nuclear energy by displaying ultra fine particulate pollution
1:08:24 Suddenly this is getting way more interesting! I wonder if what Dr Keleman says is true. It might be. Never really worked it out. But when you consider how wastefully energy was used in 1776 (whale oil lamps, wood stoves, tallow candles, and so on), it might be. If so, that's truly remarkable-although I'm sure there have been substantial ups and downs along the way. But here's the thing: The good Doctor NOW seems to be saying that the next few decades will bring a STEEP RISE in that global, per capita energy use. I have to question that. There are energy EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS going on apace. LED lights and electric cars are just two examples. There are others. There is a constant tug between countervailing trends in this area. I'm not so sure about that big energy surge that so many are predicting.
I just watched an interview with Isaac Asimov where he envisions satellites collecting solar energy and converting it to microwaves to beam to Earth where it's collected and converted to electrical power. No mention of that here. Is it not a possible solution?
Well, commercial space flight didn't even exist until fairly recently. And the production of energy is usually seen as a commercial endeavour. That said, people are working on these things, but mostly as designs, nothing much else.
Too bad Prof. David Ruzic wasn't involved here, this is exactly what he works on in Illinois.
The Consumption monsters
He's not dissing on you at your job
What scares me the most is giving the technology to such an aggressive society as russian…
You probably should not, the energy/fossil fuel they produce right now gives them power in the world. If the world does not depend on them, their influence is reduced.
fusion power powering itself too.
Earth heat to generate power is the way to go.
Put someone on a pedestal and they will look down on us so why is Tyson's behavior so surprising...
It is actually extremely stupid to have a discussion about power production that does not include nuclear fission, more so when climate change is considered to be the main point of contention.
Honestly,,,,,, be honest....
America can no longer build big projects, possibly partly due to corruption. Georgia's new nuclear power plant came online July 2023, seven years late and $17 billion over budget. South Carolina's new nuclear power plant was cancelled due to corruption after spending $9 billion that rate-payers will pay for in their utility bills.
my dear you do not need a laser for that that is only your focus on
it can be done mechanical, electrical and only electrical that is the fuel for the laser.
Idea: don't like it? Use the power switch to turn it off?
Helium 3. Nuff said
What about spinning a magnetic top in space with sunlight? We could beam it to earth. Clean full energy.
So happy I am exposed to this video series
💖
1:19:00 No. HELL no. That's not that everybody thought five years ago. Probably not even a majority. Those scenarios you're talking about are just preposterous. And I, just for one, was saying so at that time. I have the records of it. Of course, whether anyone was listening to little old me is another matter. But this is not just 20/20 hindsight I'm claiming.
Do we have to continue living in wasteful ways .
Can we not simply live with the nature without disturbing the environment and other creatures on the planet, below and above.
Every one in looking on other's minerals and big companies looking for for the Geopolitics and instability.
Poetic!
1:14:00 But if you see the system as a whole, and that's the ONLY perspective you use, then you have only a hair-shirt solution. We have to stop our wasteful ways, be content with less. And you know the retort to that: Fine for you, not so great for the great bulk of Humanity.
The solution is to go beyond that, and see many other factors that allow ways forward, some of which you've been discussing just now.
Not much room for debate when you draw from institutions who advocate the same policies.
I also share the sentiment that NDT's image seems to have outgrown his role
Here, here.
Neil has gone from the popularizer of science I most admired, years ago, to a 'scientific' figurehead who goes as far as to actually _disgust_ me, now.
In this appearance ALONE - in this moderator role alone (read: immoderator) - he managed to once again botch or be unaware of basic facts; visibly annoy (for good reason) every SINGLE participant onstage with his stupidity and arrogant ego; nearly constantly distract from the momentary point of conversation (see: every goddamn exchange across the entire video); and dumb down not only the points and flow of dialogue, but the entire essence of the conversation (he always turns any 'conversation' he takes part in into a self-aggrandizing 'uni-sation,' full of his own lazily-fostered erroneous logic, which he vociferously offers up as _obvious_ reality - as if everyone listening at that moment is actually _more,_ or even _as,_ misguidedly foolish as himself).
This panel, traveling to and engaging in this conversation, could have, should have - and _would_ have - gotten sooo much further - and sooo enjoyably more, had he been kept away.
He's become a disgrace - and that is a disgrace to us, the scientific community which he still unabashedly purports to represent.
😢😢😢👎👎👎
Relax! It's his personality, it makes the "debate more interesting." Which "institutions" would you have drawn from for a different perspective? I would have liked to hear about more advancements in fission energy, not because I don't have high hopes for fusion, but just because it seems more realistic at the moment. Also instead of burying the carbon, maybe we could use it to build???
@@apophisxo4480 He's talking about inviting coal, oil and natural gas industries so they will keep telling lies to dissuade the public from carbon taxes and the like. The big Exxon scandal from a few years ago was they had two sets of climate books: one secret where global warming is real and they have to build their facilities according to sea level rising and the like; and the other where they fraudulently say it's not happening to convince the public not to take it seriously.
1:25:00 And Neil, do you not think that infrastructure is being created right now?
No mention of methane which has a much greater greenhouse gas effect than carbon.
Methane is CH₄, the C is a carbon atom. Talking about "carbon" generally includes methane and the products of burning it.
