Видео

Thanks appreciate it!

That's why I look at transmission and batteries.....

I add that note. I couldn't fully reproduce Mills numbers, but I used the same reference. Eurostat.

No I wasn't aware of him, but very interesting stuff, looks him and I like doing math. This is the article you're probably think of, reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/

That would be awesome! I have a discord link in the description. Otherwise, my email for the channel is dddecarbonization@gmail.com, but I'd love to connect!

It's a lot more complicated than that. I think our focus should be public transportation. But for long distance shipping and long hauls (at least right now) hydrogen seems like a better option. The mineral demand on EVs is so incredibly high that I think we should focus on other systems. Me and Decarbonize are going to talk about it next week.

@@DDDecarbon personally I think since 80% of the population is too brainwashed to use public transport (look up Prageru war on cars) EVs are the best solution. hydrogen cars seem to have a lot of problems that EVs don't have the mineral demand also shouldn't be a problem ruclips.net/video/Kr_JjO9YWOo/видео.html

​@@DDDecarbon public transport would be the best, but since that's not happening (search prageru war on cars, it's a belief more common than you'd think) EVs are the best solution minerals shouldn't be a problem ruclips.net/video/Kr_JjO9YWOo/видео.html

@@DDDecarbon public transport would be the best, but since that's not happening (prageru war on cars, it's a belief more common than you'd think) electric vehicles are the best solution minerals shouldn't be a problem https ://ruclips.net/video/Kr_JjO9YWOo/видео.html

@@reweiv yes and no. There's big wins like Paris and Montreal. Edmonton is spending 100 M$ on bike lanes and other infrastructure. I disagree with the video. This is the area of my expertise, but he never showed the actual mineral demands. If we assume Na-Ion and silicon anodes then maybe. But there's a lot of wishful thinking right now on that front. And our current electric vehicle battery systems are set up to be extremely mineral intensive. The issue isn't how much minerals there. It's how many mines we have to build and how much production we have to accomplish. Lithium is abundant, but if we need 100x the production that takes a lot of time. Mines take upwards of 15 years to get started and suffers from a lot of NIMBYISM. I don't fundamentally disagree in that if we don't go down the transit path then batteries are needed. But for long transportation like I said we have to look at ammonia/hydrogen since battery energy density is really low even with the highest theoretical predictions. Here we have the IEA predictions: www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions Which I would dispute are way too low if we're looking at net zero. They are only accounting for 70 Million new EVs. When to replace the world's cars the number is 700 Million. This is unfortunately what a lot of these other predictions come from although I'd have to audit the videos actual sources. With that said I hope I'm wrong. And the silicon anode technology may be the thing that blows the door wide open as energy density isn't as important if charging is only 5 mins.

Hey buddy check discord if you can.

Hey, I'm currently traveling for work and this will be pretty difficult to respond to on my phone (since it's annoying to scroll up and down). I'll respond back to you on Friday or Saturday when I'm back. But I do have some questions. 1st did you watch the original video? 2nd have you seen my other videos discussing these topics?

​@@DDDecarbon I watched Green Energy video, which I enjoyed but disagreed with, which led me to watch the Batteries video, and then the Math one (which I think was your best video on this). Again, good videos, very easy to follow! The 3 hour debate video was next on the block, and that is what convinced me to address via comments. I have specific critiques related to fundamental assumptions and methodology in the math video, but you obviously put genuine thought into it.

Also, watched the original video, well put together video and I appreciate the references placed throughout.

