Alex Epstein and Glenn Beck


Recommended Posts

Alex Epstein and Glenn Beck

 

Alex being interviewed by Glenn on May 15, 2015:

 

 

I'm very pleased to see the kind of argument Alex used by employing easily understood analogies, but without talking down to the listener, in the place of doga or mounds of data. This is a style of presenting complicated ideas to the general public that Steven Pinker calls "classic style" (you can read a lot more about this here.)

 

Alex's book released last year:

 

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

 

Good on him.

 

I am so tired of this debate, I don't even want to judge the data he uses. I can see, though, that he makes a good case for moral considerations. Agree or disagree, he made a good case.

 

So I think this book is not going to go away anytime soon.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Excellent.

At the end of 2014, when the participants of the McLaughlin Group chose their annual Bests or Mosts awards in various categories, John McLaughlin choose Epstein's Case for Fossil Fuels as most influential book of the year.

From the interview, I would take issue with Mr. Epstein on only one point. It is an overstatement to say that fossil fuels are our best source of energy for our machines. We also have nuclear production of energy within our present ability, and in the case of all machinery that is operated by electricity that is centrally generated, nuclear power is a resource that can (in the US, Japan, et al.) and hopefully will be exploited alongside coal and natural gas. One pellet of enriched-uranium fuel, about the size of a small thimble, can produce the (steam, thence) electricity that can be produced by 100 box cars of coal. (To produce the pellet requires the energy that could be delivered by 4 of those cars; that leaves 96, and it should be noted that uranium mining is safer than coal mining.) The cost of ensuring that US nuclear power plants are safe has allowed coal to continue to be a competitor here for central production of electricity, but nuclear remains viable, and new reactors are under construction in Georgia (as was publicized when the Obama administration put up government money for backing capital investors, in case the project is not completed for certain sorts of reason).

I took some encouragement for the future of nuclear in the US from the fact that the nuclear plant breach in Japan, with the earthquake and tsunami (which our comparable plant on the west coast at San Onofre, would have withstood), did not put continuation of nuclear in the US in question as far as our government was concerned. I took also some encouragement from that last election in Nevada in which that woman gave Harry Reid a run for his money, and she had supported the Yucca Mountain project for permanent storage of spent fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have learned from a true expert, albeit some years ago, that Yucca Mountain was a safety fuck up from A to Z. You really don't want to use it for the supposed purpose. Still, that candidate's heart was in the right place.

People don't champion nuclear power, even though they know it's safe, for the same reason people don't mention Ayn Rand when discussing ideas, even though they know they're good: they aren't equipped to deal with derision.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an excellent speaker. He has good, realistic, science backed ideas. Fossil fuels have *climate proofed* the world and there have been fewer human deaths due to inclement weather in modern times. In fact there has been a 6 or 7 year increase in life expectancy even as so called human induced, climate change occurred. Yet, I am glad I am not living in southern India with intermittent power outages when the heat index was 116 degrees. That is a sub continent that needs coal powered plants.

I think the next big thing for human hating GREENS after wind mills (not in my neighborhood the sound causes nausea within a six mile radius,) and solar power (its manufacture causes pollution and it is too expensive) will be lint. Yes, my fellow Americans lint.

From the clothes drier, to tee shirt factories, to the inny belly button, lint is an abundant source of power. Pressed bricks of lint could replace steel in our big buildings avoiding the run off from adobe. Burned lint causes less smoke than coal. Lint is being produced today, so we don't need millions of years to renew it like coal and oil. I think I will get on GoFundIt and Kickstart to get some funds and start an IPO for a company called Renewable - it's right between your toes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. We also have nuclear production of energy within our present ability, and in the case of all machinery that is operated by electricity that is centrally generated, nuclear power is a resource that can (in the US, Japan, et al.) and hopefully will be exploited alongside coal and natural gas. One pellet of enriched-uranium fuel, about the size of a small thimble, can produce the (steam, thence) electricity that can be produced by 100 box cars of coal.

This

The moral case for developing energy sources that are not fossil fuel based

and this is simple, though of course you may not agree

The interviewee said it himself around the 6:40 mark in the video, something about every cent add to the cost of diesel fuel increase the costs of food, etc.

So my moral argument goes like this, energy is important. Extremely important for sooo many facets of modern life and as more countries become industrial, the need for energy, in vast quantities grows.

With this increased demand and the very nature of the production of fossil fuels (ancient plants) you would have to agree that fossil fuels will run out. Maybe not in 50 years, maybe not in 100, hell maybe not in 300. But they will and if we are not prepared with something else to replace them, there will be riots, wars, and possible a regression in human society. Its fine to live in this day and age where I have no fear of fossil fuels running out but in the future, near or far, if the infrastructure isn't in place for the replacement then that generation will be in a world of hurt and THAT is a moral argument.

ps. the timeline. We cannot wait until estimates are we have 10 years left before we start on the replacement.

1. because they panic would have already started and that will disrupt the process.

2. because it will take a while to develop whatever emerging technologies to a level of efficiency that it isn't destroyed simply by the sheer worldly demand.

3. Because it will take a while to build the infrastructure needed to deliver this new energy source, such as the million electric/hydrogen/magic recharging stations needed to power that generation of cars

pps. Which am I for? Fission for now and if we could get our butts in drive for fusion, that would be my preferable solution. Fission, as Stephen stated, makes oil efficiency look 3rd world. My favorite example is nuclear air craft carriers which for such huge machines, moving through water, only have to get refueled every 20 years! One pound of uranium is equivalent to 1 million gallons of diesel.

Fusion is even better AND safer. Using the deuterium of the ocean, and at double Earth's current energy needs, we have a 75 BILLION year supply of fuel.....if and whenever we can crack the science......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now