I'm crazy about Mr. Epstein's fresh take on energy!

@readrothbard153

7 жыл бұрын

Alexander Darr he is my man crush

@smorrow

7 жыл бұрын

After the first Human Flourishing Podcast episode I emailed him to look at a Peter Gray lecture or two. I don't know if he's going to do an episode with him or not. If he doesn't, look into that by yourself. Every libertarian should think about that stuff. *tl;dw* the freer children are, the better-off they are, and you hold a ton of preconceptions _you don't even know you have_.

The moral case for nuclear energy has to be developed much like the case for fossil fuels.

This guy has the most reasonable and evidenced based perspective on the Climate Change debate.

@dereklawley5070

5 жыл бұрын

Should be compulsory reading for all students. As a retired Engineer I wish I had seen this earlier in my career.

@Chris-ei5fz

4 жыл бұрын

He is a dangerous fool.

Thank you for one of the most rational and evidence-based discussions of this topic upon which human survival, human prosperity and the advance of civilization is depends. The usually shrill and emotional pleas were absent. Empirical fact, reason and logic prevailed. So good to hear in a culture that is dominated by the opposite of reason and evidence. I especially appreciated the depth to which you were able to discuss and explore this topic. Refreshing.

I don't have a problem if somebody wants to puts a bevy of high resource intensity, low power density, unreliable, expensive, and ugly solar panels on their homes. Just don't make me pay for the things.

@JoeZorzin

5 жыл бұрын

And don't spread them all over the landscape in huge solar "farms" which has now happened in Massachusetts.

Epstein in informed, thoughtful, and deserves to be heard.

Obama said we were on the verge of an economical grid level battery and that was going to make renewables viable and cheap. Unfortunately the opposite is true, this is very important. These non-existent batteries would make coal, natural gas or nuclear cheaper and renewables much more expensive and take up huge amounts of land.

He has become a much more concise speaker

So glad Trump is going good on fossil fuel expansion. Smart man.

@shadfurman

7 жыл бұрын

Caulron if he actually deregulated more I'll call him a smart man, maybe get rid of some subsidies too.

@neomacchio4692

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah turns out he was right on this... And..... Everything else.

Excellent. A balanced, incisive speaker and this was a good discussion.

Coal puts out over 100 times more nuclear waste than a nuclear power plant.

America is energy independent? The US and the world needs an EROI of 30 to 1 and fracking gives 5 to 1. An EROI of 30 to 1 was passed in 1970 "coincidentally" when the US took the world off the gold standard. Today the EROI is 18 to 1 with debt making up the difference. Look at this chart srsroccoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/U.S.-Public-Debt-vs-U.S.-OIl-Gas-EROI.png This is why the world economy is dying a slow death.

@smorrow

7 жыл бұрын

Why do you _want_ energy independence? All that is is Corn Laws for energy.

@wheel-man5319

Жыл бұрын

@@smorrow I'm not sure what you mean. What were the corn laws, and how do they relate to energy, or other independence? The 'greens' say that solar panels (controlled by China) will set us free from the tyranny of fossil fuel. It seems to me that every policy has trade offs, and if you don't carefully consider both the the benefits and detriments. So with that as a starting point what are the benefits of attempting to be energy independent? What are the detriments? Do the benefits out weigh the detriments. Are they exactly even? If they are exactly equal then back out and evaluate which policy will cause your nation to prosper and not put it at the mercy of a not necessarily friendly trading partner.

ReasonTV... Where people use reason. 😃

Alex Epstein for president 2024...:)

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 40% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately .9C at present. 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 35 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.

@Cspacecat

5 жыл бұрын

As the atmosphere warms, the differential temperature decreases between the ocean's surface and the atmosphere, blocking the ocean from releasing its heat. That 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

@Cspacecat

5 жыл бұрын

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 BTU in vs BTUs out 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 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.

*As a religious libertarian, I like to highlight how liberals address the question of ‘was God just so dumb that He provided a dirty form of energy that would destroy His own creation / children?’* *The way they address the question is that they DON’T or won’t.*

@sybo59

6 жыл бұрын

Topaz Blahblah Wow, what a facile point. Do you think that there is anything on earth that is both beneficial AND harmful to humans? Yes? Ok, so why did god create it? You imply by your formulation that he would never do that. I might as well point out that you also presume the existence of a thinking, intervening god, which is the stuff of intellectual infancy.