I appreciate the comment. I don't think I fundamentally disagree, we may just be approaching it in different directions. First I can't believe people have listened to this whole conversation to kudos to you. My girlfriend found it painful haha. Second I'm by no means saying this stuff is easy, just that it's relative. I agree with issue 1, this in part is being remedied by more purchase power agreements (PPAs). For example the solar plant I mentioned in my (majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Travers-Solar-Project/3656) has 90% of its power purchased by amazon. These contracts are becoming more common and making renewables more profitable (I discuss this topic here, but will be making a follow up cause so of what I said was unclear. ruclips.net/video/ETp6lxjzxNI/видео.htmlsi=N43OzO7UnbGF5NqU). This ties into your comment later about alberta so I'll address it later. I agree on the curtailment front, so I'll move to issue 2 Issue 2: I agree and disagree with the space, though I'd argue that's baked into the cost, you can see that the Alberta example I showed is between Lethbridge and Calgary. I also agree there are certainly best places. But at the same time we're seeing massive solar investment in Texas where the market is largely unregulated, and it's up to those firms to determine the best place for profitability. Let the free market decide in this case, if the negative costs are that detrimental then companies won't build there but rather places with maybe less capacity factor but better overall prices. Also I'd argue that transmission is expensive on a capital basis but not on an operating basis, such that when you look at the economics at worst it's adding 1-2 cents/kWh. I'm going to do a video delving deeper into this but it's not something I'm worried about. In regards to costs, it could be government which then tacks on an upgrade fee, this would keep costs lower since profits are less of a concern. But you could also open it up the free market as it becomes increasing profitable to install transmission from say Manitoba hydro to Alberta to even out the lulls. Issue 3: In regards to Alberta it's not the best solar but it's certainly not bad, yeah capacity factor is around 20%, but cause solar costs are so low it's making them economic. I'd also argue that we are much more of a wind province than a solar one. And solar/wind have different low seasons which make them much more complementary (wind lull is around August while Solar is January in most places in NA). We have 4400 MW of wind and 1600 MW of solar (www.aeso.ca/grid/grid-planning/forecasting/wind-and-solar-power-forecasting/) and on the higher end of wind CP in NA. This is still why the copper plate discussion is so important. Albertas energy markets are weird we did price caps for a while, I'd argue that PPAs and CRMs are the way to go, and I'd focus on wind and transmission more than anything in Alberta. My argument against nuclear is largely costs and social acceptance, but if I could snap my fingers and change that I would. I really appreciate the comment, I hope I answered everything, but come to my discord if you want to chat more. Thanks!

@@AnInnocuousSquid813 Appreciate it, like i said in the other comment, I'm going to dive deeper into the transmission side.

In what way?

That's what I have videos talking about this very issue. And why Spain's case is so good. They implemented market controls that decrease the cost of energy in their country and France. The commenters today really hate cheap power. I know the grid needs to balance that's why I mention battery storage and transmission. Again stuff I cover in other videos. This is just one aspect of the broader topic. CRMs and PPAs are just contracts that help adjust the market to account for how the VREs function. And guess what! They're working!

@@DDDecarbon You 'mention' battery storage and transmission, but you're underselling just how much, and how expensive, the kind of battery network would be to make solar and wind as firm as more traditional sources of power. I don't hate cheep power. I want cheep power. I hate people pretending expensive power is cheep by excluding this necessary secondary system that will be as expensive as the power source itself. I want cheep power, which is why I don't want our grids to be flooded with unusable intermittent energy before the technology can make use of it at a reasonable cost. "Now that we're using more renewbles, the market dynamics need to change." This is the key statement in your whole video. You're presupposing that renewables are good and cheep, and so the only reason that doesn't result in lower costs is because the system is 'wrong'. And your only argument for them being cheep is the market forces that make the majority of solar and wind sell at rock-bottom prices. Solar prices are not rock-bottom because solar is cheep, but because it provides power in bursts that lead to gluts, and then fails to provide power at other times causing deficits. Fossil fuels selling power during these off-times is not a 'monopoly' - it's just literally no one else being available to provide power. And building more solar and wind only compounds this problem because it will only exaggerate the glut, and not address the deficit. Yet somehow you argue that this is really all the fault of fossil fuels and that more renewables will actually fix it? The failure of renewables to compete in the current market is not a failure of the market system - it's the manifestation of the major shortfall of intermittent power sources lacking dispatachability and storage. You claim fossil fuels hold a 'monopoly' on pricing like some kind of unusual, unfair aspect... rather than intermittent power's general deficiency in being able to handle our needs. You don't need to revolutionize the market to incentive the construction of storage/peaker plants. The incentive is there - dirt-cheep power when the sun is shining, and cloud-high prices when it's not. That's the exact dynamic that would encourage someone to build a hydro or battery supply. It's just that these technologies are still so fundamentally expensive that you don't get the investment you need. If you want to talk about good uses of government intervention, then instead of trying to mask the deficiencies of intermittent power, have it focus on financing nuclear projects which have a valid market case and generally fail only due to the government-imposed regulations and the artificially high interest rates due to that government-generated uncertainty.

