The Future of Energy | 2023 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate

[@ignacioduran5993]

CO² production... USA 10%, China 30%... proportional to the population of each country, but what Neil forgot to point out is that much (a whole lot!) of the "Chinese" production is actually indirectly OURS, that is, outsourced manufacturing by European and USAmerican companies (ultimately the consumers) who are creating that pollution in another part of the world. The real carbon footprint per inhabitant in China and India is a fraction of what the extremely wasteful USA is responsible for.

[@victorianorman1848]

Correct and Canada’s or the US’s co2 emmisions only includes production not the eventual use. If you include end use emmisions, Canada’s and the US’s share of co2 emmisions would be much higher. All these stats depend on knowing what is being measured.

[@ivonnezaragoza5010]

Once a year is not nearly enough! Love these debates

[@FictionBlue]

I wish these would happen more frequently than once a year! Great stuff! Thanks a lot!

[@josephdonais4778]

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.

[@malikapollard3618]

No. Or it wouldn't be special. It's a memorial, not a show.

[@AlphaKingofGlory]

Peace is the magic technology we can produce instantly

[@CreamyBone]

Can you believe people still sit around and watch commercial television? - With cool interesting stuff like this for free 😁👍

[@firstgmattempt]

Hey. I’m a recovering ignoramus. Please recommend cool platforms I can meet other recovering ignorami?

[@sebeast1]

Asimov was incredible, and this debate is the least we can do to remember him, his books will remain relevant for milennia to come.

[@richardwainwright507]

Awesome stuff, just wish it was much longer

[@karlstone6011]

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

[@DarkenedSpell]

Love the annual debate ! But please give them comfy rotating chair ! :P

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@Orson2u]

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?

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

​@@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.

[@SliderHarDCorE]

@@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+ !

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

​@@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.

[@SliderHarDCorE]

​@@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.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

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.

[@AORD72]

You think engineers don't factor that in? Good engineers search for efficiencies and understand thing like the Carnot cycle. The main law of thermodynamics is conservation of energy. Right now wind solar and geothermal are the most cost effective form of energy generation because of technology advancements. Technology in the future is likely to solve fusion and create efficient solar panels and high energy densities life long batteries.

[@kinghenry100]

Nuclear is proven and safe today.

[@horsreseauquebec]

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!

[@AlignmentCoaching]

Well done! What sort of battery(s) are you using?

[@horsreseauquebec]

@@AlignmentCoaching Silicon dioxyde / lead crystal. I hope to try LTO soon.

[@czarlguitarl]

much respect, thanks for the info!

[@shawnnoyes4620]

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.

[@RCHeli1]

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.

[@johnumair]

Beautiful sense making and points beyond the realm of conversational norms.

[@dancooper8551]

This panel and discussion was excellent!

[@OCTO8R]

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! ❤

[@TheMighty_T]

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.

[@gunnarkaestle]

I doubt that the drilling of paralle heat exchange holes and the lining is much cheaper than todays drilling technology, so that we can afford not to pump oil (which has a value of dozen of dollars per gallon) but lukewarm water which is only worth a few pennies. And even if we have a heat reservoir of 300 °C (and not somthing between 140 °C - 180 °C which many geothermal sources provid) this is much less than today's thermal power plant technology (coal + gas fired), meaning the efficiency is much lower: you need to process more water and steam to extract the same electricity. An existing turbine and condensor from a 40 year old power plant won't work.

[@MikeAPRN]

Awesome job putting this together again! Loved the panel and guest appearance of Jamie ☢️⚡️🧪

[@ravicabral2522]

I was really looking forward to watching this but the moderator was so awful with his unnecessary interruptions that I couldn't watch. The level of his questions was more suited to a junior school science class than a serious scientific discussion.

[@AndrewNiccol]

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.

[@sandal_thong8631]

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.

[@GetZappéd1974]

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.

[@GetZappéd1974]

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.

[@JohnRider]

It is a really tough question. And, scientists and engineers are wired to not answer in absolutes.

[@lovelorn19815]

I am very happy everyone has unison view on video and what we need to do as a human spices collectively. So please do whatever from your level towards sustainable future.

[@denislemenoir]

The only debate where the MC talks more than anyone else by an order of magnitude

[@rhondah1587]

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.

[@denislemenoir]

Oh my mistake, I thought it was entitled the Isaac Asimov Debate.

[@rhondah1587]

@@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.

[@shmootube5000]

@@denislemenoir1:25 lol

[@gabrieltreewolf4618]

A great conversation ! Ended where a another hour should have started.

[@gsilcoful]

Thank you for this video.

[@teebee4699]

I hope more people start watching these!

[@biologyprodigy]

I've been waiting for this year's debate.