@topazblahblah

6 жыл бұрын

sybo59 no, I’ve actually spoken with God many times. Literal conversations. You just have to be open to Him.

@Chris-ei5fz

4 жыл бұрын

What verse was it that said “ go forth and release toxic gas all over the planet”. Clair Cameron Patterson discovered that tetraethyl lead in fuel had contaminated the entire planet in the fifties and was building up in people’s bloodstreams. It took twenty five years of arguments and sacrifice to convince twits like this Epstein character to have it removed from fuel. Since 1986 when it became law to remove it lead levels in American blood samples have dropped by about 20 times. Pollution by definition is not good and should be reduced if possible. This fool is very dangerous and does not have the capacity for reasoned thought or logic.

37:55 Lisa's rock that keeps tigers away

"moral" is subjective, therefore it suggest that any one individual defining it, forces it upon others, either implied or not; either explicit or not. Nature compels the individual to "accountability" - you can observe the "ownership" of your choices in any given moment/experience. action = action (reaction) moral has become a righteousness; self-righteousness. such-righteousness is force. so how do we as a society move away from self-righteousness? move away from "moral"? accountability for self. accountability (ownership) of choices made. every. single. choice. made in every single moment of your life.

@jeremylaurence5636

4 жыл бұрын

Subjective to suggestive to force... That escalated quickly.

First

25:00 ah that is a common misconception about Superman. in fact he is solar powered but he does not store the energy from light in his body. There is no way a solar light source on such a small area can produce that much power. What he actually does is create a plasma current from him to the sun when he is in visual contact with it. This is the ONLY way he has so much power and it goes away when far from a planet. In essence he is a human Aurora Borealies, which also is electrcity from the sun on Earth.

@lemmyh2

7 жыл бұрын

mon onm so how does he still have powers at night?

The great thing about solar panels. You don't have to keep buying them after you get them. Where as exxon and shell have you coming back every single week for the rest of your life.

@BobWidlefish

7 жыл бұрын

On the other hand, gasoline is cheaper than bottled water and isn't impacted by darkness. I suppose we each have to make our own choices.

@Muonium1

7 жыл бұрын

Not really. The efficiency losses over time are nearly negligible, 10% after 25 years. In other words if your solar panel is 20% efficient at converting light to electricity at installation, after 25 years they'll be 18% efficient. Not really a significant factor.

@Reidsmith1000

7 жыл бұрын

to nanochase: That's only completely true if you use the solar cells directly. They have a DC output and home power is AC. You need to convert that DC to AC which requires circuitry that has to be maintained. Also you would have to charge batteries since this system will not operate at night. All those things would require maintenance and replacement from time to time and they will also cut down on the efficiency of the system.

@shadfurman

7 жыл бұрын

nanochase I agree. I think today in an unregulated, unsubsidized, free market, solar would be doing better. I think environmentalists advocating for regulations, hurt the environment more. We need a free market.

@shadfurman

7 жыл бұрын

Fred Rogers you only need to convert to AC for AC motors (its more efficient to convert DC to AC and run an AC motor than to just use a DC motor.) Most electronics run on DC and have converters that convert AC to DC built into the devices. The house doesn't run on AC, our electronics have been designed too. We can make electronics that rarely fail, its just usually cheaper to make low quality electronics that fail because people usually upgrade their electronics faster than they fail.

I'm not a chicken little environmentalist and I try to listen to all sides so I can form my own opinion. If environmentalist are the far left, Alex is the far right. He keeps saying you have to look at the positives and negatives but then he completely ignores the negatives. A few points. - He made the statement how energy production and consumption has improved since the 80s but he acts as if that was all done by the choice of corporations. All those government regulations had nothing to do with it? Corporations are looking after their profits and without social or political pressure will never look for a cleaner method, just cheaper ones. Regulations and added costs have to be fairly looked at with impact. If a regulation is going to have little impact at a high cost its probably bad. If regulations push for improvements without making being cost prohibitive they are good. - Researching the whole climate change debate is see both sides. Co2 levels have been higher, we've always had severe weather patterns and temperatures have fluctuated. How I see it, the earth is going to be here long after we are gone and it will recuperate from the negative impacts of man. However, while we are still here, we need to maximize that time by not poisoning are water supply, ruining our food supply and killing are air. We can't be completely blinded and say this will all work out and in the end big corps will do the right thing. - We can't lose site of pollutants created by energy productions. Before you disagree with me look into Coal Ash and how we are handling it, Nuclear waste and how we are disposing it and the increased earthquakes and instability caused by fracking in Oklahoma. Alex has some good points but he's completely ignoring too much of the negatives.