@@Xylos144 Markets are not my only argument. I make very clear part of the reason is expensive old systems. And again I'd point to the places that have implemented these policies. Which lead to cheaper power. Transmission is cheap, and batteries are cheaper every year. All the systems I mention to is minimize monopolies, results in lower prices. Again proven in real life. I'm not sure what argument you're making because we're already moving in this direction. PPAs are getting more common. CRMs existed before renewables. Again I have videos talking about this. Or come to my discord because you seem to have a perception of renewables which is 10-20 years out of date with reality.

​@@DDDecarbonso calling your video "how CRMs and PPAs work" would be more accurate?

@@heavenlymonkey but I also talk about how old systems are expensive.

I describe this in my video and others. I was just providing a simple example of the principle. Also the very point of PPAs and CRMs is to keep prices consistent.

And fossil fuels are subsidized even more. Regardless the numbers I show are excluding subsidies. I explained this in the video, did you even watch it?

In Canada we also build roads to no where. If you think of trains as critical infrastructure like roads then they don't have to make money. But that's not really an argument against. You're pointing to one area and using it to discount another. You need to prove that the renewables were a bad idea not that something is. Also it still stands that new renewables are cheaper.

The same thing happened in Japan. When Japan built Shinkansen in 1960s, almost all predicted that Japan would bankrupt becoz of its unimaginable cost and concerns that no one would afford and take it. After 30 years, it turned out it was one of smartest decisions that Japan had made. The fact is that government has never expected that they could get the money back or directly profit from it. Then, what's the meaning of building it? When I visited china, the most common saying is that if you want to become rich, you build the roads. From my own observation there, hsr is likely the most important investment those Chinese have been making. These lines connected the whole china and bring people to places they could never go. The most important outcome is that it revitalizes less developed regions. The benefits this system should be the next several decades

Thanks!! Appreciate the support.

First, renewables are cheaper without subsidies. That's well documented and in the video. Second the subsidies they do receive are 14x lower than what fossil fuels get in Canada so it's kind of a moot point.

moron

@@DDDecarbon 14 times lower? that's depressing, source?

@@reweiv www.iisd.org/articles/policy-analysis/canada-inefficient-support-big-oil# On average it's around 2.5x but Canada is particularly bad.

By renewables I assume you only mean solar/wind and are ignoring hydro. Generally you'd only get 85% of your power from solar and wind + batteries with the rest coming from hydro/nuclear. You point out the solution that already exists - its long line transmission, I have videos talking about that already and how transmission is the key to cheap renewable energy. ruclips.net/video/pUiEerqfCmk/видео.htmlsi=ve2iEcqK4en_Rh1e Broadly speaking you can get to 50-60% solar and wind no problem since fossil fuels can be used as peaker plants.

as the OP said. When there is no wind and no solar we can fall back on nuclear + hydro + natural gas peaker plants. You can configure many of the bigger hydro power plants to keep accumulating water during sunny and windy days and only produce power at evening peaks or during overcast weather. Natural gas power plants are easily scalable and you can start them pretty fast. Also we should look at connecting the continents with undersea HVDC cables. This way we can send excess electricity from the sunny side of the planet to the dark side. With sufficient capacity this is the ultimate renewable endgame IMHO.

twit

​​@@martintirpak1033do you have any idea how much copper this would require to upscale the electricity grid this massively? Let alone the construction costs

So basically we would need a fully operational conventional electricity grid with the cost of renewables added on top plus the cost of energy storage solutions?

So I think you're looking at this too narrowly. I simplified the data with the icon, but that 50 MW would be what an area may get from a plant while the plant is operating, but if it makes you feel better we can say 50 GW, it doesn't change the point being made. The point was to show that when fossil fuel plants are able to monopolize they will. To you second point fossil fuel plants typically operate between 30-60% of capacity. So ramping up production to say 90% when renewables are low would actually decrease their marginal costs. So I'm not sure what you mean by fairytales, your issues seems to be with a unit I used that doesn't change the outcome whatsoever. But if you want to debate this publicly as you say in your comment you can come to my discord and discuss.

