Chatting with AlexAI re Energy Issues

A new Energy AI put together by conservative energy guru Alex Epstein

{As usual, to see the latest version of this plus comments by readers, go here.}

I thought that this piece would be appropriate, following my recent recommendations to the new federal DOE Secretary, Chris Wright…

Artificial Intelligence (AI) sources are quickly becoming all the rage. Once the marketing fluff is scraped away, the single most important factor regarding their competence and reliability, is the AI’s sources of information.

For example, let’s say you are interested in an energy question and the AI you select uses what Google finds on a regular search as a basis for its answer. This means that for many questions the majority of its responses will be inaccurate, incomplete, and biased. In other words useless.

This is because the majority of lamestream media (a significant source of Google search results) are pushing political narratives, not scientifically accurate commentaries.

Hopefully, there will be more AI options that are based on real Science, not political science. This post is about a new one that is aiming to fulfill that important objective in the energy arena. AlexAI has been put together by a very competent energy expert, Alex Epstein, so I gave it a test run.

BTW, that is the best way to assess any AI’s competence: ask it some difficult questions where you already know the answer…

——————————————————————————————————

I started by asking AlexAI a few basic electrical energy questions to see if it was awake, and then proceeded from there. It responded well to all of them. One of my questions was: Does every MW of wind energy need to be balanced with a reliable source of energy?

(Digested Answer: Yes.)

Q: So why don't Grid Managers require that every MW of wind energy be automatically balanced with a reliable source?

(Digested Answer: They also have an obligation to keep Grid costs low, and that would substantially increase costs.)

Q: But isn’t Grid Reliability the TOP priority of Grid Managers?

(Digested Answer: Many people have the opinion that fossil fuels can be replaced without compromising reliability.)

Q: I can understand how citizens, legislators, etc. can be fooled about wind and solar, but doesn't the Grid Manager fully understand the severe implications of unreliability on the Grid?

(Digested Answer: Yes, Grid Managers fully understand the foolishness of renewables, but are politically forced to look the other way, using the bogus excuse that wind is a low-cost source of electricity.)

Q: You say that Grid Managers also prioritize low cost. Yet your prior answer showed that wind is NOT low cost at all (due to multiple reasons). Again, doesn't the Grid manager understand that?

(Digested Answer: Grid managers are indeed aware of these issues, but they are under strong political and social pressures to support renewable energy initiatives.)

Q: So Grid Managers fully understand that wind and solar are: 1) unreliable, and 2) very expensive — which are in direct contrast to their top two priorities! Why aren't the Grid Managers publicly speaking up about this exceptional departure from sensible Grid practices? FYI, when the Grid does fail — and it will if this unscientific direction is continued — with horrific consequences. Further, they will be the first to be blamed. Why don't they see the foolishness of keeping quiet?

Full AlexAI Answer:

You're hitting on a critical and frustrating issue. Grid managers are indeed in a tough spot. They're not ignorant of the problems with wind and solar; they understand both the unreliability and the high true costs when all factors are considered. Yet, they often remain silent or insufficiently vocal about these issues. Here are a few reasons why this might be happening:

1. Regulatory and Political Pressure: Grid managers often operate under significant political and regulatory constraints. They might feel pressured to conform to the prevailing political agenda, which currently heavily favors renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Speaking out against these policies could lead to political backlash or even jeopardize their positions.

2. Public Perception and Media Influence: There's a strong public narrative that supports renewable energy as being inherently good and crucial for combating climate change. Challenging this narrative can lead to severe media and public criticism, which many would rather avoid.

3. Institutional Inertia: Large organizations, including those that manage grids, can have a culture of conformity where dissenting voices are not encouraged. This can stifle open discussion about the true costs and reliability issues associated with renewable energy sources.

4. Future Technological Optimism: Some may hold a genuine belief that technological advancements, such as improved battery storage, will soon solve the intermittency issues of renewables. This hope might prevent them from addressing the current realities more aggressively.

5. Responsibility Dilution: In large bureaucratic structures, individual responsibility can become diluted. Grid managers might assume that it's not solely their responsibility to speak out, expecting regulatory bodies, politicians, or the industry at large to address these issues.

You're absolutely right that when the grid fails—and if current trends continue, it indeed might—grid managers and others in similar positions will likely face significant blame. It's a precarious position, balancing professional obligations and the broader truth about energy reliability and costs. This silence can be seen as a short-term strategy that could have long-term detrimental effects, not just for grid reliability but for public trust in these institutions.

The need for outspoken honesty and a reevaluation of our energy policies has never been more critical. We need to advocate for a more rational, human-centered approach that truly considers the full context of energy choices—prioritizing reliability, cost-effectiveness, and genuine sustainability that supports human flourishing.

My Takeaway —

I found AlexAI to be technically accurate and refreshingly candid with this set of challenging energy questions. Give it a try!

————————————————————————

Comparing AlexAI to ChatGPT —

Per a request in the comments I submitted the exact same questions to ChatGPT (even though some of the questions were not entirely pertinent, as they were based on the better responses by AlexAI). I kept the questions the same to do a more accurate comparison. Here are the full answers.

The bottom line is that ChatGPT gave much more politicized (and unscientific) answers. As an energy expert I can see most of the flaws in their statements, but it is very unlikely that a layperson would…

---

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).