Re-evaluate your understanding of the non-aggression principle. If a private entity is poisoning its neighbors, they should be forced to stop. CO2 is now over 400 ppm and rising, faster each year. It has increased by 85 ppm in 55 years. When you burn something, it isn't deleted. It becomes part of the air, and the ppm clearly shows that all the carbon that had been gradually burying itself miles underground over millions of years, that we then dug up and reintroduced to the atmosphere over just one century, is not being efficiently processed into the biosphere or back underground. CO2's ppm hasn't been this high since the Pliocene, and again, it's climbing faster every year. Mass extinctions occur when the planet changes too rapidly for species to adapt, and we have rapidly changed Earth's chemistry.

@skenzyme81

7 жыл бұрын

Micah Schweitzer Poisoning your neighbor? CO2 poisoning requires concentrations over 10,000 ppm just to cause drowsiness. Actual poisoning doesn't really kick in till 70,000 ppm. Lower levels are adapted to over time.

@Owlbearwolf2

7 жыл бұрын

Sean Kelly Nitpicking my metaphor fails to refute my point. I'm just saying that when harming the environment harms humanity, it definitely violates the NAP.

@dreyescope6926

7 жыл бұрын

Micah Schweitzer - It's problematic to summon the NAP without looking at the greater context. The NAP is a principle which serves the end of human well-being. Removing or ignoring the benefits in this equation drops the most important part of the overall context: fossil-fuel use ultimately serves the well-being of human beings. Epstein posits a couple of ways one might look at this practical problem here, and in his book. But It's not a simple problem. and it certainly demands looking at the entire context.

@Owlbearwolf2

7 жыл бұрын

"The NAP is a principle which serves the end of human well-being." Wrong. Non-Aggression describes the means, not the ends. That's why we never kill someone we don't like and donate their organs to six people who need them. Because you asked nicely, I'll give an hour to listen to this. No, climate change isn't controversial, which I expect he argues. Yes, CO2's ppm has rapidly risen because of human intervention in the global carbon cycle, which I expect he ignores. And yes, human activity has become dependent on fossil fuels for now, and I'll consider what he has to say about that.

@smorrow

7 жыл бұрын

> CO2 is now over 400 ppm 0.04%, wow! Literally a trace gas. If you doubled it it still wouldn't be 1%. And human contribution to that 0.04% is something like 3%. > and rising, faster each year. Yeah, and that's a bad thing because ......? Oh, yeah, because you're a dumbfuck Reasontarian LINO that thinks unconditional basic income is a libertarian policy - probably.

so many straw men. so many straw men. gah

@anti0918

7 жыл бұрын

Which?

@mughat

7 жыл бұрын

I disagree. Can you mention one?

@space5339

7 жыл бұрын

Sure, the one I thought of in particular was the idea that people who think global warming have the idea that the world should just not change. It's not the case. The interviewer even tried to touch on it by asking if the bet being made was that the really dangerous predictions of climate change don't come to pass.

@mughat

7 жыл бұрын

***** Are you saying these people want the world to change?

@eggory

7 жыл бұрын

Space, you're right that not everyone who's some degree of an activist against global warming sees things in those anti-humanist terms, but many of them do, and it helps to clarify it. People like Bill Nye for example like to try to argue explicitly for changing things and using technology and human ambition to improve the environment, or at least protect it for human purposes. I love that. I think arguments like the key argument you're referring to from Alex Epstein lead to more people trying to argue for reduction of co2 emissions more in the style of Bill Nye, although he isn't perfect, which results in a more productive discussion.

I recently 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 little understanding of the issues. 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

@paddyhalligan28

2 жыл бұрын

Wars caused by Fossil Fuels!!! What an idiotic assertion.

@marcrauch8213

2 жыл бұрын

@@paddyhalligan28 So then you don't know anything about history, right?