@@DDDecarbon I will stop here, it is not worth discussing more, the problem is clear, cost of renewables are not lower than fossil fuels and levelled energy cost are artificially increased by companies who controll prices on strong collaboration with government policies.

@@user-qs3mh4pp3b that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

@@DDDecarbon very interested to learn from you haw the fossil fuel energy cost will jump from 170 to 750 $/MWh (coal) and from 80 to 600 $/MWh (nat gas) if wind and solar do not produce energy. See and hear all presentation and if you like stop on min 2:21. And I will suggest to everybody who talks for energy prices, to better understand the "cost plus profit" from "cost plus profit plus taxes" paid from consumers who pay the bills.

@@user-qs3mh4pp3b it literally happened here in Alberta. Hence why I used it as an example..... Again I'm not saying it there should be no market. But when there's a monopoly we need to control for it. That's what Spain is doing and the citizens are benefiting. But hey if you want to live in a world with high energy prices be my guest.

Fair enough, I do have some work trips coming up, so the highly technical stuff will have to wait a bit longer.

Thanks! Appreciate the support

Think a more indepth description for both would be great. Really enjoy your content - thank you!

This guy asked me for the conversation and asked it be posted. But I don't expect you to be charitable to me. You're vitriol for me is showing 🤣🤣

Average commute distance for most most people is 10-12 km. www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-commuting-distance-in-Canada-and-Ontario-12_tbl2_265050835 If you have a straight line that'd be 30mins on a bike or 20 on an E-bike. The poorest get more money back because they tend to use public transportation. My suggestions would increase public transportation making those people's lives even better. I don't expect you to give up anything just to pay for the CO2 harm you cause. Feel free to come to my discord and argue with me about it if you want.

@@DDDecarbon The chart in the paper you linked proves my point exactly - Even though it is specifically accounting only for the 'daily commute' which _should_ benefit your argument massively. Work from homes in Toronto are telling the people in rural Canada they should be priced out of bourgeoise 'driving' anywhere but to their job. Suggesting public transport as a solution further reinforces how out of touch with reality this view is. I don't cause any C02 Harm unless you're considering my existence an affront to your 'climate' As a country we cause effectively none, all assuming your premise that the C02 levels which are not historically high are a problem - it's not a concern unless you make the most extreme and impossible extrapolations built on infinite layers of 'medium confidence' assumptions. And even after doing so it's largely a joke. What are you doing for the climate with this money exactly? What are we actually getting for it?

@@kerwynpk most people live in cities...... I mentioned in my video 65% reduction in driving is what I'd aim for. Or did you comment on a video you didn't watch? Come debate me on my discord, since you seem to feel so strongly on the topic. CO2 causes harm by doing economic damage. I cover this in other videos.

@@DDDecarbon Yes that's exactly the incredible out of touch position I'm commenting on, the economic damage is being done by people with utopian, unrealistic views like this, 65% 😂 artificially damaging markets with 'green policies' that produce no tangible environmental benefits nevermind economic ones, and taxing productive people into poverty.

This video provides all the evidence we spoke of. ruclips.net/video/FmGRUyIEDG8/видео.htmlsi=AfP5Oak0UGO_4otC I also added references in the pinned comment. Where I show how accurate the predictive models are. Along with historical economic models.

@@DDDecarbon That video provides no evidence. Just logical fallacies.

@@Finn_MacCool are you calling scientific papers logical fallacies? If you have some evidence showing that I'm wrong I'd be happy to see it.

@@DDDecarbon "Scientific papers" Appeal to authority. Appeal to consensus. 2 logical fallacies right there.

@@Finn_MacCool you're right I should have done all the test work myself. I'd love to know where you get your information.

Awe thanks! It's definitely not the sexiest content for growth. But I have no plans on slowing down!

My thoughts as well.