[@rhondah1587]

It's not a debate. It's a panel discussion.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@autohmae]

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.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

​@@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.

[@joeyhinds6216]

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!

[@Rnankn]

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.

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@Rnankn Money is a proxy for energy; or more precise it is a proxy for exergy. There is a conservation law for energy but none for exergy. The exergy content of exergy will degrade according to the entropy law and in the end, all energy is low temperature heat (100 % anergy).

[@abrahamsatinger265]

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.

[@peterhovmand74]

aaaaaaah? sorry.

[@apophisxo4480]

Great discussion! Thank you!!!

[@AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@robertpawley5715]

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

[@lorenzoblum868]

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?

[@gabrieltreewolf4618]

This is just to get an idea of where we are at. a Conversation beginning. A very large topic.

[@twonumber22]

we need 7 billion more golf courses

[@lorenzoblum868]

@@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...

[@thebrutaltooth1506]

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?

[@lorenzoblum868]

@@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

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@autohmae]

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.

[@csbrudy]

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Salt Reactors are the answer. Proven, and Safe.

[@autohmae]

And... I think only 0 thorium reactors are in use and 1 thorium reactor is being build right now.

[@csbrudy]

@@autohmae 9 years running at Oak Ridge. It would not produce weapons grade material, so they shut it down.

[@autohmae]

@@csbrudy yeah I know, I meant currently in the world.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@evanreakes]

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.

[@domdela5217]

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.

[@harrisayoub]

The host interrupts way too much. Plenty of instances where I really wanted to hear what someone on the panel wanted to say just to be cut off by the host. Pick someone else next time.

[@iRossco]

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.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

~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.

[@joeyhinds6216]

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?

[@Grobocopatel]

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.

[@gunnarkaestle]

44:11 A very simple mode for technological diffusion is the Fisher-Pry model, which is basically a logistic growth curve.

[@davidhenry5128]

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....

[@sandal_thong8631]

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.

[@nikolasantonas4647]

Incredible conversation to witness. More please!

[@macanoodough]

America's CO2 might track with population vs China's, but that's misleading. America is responsible for much of China's emissions because it's American owned factories, American driven resource demand, etc. So saying we only do 10 and they do 30 is flat out propaganda. Because taking America out of the equation, China would spew a lot less per capita than the USA. And the USA is responsible for most of the damage done over these past many years, as well as the coverup going on since the 80's. So let's stop the China bashing, and I'm shocked that Neil even has someone from the state department up there spewing this propaganda with such a weak check on his part. Tracks with population...give me a break!

[@sandal_thong8631]

I don't remember hearing much negativity against China in this conversation. But that's a good point that their economy is serving ours.

[@ryan6843]

China has 3092 coal plants. America has 217.

[@macanoodough]

@@ryan6843 China has 100 years to catch up to our 900 billion tons reserve, firstly. Secondly, we still currently produce just as much, if not more green house gasses from all combined sources. Your numbers are also misleading because we still produce 900 million tons a year, or about 25% of what China produces with more than 10x the mines. So go back to the drawing board and find some relevant information to support your opinion. Because right now you're green washing with long debunked talking points.

[@ObsoleteTutorials]

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.

[@imamiddleagedgoofygoober]

Hope you get to go to the next one buddy!

[@PabloMayrgundter]

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

[@justinklenk]

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. 😢😢😢👎👎👎

[@apophisxo4480]

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???

[@sandal_thong8631]

@@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.

[@MrPrimeGlass]

From what I understand is that for humans to survive we need to drastically change our course. And we need a device that will give everyone on the planet access to virtually free energy. Having an aboundent amount of energy will help us to survive the traumas of global warming.

[@JoeHacobian]

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!

[@newmexicoartist2468]

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.

[@BindasBadshah]

What you call as interruptions are well needed for monotonous nature of these conversations. With N Tyson at the helm, he brings right amount of steering to keep the conversation. N Tyson is a phenomenal moderator..

[@jwonderfulsuccess]

Was waiting for this 🙏✨🕊❤ 2024 T O E

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@solexxx8588]

Carbon capture would cost more than the GNP of the planet. It's not feasible.

[@Orson2u]

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.

[@snuffeldjuret]

Nice to see people in location.

[@bosselostal4252]

Talking about decreasing co² from cars and not discussing exhaust from ships?

[@sandal_thong8631]

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?

[@autohmae]

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.

[@EduardoMartinez-km9tz]

Asimov debates are my favorite class.

[@bosselostal4252]

Really love this kind of discussions ❤ but still believing we can change climate is not sane.

[@MrJoker42369]

Really cool! Would have been amazing to get simon michaux on, a mining expert with grave concerns about the mining/energy requirements for oil, solar, wind, nuclear and other energy 'storage'.

