The Future of Energy | 2023 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate

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
kzbin.info_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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@CreamyBone]

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

[@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! ❤

[@teebee4699]

I hope more people start watching these!

[@gsilcoful]

Thank you for this video.

[@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.

[@biologyprodigy]

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

[@rhondah1587]

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

[@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.

[@DarkenedSpell]

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

[@MikeAPRN]

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

[@richardwainwright507]

Awesome stuff, just wish it was much longer

[@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.

[@apophisxo4480]

Great discussion! Thank you!!!

[@AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@helfrich24]

Im glad Neil Degrasse Tyson is the host.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@snuffeldjuret]

Nice to see people in location.

[@gabrieltreewolf4618]

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

[@dancooper8551]

This panel and discussion was excellent!

[@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.

[@ViktorBorgGrelsson]

maybe kick the headline quoting journalist next time

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@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.

[@user-rq7hv6lf8c]

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.

[@user-rq7hv6lf8c]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@nikolasantonas4647]

Incredible conversation to witness. More please!

[@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.

[@NicoFord-tc5nl]

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

[@factnotfiction5915]

26:44 - major thumbs up!

[@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!

[@EduardoMartinez-km9tz]

Asimov debates are my favorite class.

[@jwonderfulsuccess]

Was waiting for this 🙏✨🕊❤ 2024 T O E

[@MelliaBoomBot]

oh wow. Ive been waiting all through covid!!

[@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.

[@tringomun1697]

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!

[@aaronaardvark1361]

I’m not credentially qualified to answer; but no, not even close. I don’t believe test we could even, well, scratch the surface.

[@markjmaxwell9819]

I am surprised only 52 comments are displayed. Asimov was an absolute legend and science will save us going forward but the change over to environmentally friendly power is a huge task. As is reducing our reliance on fossil fuels in generaI. 😎👍

[@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.

[@autohmae]

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

[@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.

[@majorhowell1453]

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

[@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.

[@derekl6475]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@stageiii1]

Video is nice. Can't hear anything, but the video is nice.

[@happylittlemonk]

I watch these debates are more than blockbuster movies. These are well under-rated.

[@AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory]

Glad you enjoy them!

[@jestermoon]

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 ❤🎉

[@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.

[@generyan2332]

fusion power powering itself too.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@AndrewNiccol]

This is gold! Just 12k views, 72 comments, 343 likes?

[@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.

[@manmohanmehta5697]

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!

[@kevinim300]

So happy I am exposed to this video series

[@ourlovehowerica]

💖

[@richardcourtenay8114]

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.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

[@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.

[@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.

[@wdvest8333]

Idea: don't like it? Use the power switch to turn it off?

[@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 ever 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

[@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.

[@user-rq7hv6lf8c]

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.

[@johngault-9597]

Put someone on a pedestal and they will look down on us so why is Tyson's behavior so surprising...

[@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?....

[@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.

[@edwardbishop1176]

Earth heat to generate power is the way to go.

[@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.

[@wdvest8333]

He's not dissing on you at your job

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

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.

[@kinghenry100]

Nuclear is proven and safe today.

[@TheCD45]

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.

[@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.

[@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

[@jlat951]

God, Europeans are so righteous.

[@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.

[@fancyIOP]

This is beautiful BUT I am disappointed that the fusion lady said that they are targeting 500 MW or rather that's the aim when I personally thought that this would be like 2000 MW+ as a start. Guys, fusion shouldn't match but it should exceed and promise us magic that coal or other fossils would never promise us. I don't know why but I was expecting 5GW of power from fusion experiments.

[@NicksonSilva-bg9nk]

Replace him as u want.

[@BartholomewCounty]

We gotta get to mining H3 from the Moon.

[@estebandevile2706]

Deberían tener Wikipedia de vdd la que si guarda lo que borran y lo mide en más cierto o no. Y esa cortina puede proyectar emoticons así uno habla pero los demás tendrían de que corazonsitos o luces de asombro o alguna fruta. No tan complejo qué pierda el foco de atención como un avatar classi o algo así, más simple más fácil de diluir y sea para augmentar no para diluir la penetracion del desenvolvimiento egoico o la famea fama o la mítica idilica o la Heroica nmemonica

[@estebandevile2706]

Podría servir algo como un watch pero de los que si son para wacheart. Y se deberían usar alreves con la parte baja de la palma y la cara del reloj en la misma xyz de menor resistencia. Osea la más chafa o barata. O la más más o la más evidente u obvia o más prácticamente útil.

[@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.

[@user-rq7hv6lf8c]

​​@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@colbylapresi5601]

NDGT is so aware. When speaker is talking to him and not the audience he walked away and behind her she then immediately redirected posture toward the audience.

[@ObsoleteTutorials]

Ironically, this made it not 'a conversation amongst experts that the audience eavesdrops in'

[@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.

[@ravindrasaraf5620]

If China and US track on population and pollution, then both have onus. Don't ask other countries to reduce carbon footprint at the expense of your (US and and China) luxury!! # Country Share of world 1 China 29.18% 2 United States 14.02% 3 India 7.09% 4 Russia 4.65%

[@MartinGugino]

US CO2 per person is much higher than China:s.

[@JohnMwangi-jv3pp]

Africa 0%

[@jackiefialkowski2892]

Im shocked at someone stating "im excited about nuclear power" Really? Thats disturbing

[@Grobocopatel]

What's the problem with nuclear power?

[@iratozer9622]

Man do you have an ego problem. Making them turn around to talk to you.

[@evanreakes]

A lot better than StarTalk.

[@sandal_thong8631]

I don't know. I found the last one I just watched rather meandering. And while this one brought up some interesting points, I still don't see how Europe will reduce its resource consumption 50% and America, which uses twice as Europe, would reduce its by 75%. And of course there's no talk of zero population growth, as there's no way we can provide a European or American lifestyle to 8 or more billion without destroying the environment of the planet.

[@evanreakes]

I agree that the quality is not as engaging as the earlier debates. But still more enjoyable than 90 % of everything else on the Internet. I wish instead of StarTalk, Doctor Tyson would focus on the quality of content he is creating instead of the quantity. For example, the quality of these debates could be enhanced with more panelists, longer Q&A, multiday event, maybe even follow ups from previous debates. My favorite aspect is the long form discussion like the rumored old Abraham Lincoln debates where he would debate for hours upon hours. Instead of watching 10 hours of this type of discussion I get 10 hours of NFL analyzation or watching people play video games all weekend. The depth of these discussions is severely missing not only in our universities but society as a whole. As per the video, society is extremely complex. I am under 30 years old and my entire life feels as though doom and gloom is humanity's outlook. Although I am hopeful for the future. Population growth, climate change, nuclear weapons, waste management, genetic engineering, the list is endless. But so too is our creativity and drive. @@sandal_thong8631

[@user-rq7hv6lf8c]

​@@sandal_thong8631 Agree on the last sentence, specially the "Of course..." part.