Yeah, it was definitely a good learning experience for me. Like I wrote, a moderator or more railroaded conversation would have been a bit more productive. But I appreciate the kind words 😊

Well the problem with a discussion on climate change is that the two sides don't want to have the same discussion. Essentially, it is an apples and oranges, type argument. 1. Both sides seem to believe that they can lie, as long as the other side cant categorically prove they are lying. This is a very bad basis for an practical discussion. It also makes any hope for Green success (because they are the ones trying to make a change) on my part negligible. 2. Both sides, seem to be dishonest in their predictions. On the one hand the Green movement expect the world to end long before any effect from carbon reduction will take effect. On the other side, it would seem that the drive to net zero, will kill billions more than it will save. As a Project Manager for 25 years this seems like a lot of kick-off meetings I attended over the years, full of salesmen, sponsors, vendors, consultants, business heads, and interested parties. You would hear all their wants, needs, dreams, sales pitches and nice to haves, and objections. And then you would hear the budget, and the timeline, and if you could get 5% of it done in the time allowed, in budget, you would need a gift from God! I'm just saying, you need to start making a lot more practical sense. For instance, the USA owes $34Trillion, where is the money going to come from? You really think it can borrow another $34Trillion without any ill effects?

@@TheToledoTrumpton did you listen to the conversation? I'm not saying doom and gloom.

@@DDDecarbon But presumably you believe that the effects are sufficiently serious enough to reduce Carbon emissions and take on significant economic risk? The internal combustion engine significantly improved our QoL and life expectancy. Suggesting we abandon it, requires a "Doom and Gloom" situation. QoL changes between 1920 and 1970 were almost entirely due to carbon fuels. Don't dismiss it as insignificant.

@@TheToledoTrumpton you're commenting on a video you didn't watch. The evidence we have suggests that's it's cheaper to mitigate rather than adapt. It's not two sides of the coin. It's one side with 0 evidence and our side with all the evidence. I have lots of videos on the topic and if you're do inclined you can come to my discord and debate/ discuss with me.

JP is consistently wrong about things outside of his field of expertise. You can watch my original video debunking him. This video is a follow up to that one. ruclips.net/video/FmGRUyIEDG8/видео.htmlsi=703zLubQb-fioin7

@@DDDecarbonuhu yeah sure, you keep believing that. His analysis of the policies regarding climate change is spot on. But yeah, I am gonna pay attention to some random youtuber who thinks that he outsmarts a man who's probably the greatest intellectual of this time, alongside Thomas Sowell. But you keep bathing in your renewable delusion, that's gonna end well.

​@@nickschwaller3154what policy? JP is not an intellectual. He's pretty dumb when it comes to anything outside his field of expertise. PZH admits that at the beginning that JP doesn't understand this info. So he shouldn't speak on it. I don't disagree bad policies exist. That doesn't mean that renewables aren't cheap. He showed no evidence to support. If fact the evidence he does use is debunked. Since I use the same references but updated. So please be specific cause you're just vaguely stating things. Feel free to come to my discord if you feel so strongly.

I'm honestly curious: how did you arrive at the Impression of His intellectual and academic credibility?

@@WeltinventarAcademic credibility? You do know that he was a professor emeritus at Harvard at a time when competence mattered right? His first book, maps of meaning, might as well be a doctoral dissertation. It still gives me headaches. He's also a social scientist, a brilliant one, and is beyond well versed in History and theology, the latter being one of his expertise. He also worked at a UN panel with multiple Nobel prize winners about climate change policies. In short, contrary to most so-called intellectual babbling about nonsense, he actually does know what he's talking about. I've also noticed that he's not shy of saying 'I don't know' when he's out of his depth, especially when he talks with STEM scientists, he is genuinely curious and obsessed with knowledge . And intellectual credibility? Really? Have you watched any of his discussions with the likes of Lomborg or Lennox? I am fairly well read and have quite a few diplomas hanging on my office wall, but that guy puts me and anyone I know to shame, and I am surrounded by engineers and scientists. And I mean real scientists, not gender theorists and the likes.

Can you explain how climate change is related to this? If a meteor was flying our way would you say the same thing or would you say "just don't look up"?

@@DDDecarbon everything you do will be connected to your carbon footprint. What you’re allowed to buy, eat, drive. It’s a fear mongering scam to gain control over every aspect of your life. Carrots and sticks. But mostly sticks. It would be nice if you wouldn’t usher it into existence. Thanks.

I was definitely too lenient in this conversation. I only had the energy to fight so many battles

Can you be specific? This was a discussion, but I can provide you any references for my positions. Just because the government says something it doesn't make it untrue you have to show evidence that what's being said is untrue.