[@NicoFord-tc5nl]

SO happy that Neil Degrasse Tyson hosts these wonderful events❤❤❤❤❤

[@JustNow42]

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.

[@dan2304]

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.

[@autohmae]

I'm glad we had some European representation who made clear we need a LOT of change to get this right.

[@grumpystiltskin]

Pretending that nuclear fission isn't awesome, safe, cheap and clean is dishonest and a disgrace to Asimov. And as hostile NRC regulators working for indirectly big oil refused to approve any safety or economic improvements since 1975. We can make manufactured water free safe reactors easily. Only problem is energy industry says"we can't afford it-it is too cheap"!

[@aliancemd]

It’s weird to see Neil say “you are bumming me out”, “I thought you are going to say something nice” - the same guy that says “the Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”. He’s on the other side, not ready to accept reality and facts coming his way.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@Simplylisette]

d Does Iceland take advantage of all that extra heat by capturing it in wind form? Heat rises, is that not considered wind?

[@hapah4894]

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.

[@VeritasPraevalebit]

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.

[@jakemaddox3861]

You can get many more than one tritium per neutron. Breeding ratios >1 are easy to show.

[@VeritasPraevalebit]

@@jakemaddox3861 Enlighten me, please.

[@HenkBronkhorst-c8c]

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.

[@anatoliypankevych4853]

What scares me the most is giving the technology to such an aggressive society as russian…

[@autohmae]

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.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@wendellwilke721]

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.

[@ignacioduran5993]

A huge part of the problem is the arrogance of the industrialized countries in their premise that this or that technological alternative is unviable as it (or even they, which they do not consider as a combined or coordinated system) could never replace our current (fossil) energy system to guarantee our (extremely wasteful) standard of living, as if this "American way of life" were a sacred cow to be protected at any price and, even worse, spread around the world to be adopted and replicated by developing countries. Almost no thought is given to reductions in consumption, to curbing waste and increasing efficiency.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

1:25:00 And Neil, do you not think that infrastructure is being created right now?

[@gunnarkaestle]

There is no such thing as "energy consumption" as there is a conservation law for energy. What you consume and maybe are able to waste is the exergy content of the energy. Please don't forget: energy = exergy (useful) + anergy (not useful), the amount of energy is always constant, but it degrades as exergy is converted into anergy.

[@helfrich24]

Im glad Neil Degrasse Tyson is the host.

[@derekl6475]

Too bad Prof. David Ruzic wasn't involved here, this is exactly what he works on in Illinois.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

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.

[@gunnarkaestle]

Fusion energy has a brilliant future and always will.

[@johnreddy9827]

The panel should have had people with solutions and discuss them, not with people telling us the problem which we already know. The journalist was not needed in this panel.

[@toneloke7489]

No our politicians need to implement the technologies they talk about.

[@johnreddy9827]

@@toneloke7489 did you even try to understand what i was trying to say, and is this the first one you watched.

[@GetZappéd1974]

​​@johnreddy9827 I did try to understand what you wanted to say and concluded it's quite nonsensical. My first thought about the journalist was exactly yours, but after watching I figured, that first thought was wrong. Maybe you did not even tried to understand....hard enough.

[@Chamuzi]

He was useless.

[@wdvest8333]

He's not dissing on you at your job

[@Rnankn]

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 never worked, but this is the first time we are up against a natural limit that cannot be forced, a clash is inevitable.

[@sandal_thong8631]

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.

[@sarmanhutajulu4319]

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

[@Orson2u]

@@sandal_thong8631 Aristotle would tell you about home economics - which affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

[@lovelorn19815]

I wonder why greta thunberg clip was sensored 😢

[@factnotfiction5915]

26:44 - major thumbs up!

[@MelliaBoomBot]

oh wow. Ive been waiting all through covid!!

[@karlstone6011]

(46:00) Anna Spitzberg of the US State Department completely blanks the magma thermal energy project just discussed - as a means to sustain high energy societies like the US, Europe or Japan; when she references the lack of progress toward fusion energy, so prepare for massive government impositions on individuals and the economy, as if those were the only two alternatives. Magma Energy is 'hot rock geothermal' - not mining steam, but piping water miles underground through millions of cubic miles of hot rock - upto 700'C to evaporate in the heat, and expand creating super-heated steam pressure to drive turbines, to produce endless clean, base load electricity. Magma energy was proven technologically viable by Nasa/Sandia Labs in 1982, and several reports are published on the Department of Energy website. Further, the scale of the Magma energy available is monolithic. Current global energy demand is around 600 quads. (quadrillion btu) Nasa/Sandia estimated upwards of 50,000 quads of Magma energy just from the US alone. Worldwide the resource is effectively limitless. And in face of the global scale existential threat from climate change - abundant clean energy is required to meet human energy needs carbon free plus desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon - and so transcend the limits to growth equation, that underlies her apparent conviction that we must 'slow down' the economy. In reality, that means Anna Spitzberg favours crippling businesses and the working poor with taxes the rich won't even notice, to suppress demand; as opposed to feeding boundless clean energy into the world economy from the supply side.