No mention of methane in the same dull way, methan is mentioned allways in these discussions. Let the facts be allowed to be presented to the recipient in a different way to check if he's actually following the strain of thought.
Here: As @HebaruSan explains it, for example.
It is shocking that social scientists are always excluded from climate discussions. Social change is the only viable solution to overuse of energy. That is because the problem is economics. How and what you measure determines what you value, and how you value it. Economists make models that value capital by devaluing everything else, and they ‘externalize’ factors that do not produce their predetermined results. Neo-classical economics is a political ideology that is unable to provide a wholistic understanding. Since ecology and energy are ignored in the models that structure the economy, the economy constantly tries to make the world fit into the models. It has ever worked, but this is the first time we are up against a natural limit that cannot be forced, a clash is inevitable.
I see economics as a belief system for the wealthy on top to justify their position. One aspect is the primacy of growth in a finite world. Growth of production, GNP, profit, etc. As more countries head to 0% population growth (partly due to the Pandemic) there's fear and cries that we're going to have a depopulation crisis! They can't deal with heading toward a sustainability.
This is the truth, thank you, we just can watch the decreasing the value of social wealth, and have Haven Ling time, but still have a Hope, how the transitionbpolicyvgrowth togeher with the social wealth in every level
@@sandal_thong8631 Aristotle would tell you about home economics - which affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.
Como não mencionaram o Brasil, acredito com toda certeza que nós habitantes de Cucamonga estamos fazendo a coisa certa..... excessão para as queimadas criminosas da floresta amazônica.
Take A Moment
My fellow apes
For me, wants and needs are the issue.
Some people want more than they most.
A reset is required
Stay Safe
Keep looking up
Stay Free ❤🎉
No. It simply isn’t “required”. That’s false.
Am really glad there are more women than men in this year's debate. For over a decade, it's always men>women in these debates, sometimes even 0.
if energy mesuments is a calculation thing than the energy solution are numbers
and that is the truth
SO happy that Neil Degrasse Tyson hosts these wonderful events❤❤❤❤❤
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Salt Reactors are the answer. Proven, and Safe.
And... I think only 0 thorium reactors are in use and 1 thorium reactor is being build right now.
@@autohmae 9 years running at Oak Ridge. It would not produce weapons grade material, so they shut it down.
@@csbrudy yeah I know, I meant currently in the world.
Nuclear is proven and safe today.
45:00 But Neil, you're saying this problem can be solved quickly, and without wrenching, deep, fundamental changes to our whole way of life, attitudes, and godknowswhat else. Do you know how heretical that is? To some, that sounds like magical thinking. And that, I submit to you, is a divide in our thinking that runs deeper than is generally recognized.
Sorry previous comment half written. I meant to say "Up till now we have used fossil fuel to make renewable energy systems so there is that backlog to pay for.
Replace him as u want.
This is SO BIAS.... we CAN NOT replace combustions engines... for electric ones ... IS JUST NOT POSIBLE within out plannet... Hidrogen is other thing.. but the energy density of a batery is just ridiculus, also polute way more than building a normal "car" with a combustion engine.
Shut down the highways then and make people take the bus, until they're willing to build electric trains.
@@sandal_thong8631 seriosly? and the electric train where does it get the electricity to run?....
1:10:00 Oh, but there are a lot of vocal commentators predicting just that. And I'm just cynical enough to think that many of them think it's desirable. No, I'm not trying to be funny. I wish I were.
After watching the first minute of Neil's introduction and watching any further I would just like to ask a few questions :
Why do we always focus on the energy and not how is this energy spent? Is it spent for megalomaniac projects only a very few privileged crooks will benefit from, will the energy be spent on manufacturing weapons and useless merchandising or will it be spent with ethics?
This is just to get an idea of where we are at. a Conversation beginning. A very large topic.
we need 7 billion more golf courses
@@twonumber22 we need more tanks, more guns, more nukes, more superheroes figurines, more plastic guns for kids, more private jets for billionaires crooks, more junk food, more lousy TV programs, more GPS so that people can meet their nearest hooker, more drugs, more artificial flavouring.... More disasters...
We have this issues with pricing energy and materials in general. For example, (freshwater)water is the most important non-renewable material on the planet, yet is one if not the cheapest material kg per kk compared with other stuff. I see a similar issue with energy. You get a price per kwh of electricity for example no matter what what is the purpose of its consumption but based of how much you buy and with some penalties if you make the signal dirty in the grid. Maybe a different price per activity of kwh use could be an instrument which could be helpful in the climate change/ biodiversity loss / pollution increase triple threat?
@@thebrutaltooth1506 or taxing most polluting industries, regulating pollution. Old mines, refineries, factories must be put to new standards. The biggest corporations should finance due to the huge brake they get from the offshore... Any corporation being financially responsable for any pollutions, damages to the environment. Small business too. financing research, promoting ecofriendly business which Reuse, Recycle, Reduce, Repair, Redistribute
So out of date. Hydrogen is not clean it leks and not suitable for transportation not even trains or trucks. Almost nothing on chemical, water and heat storage or efficiency and passive usage or how the limiting factors are not solar and wind because they’re the solution with some storage and most importantly modernisation of the grid and microgrids with HVDC
If I were David Wallace Wells i would have considered just getting up and leaving
I could not listen to the "smart people" on stage. Made me sick.
Smile be happy and good information. 30 years ...😅😅😅
We gotta get to mining H3 from the Moon.