@@DDDecarbon It is possible that the government is right about something... although unlikely. I am old enough to realize that every single thing the government says is a lie, except perhaps that seatbelts save lives.

Although it was very difficult to listen to the conversation due to the constant interruptions(something remedied by a moderator or common sense on the side of the belligerent party) I think that there are some low hanging fruit wrt points I find problematic in the arguments made. Wrt to the LCOE argument, wholesale energy prices and their relationship to renewables: There are definitely arguments to be made that PV systems on a $/MW basis are the current cheapest form of electricity generation currently available, you could say that is due to "dumping" practices by China and that they are artificially low, but for the sake of this we assume they are cheapest regardless of IT shenanigans. The issue with PV generation at scale is two/threefold. Issue 1: economics, while it is true that PV energy is incredibly cheap, at high system penetration the price that those PV assets realize is very low(in the SCED they dispatch at very low prices, so much so that in the markets of highest penetration in NA daytime prices in several months go negative, and a significant portion of the PV output must be curtailed), what this means in effect is that outside of price blowouts and additional "juice" (PTC/ITC), solar will not hit its LCOE. Issue 2: Transmission, this goes kinda hand in hand with reliability for reasons I can get into, but at high penetration of renewables, because they are so space intensive, the transmission requirements become more complicated. In a simple example if I wanted to build a 100MW solar facility near load that would be damn expensive because land costs, so I go where land is cheaper, at first great, as more solar gets built I start to experience congestion that is COINCIDENT with my generation, because I am generating at the same time as assets near me, and the transmission capacity is necessarily limited. This results in my realized nodal price getting trashed. Transmission is expensive, and who should pay for transmission upgrades is a hot button issue. Issue 3: Variability and seasonality. When you install 100 MWs of solar, you are really getting 20-50 MWs of equivalent nuclear or even Gas CC, because Capacity Factors matter. First off I am amazed that so much solar is being brought online in Alberta considering that it has pretty poor solar resource relative to lower latitudes, and Alberta has harsh winters. But Alberta solar has lower CFs, which raises LCOE, and it's not even especially coincident with load. Solar to some extent makes sense as a way to supplement a grid in regions that are significantly summer peaking and require a lot of energy for AC, but I would even think then it would be secondary. The energy grid in general has two functions, and two incentive structures (three if you want to get cute), energy price as in I need energy now, which is settled in the energy market, and reliability, which is settled in capacity markets or equivalent structures (as far as I remember, Alberta is kinda the wild West and relies on bidding behavior to ensure system reliability, which is confounded by its market being dominated by a couple huge power producers, but that is the exception not the rule). PVs marginal contribution to reliability approaches 0, and it's contribution to energy, while it lowers wholesale prices during generation hours, increases volatility and hurts the economics of more sustainable technologies like nuclear.

I agree, if nothing else this conversation was testiment to my patient. Also I thought we'd be going over the points I made in the video lol.

Wikipedia, the guardian, weforum and institutions who exist by this narrative? but none of their actual research? If this is how you list your 'sources' I have serious suspicions about your ability to evaluate the argument. I would love to sit here and debunk your guardian article tier source spam which does not tell us anything, using the actual whitepapers they're claiming to interpret, but at this point the effort on my part would be far far greater than you put into this (although this post shows you will never even consider your opponents arguments - 'misinformation' as you see it) You never even actually address Peterson's argument; instead arguing for 3 hours on tangentially related topics using his name to promote it as if you've presented his argument in any reasonable form. You haven't - that's partly on your debate partner too of course, but it does not help that you're so backhanded that you're 'deboonking' him with a list of unplaced unexplained sourcespam my grade 6 teacher would have ridiculed. No offense 'we know wind and solar are cheaper including batteries' 'that's not true' 'I'm gonna need a reference, and it can't be this one' WOW LOL Let me know how your solar farm in northern Canada goes 'cheapest' 😂 'oh it's the taxes and tariffs' You should listen back through and see how many times you put the onus for your claim on your opponent and the number of trust me bros packed into them. 'Just slap a powerline across Canada bro, PROBLEM SOLVED your country is too small so it's expensive' 😂😂😂😂 Its over for us 'you don't believe building power lines are possible bro?' Do you not even recognize the most obvious strawman on the planet? More carbon tax is going to solve the climate 😂 Lets price the poor out of driving so I can get a container ship of shit from amazon every day GTFO What a joke. These are the managerial class who have decided how the plebs need to be incentivized into poverty if they disagree. Attack the poorest people who are responsible for less than 0.00000001% of the already irrelevant carbon emissions of this country, 'to save the planet' How is that helping anything? You just make outrageous claims all over and never substantiate them, and then ask your opponent to send you a 'source' to disprove it if he has any qualms. 'that's what the literature shows' You're out of touch with reality, I would hope you get your way and you can Reap what you're sowing but your ignorance is going to hurt many innocent people too. 'why are they building renewables' Circular argument - and then you couldn't even substantiate it, not to mention how lucrative a contract those garbage sources are to maintain. Its getting frustrating to you because you're regurgitating your programming to 'educate someone', as opposed to evaluating your own argument in any critical way