[@canadiannuclearman]

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

[@iRossco]

No mention of methane which has a much greater greenhouse gas effect than carbon.

[@HebaruSan]

Methane is CH₄, the C is a carbon atom. Talking about "carbon" generally includes methane and the products of burning it.

[@GetZappéd1974]

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.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@alexciocca4451]

This is an example of “ people trying to get away with being smart”

[@antoniomalynowskyj183]

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.

[@iRossco]

To me the idea of carbon capture is ludicrous better to leave the carbon in the ground in the first place! Not to mention all the energy required to do it & potential for it to just leak back out! Seriously I think a kid came up with that idea over breakfast & the Dad working for fossil fuel industry ran with the idea so they could play smoke & mirrors with the public & keep drill/digging/burning fossil fuels!

[@sandal_thong8631]

We had decades to research carbon capture as an alternative to smokestacks and industry didn't do it.

[@sarmanhutajulu4319]

Yes, CCS such a penetration and Strategy to hold on developing of new and renewable eneegy of fosil fuel developer

[@canadiannuclearman]

According to James Hansen of Columbia University 1.8 million people have been saved by nuclear energy by displaying ultra fine particulate pollution

[@duduoverburn1777]

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.

[@sandal_thong8631]

Shut down the highways then and make people take the bus, until they're willing to build electric trains.

[@duduoverburn1777]

@@sandal_thong8631 seriosly? and the electric train where does it get the electricity to run?....

[@MartinGugino]

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.

[@majorhowell1453]

What about spinning a magnetic top in space with sunlight? We could beam it to earth. Clean full energy.

[@phil20_20]

Debate? " Frankly, I find the idea of a bug who thinks, offensive!" 🤣 Fusion and Liquid Hydrogen, my next vehicle will probably be a Toyota Hydro-Hybrid.

[@phil20_20]

Smoky Bear has your Carbon Sequestration right here: 🌲🌲🌲🌲🌲☢️🌲🌲🌲🌲🌲

[@phil20_20]

Random House was, THE BOOK! in our house. We had a huge table next to the back wall in the living room, The Random House Unabridged Dictionary right the laying flat with some doilies under it. 🤠

[@denisbalic3229]

Though I like Neil, he is not a good moderator. The interrupting makes me cringe.

[@AlignmentCoaching]

We can't build out renewable energy in the same way - the population is too big, energy use too high and the infrustracture would require massive amounts more resources than is avialable on the planet.

[@sandal_thong8631]

About 20 years ago Al Gore said we need to tackle it in several different ways like increasing different types of carbon-free energy, as well as energy efficiency and conservation. That's not even talking about a reordering of society to end suburban sprawl. But we haven't been serious about this issue since Global Warming was talked about in the 1970s and 1980s. We probably could have gotten off coal twenty years after making that our objective. Germans got scared because of Fukushima and shut down their nuclear to return to coal. How dumb and shortsighted!

[@autohmae]

@@sandal_thong8631 Yeah, that was because of politics. The Germans also heavily subsidized solar power which is why it's so cheap now, the cheapest option of all that we have.

[@Evelyn-cy6hw]

I've been a big fan of Dr. Tyson for decades, and remain so. Nevertheless, his inability to listen, constant interruptions of speakers attempting to answer his own questions, bombastic behavior on stage, and lack of common courtesy throughout this program disappoints and shocks me. Please replace Dr. Tyson from this point on. He is embarrassing your great institution.

[@julianskinner3697]

He interrupts the women more than the men.

[@justinklenk]

THANK you! It's a true shame that Tyson was chosen to -moderate this 'debate'- greedily steal this conversation. 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. 😢😢😢👎👎👎

[@apophisxo4480]

"Chosen" to moderate the debate??? He's responsible for bring these people together in the first place. His style is a bit annoying, but it's to a purpose, and he's entertaining. He actually does a pretty good job and brings up interesting points. He challenges the guest at times and makes it more than just a lecture. Keep in mind that you're not forced to watch and it's pretty much free to watch on KZbin. I actually look for ward to the debate every year and to his moderating. There are plenty of alternatives on line.

[@N_g_er]

STOP BEING RACIST

[@riosurfsurvive]

I think he was rude to make fun of some of what the guests said.