Suggested Answers - Second Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
SECOND SHORT QUIZ

(Once each quarter, there is a 5-week gap between meetings – when this occurs, we traditionally have a second short quiz.)

Question 1

What was “the hydrogen economy” about which we heard so much as recently as 5 years ago?

Answer 1

The so-called “hydrogen economy” was championed by George W. Bush, primarily during his first administration.

Hydrogen (think “Hindenburg” as in the giant passenger dirigible, the length of 3 football fields, that burned in 1937 in fewer than 60 seconds) is a highly flammable gas – though the dirigibles were filled with hydrogen for lift, but actually powered by diesel engines for locomotion.

Hydrogen burns cleanly = 2(H2) + O2 > 2(H2O) – which, for non-chemists, means that the only physical matter produced from the oxidation (a fancy name for any atom or molecule combining with oxygen, commonly called burning) of hydrogen is H2O, commonly called water.

Hydrogen, of course, can be compressed and stored in modified fuel tanks of vehicles, used for heating and air-conditioning buildings, used to fire electrical-generation plants, etc. –- displacing all other fuels used in our economy.

The mystery, of course, is where all the hydrogen was/is going to come from!!! After all, the earth’s atmosphere contains (by volume and ignoring humidity) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide and only trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapour (called humidity) of, on average, 1%.

Obviously, the only source for obtaining large amounts of hydrogen is water –- driving the burning of hydrogen in reverse = 2(H2O) > 2(H2) + O2.

Driving the burning in reverse requires a massive amount of energy –- about as much energy as burning hydrogen produces.

The only economical source for such a massive amount of energy currently is nuclear power. It is interesting that, despite the well-known story of the Hindenburg disaster, George Bush and other politicians would choose to call this idea “the hydrogen economy” rather than “the nuclear economy.”

Question 2

Did President Barack Obama, as a U.S. Senator from Illinois, champion the nation’s coal industry because of coal mines in Southern Illinois?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Does it still make sense for the President to be championing the coal industry now that he is representing the entire country?

Answer 3

Not if he cares about the environment.

Question 4

Is it fraudulent to be selling the national electorate on committing the nation’s energy future to coal on the basis of the environment?

Answer 4

Yes.

As discussed in more detail in the First Short Quiz, an electrical motor generates 4 times the amount of greenhouse gases as a gasoline motor of equal power (and typically 7 times the amount of sulfuric acid – think acid rain) because all additional electric power produced in the U.S. for the last several decades and for the foreseeable future comes from coal-fired electricity-generation plants (or, to a minor extent, gas-fired plants, which are just as bad because natural gas is also a hydro-carbon) – AND 75% OF THE ENERGY CONTENT OF THE COAL OR NATURAL GAS IS EXPENDED IN CONVERTING THE COAL OR NATURAL GAS TO ELECTRICITY.

Question 5

Are there decent arguments the Obama Administration could be making for coal other than the fraudulent environmental argument?

Answer 5

Yes.

The U.S. has abundant coal resources –- enough to satisfy all its energy needs for decades if not centuries.

Accordingly, the U.S. could solve overnight its trade imbalance with the rest of the world and its reliance on foreign oil (and the political implications of such reliance) -- IF THE U.S. WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER FROM USING COAL FOR ALL ITS ENERGY NEEDS.

At some point, President Obama is going to have to “come clean” -- either admit that he is still the same coal-industry champion that he was as a U.S. Senator from Illinois representing its down-state coal mining industry, or he will have to explain where all the extra electricity is going to come from.

Just like “the hydrogen economy,” the additional electricity for President Obama’s Chevrolet Volt can be generated from nuclear plants at economical prices.

However, there are two questions that cry out for answers.

First, if President Obama wants to take the country nuclear, then why build new nuclear plants to generate enough extra electricity to accommodate automobiles before replacing all of the existing coal-fired electricity-generation plants that already cause massive pollution?

Second. If President Obama, instead, is hoping that wind or solar becomes economical and, hope against hope, one or both become economical at current price levels for crude oil (of which coal prices are usually a fairly-stable fraction), is he prepared to guarantee those price levels or, alternatively, have the government assume that price risk directly by building the wind or solar facilities itself?

In this regard, it should be noted that there is a long history of OPEC-countries with long-lived oil reserves (about half of OPEC has very short-lived reserves), particularly Saudi Arabia, manipulating world oil prices by flooding or starving the world’s supply of oil, in order to insure that alternative energy sources never become economic.

Question 6

Is it any surprise that President Obama is once again championing the coal industry now that he has bought General Motors with taxpayer money?

Answer 6

No.
.