@@kerwynpk Did you read, what those references are? Wikipedia - is just regarding the liberalization piece, because it gives a broad overview I don't think a technical paper is required to show that information, but if you do want a paper about liberalization of European markets here you go: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42495-018-0009-0 The guardian is a news source is it not? Mabye read the actual article, it was also extremely hard to even find PZH's source for this since its so old and so bad. With the WEF is only one of my sources in that area. I imagine by your comment you believe the WEF is some terrifying cabal of world dominating people. When really it's just a conference. I do address JP's comments in the video that this video is discussing: ruclips.net/video/FmGRUyIEDG8/видео.htmlsi=VKFF4cjfDp039dI1 All the references are linked there.

​@@DDDecarbon That's the good faith argument I would expect from you 😂 My turn, did you really get access to that study or just read part of the abstract and link it to me? I notice its hardly been flying off the shelf looking at the archive 🤔 No, news medias headline seeking interpretations should not be taken at face value without looking at the actual data they cite; as a rule. Its a bad sign that rather than linking whatever (presumably good data) gave the person writing the article the impression, you simply link a headline as if you googled your presumption to 'back up your argument'. Its also another very common Gish Gallop where you link a bunch of low quality articles that appear to restate your position so that I have to do hours of work just to refute them going through their actual sources; and then you can just back out the same way you have here with more linkspam. 'okay that one sucks but here's a paywalled one you can't read' I don't think I say anything about that particular argument either, so it almost seems like a cop out to narrow my criticism down to that particular source in a 3 hour 'thing'; Though admittedly my comment got fairly unconstructive with how frustrated I was with your debate tactics and how impossible it would be to respond to this unstructured 3 hour Gish Gallop. I had to type the ridiculous things you were saying as you said them which made the second half of my commentary almost as unconstructive as the debate. I'll give you a properly structured argument on the data points in the video you've linked if it ends up being reasonable to respond to, but I think your actual logic needs some work based on this response and others.

@@DDDecarbon "With the WEF is only one of my sources in that area. I imagine by your comment you believe the WEF is some terrifying cabal of world dominating people. When really it's just a conference" I didn't say anything about the WEF period, in my comment. I can hardly think of a better example of bad faith than bringing up something I never spoke about and then presuming my position on it is an obvious strawman. You probably did this to pre-emptively deflect potential criticisms of a source you seem to agree yourself, would be low quality? I don't see you defending from my actual accusations here. If you agreed to air the debate publicly then I admire your integrity, but coming to the comments to serve some kind of fake 'justice' with your 'disinformation' non-argument now that your opponent cannot defend himself properly is extremely poor conduct. If you wanted to address his actual arguments post hoc it would be fine, but that's not what you did nor would it be possible to do so in a quick comment after 3 hours of tangentially related topics to your 'misinformation correction' You presume everyone around you unequipped to evaluate, it's baked into your thinking on this subject as well and on display in the 'debate' multiple places. You need to tell us all what the truth is, and how we're going to be forced to live to fix the problem how you see it, and how you think it needs to be fixed. We're simply misinformed if we disagree with you on any of these bases, by default.

@@kerwynpk so you haven't been remotely charitable to me. But I will try to answer you best I can. The data PZH cited was made by a political scientist not an economist or a climate scientist. I found it difficult to find the information he provided, and this article did a good job of showing the investigative reports on how the data was misrepresented. This is detailed in the article, as he uses Munich Re as his reference, here's the real date: www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters.html, but honestly this wasn't even worth the effort to debunk cause the guy has no credentials and posted his chart on a blog. So, maybe I have should have made that more clear, but I honestly didn't think his chart warranted any extra effort. Again you're being pedantic, the "low quality" items you're talking about are inconsequential. But he literally said the European energy market isn't liberalized, then I give you a paper talking about liberalization and you still have a problem. Or a list of transmission projects. Seriously how uncharitable can you be? For the rest of this you are clearly missing a tonne of context. I came into this discussion expecting to talk about the points I brought up in my video on Jordan Peterson. I should have made this more clear at the beginning of the conversation, but I added text and we state it at the very beginning....... I'm not sure what you mean by debate tactics? I thought I was extremely patient, again I was prepared to talk about the data I presented in my original video, which is why I didn't feel the need to expand on certain topics because I assumed they were covered. Clearly the algorithm sent this out to people who didn't see the orginal. I look forward to your analysis. Come to my discord to discuss if you're interested.

Climate cooling I will make a video on. But I can answer it here. In a sense the scientists were right. Natural factors actually predicted cooler climates. So sometimes they say humans caused 120% of global warming vs 1900 because it should have been cooler. Am I libertarian, it think it depends. When I take the political compass I'm libertarian left. I generally think the government doesn't do a great job at things but is necessary especially in cases of natural monopolies. And I think there are people who need help, that we should help and the government does a better job of providing that aid than private institutions like churches. I think I fundamentally care about human well being, a big part of which is freedom to do with your life as you please. I'd say I'm much closer to the textbook definition of a liberal. But if you wanna chat about it, jump into my discord!

Thanks!

Awesome! Let me know if you want to collaborate on anything. I have a discord in the description.

What's unrealistic? Edmonton just upzone the whole city and is spending 100 M$ on cycle infrastructure. Calgary is doing something similar. Vancouver is upzoning and BC put in upzoning regs. Montreal has always done this. And if you live in downtown Drumheller or near main street of any small town it's effectively a 15 minute city. And 80% of Canadians live in cities. Also doing these policies makes housing more affordable. Cause it give more choice for individuals. I've lived in small towns and was able to walk everywhere cause I lived near the downtown core. It was great. Then I car pooled to work since it was outside the town. Those are both practical solutions for many people.

@@DDDecarbon what is the affordability to live in those cities? pick one say Vancouver

@@SuperCody888 I think that's quite unfair. Vancouver's policies were just implemented. If we choose a place like Edmonton, it's super affordable. Montreal has always been quite affordable, due to policies like this. Everywhere in Canada has seen upward pressure. But the housing crisis started in 2000. I'll have video exploring these ideas more. But anyway the policies encourage building but you still need to build the things. The best examples are Austin Texas and Minneapolis. www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability These types of policies are logically and empirically founded.

@@DDDecarbon who the hell wants to live in Edmonton, its liking living in the Matrix. Funny youre basically moving the goal posts, or cherry picking the data to support your narrative.

@@DDDecarbon who wants to live in Edmonton its awful it feels like the matrix. Your basically moving the goal posts, or cherry picking data to support your narrative. You say 80% of Canadian lives in cities, do they actual living in the city core, or in the suburbs surrounding areas, and have to travel to work everyday? Its not a price on pollution, its a price on the cost on the living. Climate change has been happening since the beginning of earth, long before man even walked. The powers that be need to stop selling it as a fight against climate change, and a price on pollution. Thats why people are resisting and hating on it.

The purpose of the tax is to account for the harms caused by said release. So right not that's at minimum 60 USD/t. So in most cases we're underpaying since many sectors are exempt. This logic applies to air pollution, ozone depletion or any other negative eternality. It's just ensuring the market accounts for the harms. In regards to other countries, China, the EU and even Mexico have carbon taxes. Canadian trees actually produce more CO2 than they absorb, driven by bugs which are a outcome of warmer climates. I covered this in my very first video. I don't want people to be energy poor. I believe in this tax cause its the lowest cost solution. You have to compare it to the do nothing case which is much more expensive. Again I have videos on this.