Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post by johnkarls »

.

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz –- Global-Warming Technology-Solutions Report Card

****************
A. Intro

Question 1

Does Daniel Yergin devote 24% (103 of 430 pages) of “The New Map: Energy, Climate and the Clash of Nations” to climate change and new technology?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Do you favor invading other countries to force them to use “green” energy that is uneconomic? Such as invading China to prevent it from bringing on stream a new monster-size coal-fired electronic-generation plant every week?

Answer 2

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 3

Have electric cars in the U.S. been a DISASTER from a climate-change viewpoint because the U.S. still has coal-fired electric-generation plants whose output exceeds the total electricity usage by electric cars?

Answer 3

Absolutely!!!

Question 4

In other words, if the U.S. suddenly banned all electric cars and shut down enough coal-fired electric-generation plants to equal the electricity usage by electric cars, would the nation’s carbon footprint suddenly shrink dramatically?

Answer 4

Absolutely!!!

Question 5

Are California and other states with seaports GUILTY of producing more carbon pollution than all of the nation’s vehicular traffic? Is this because ships in port continue to run their engines to produce on-board electricity?

Answer 5

Yes, California et al are GUILTY.

Yes, it is because ships in port continue to run their engines to produce on-board electricity.

Question 6

In other words, could California reduce its carbon footprint substantially by simply requiring ships to shut down their engines while in port and accept electricity from the on-shore electricity grid?

Answer 6

Absolutely!!!

Question 7

BTW, with the world’s prevailing winds coming from the west, are the poorest of the poor and their children forced to live next to, and downwind from, California’s ports where their lungs are exposed to breathe air that is worse than smoking a pack a day of cigarettes?

Answer 7

Nobody else would want to live there so land values there are in the toilet!!!


****************
B. Solar and Wind

Question 1

Have solar and wind ever been economic, in terms of costing less than oil & gas?

Answer 1

No.

And the cost of hydrocarbons (oil & gas and coal) is the “bench mark” a competing fuel has to beat in order for countries to AUTOMATICALLY CHOOSE that fuel – rather than having to be shamed OR INVADED MILITARILY to do so.

Question 2

Is this why solar and wind virtually always require governmental subsidies?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Is this ever likely to change?

Answer 3

God only knows!!!

Question 4

Was the adverse impact on a country’s economy and the standard of living of its inhabitants bridged in the Paris Climate Agreement signed by President Obama in 2016 (but never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution) by the U.S. agreeing to carbon-emission limits immediately – while the world’s two largest carbon polluters (China and India) were not required “to lift a finger” until 2030?

Answer 4

Yes, the U.S. agreed to restrict its carbon emissions immediately.

And yes, China and India (the world’s two largest carbon polluters) were given a “free pass” until 2030.

Question 5

BTW, do you believe that after the U.S. has put itself at an economic disadvantage for more than a decade, China and India will finally “lift a finger” – or is this just another problem which can NOT be solved short of military invasion?

Answer 5

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 6

Is the Paris Climate Agreement similar to its predecessor (The Kyoto Protocol of 1997) which was signed by President Clinton but never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution?

Answer 6

Yes, like the Paris Climate Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Question 7

Indeed, was the U.S. chief negotiator at Kyoto, Vice President Al Gore, instructed by a 95-0 vote of the U.S. Senate before departing for Kyoto that he should NOT agree to anything that exempted China or India, and that he should NOT agree to anything that adversely affected the U.S. standard of living?

Answer 7

Yes, our Chief Negotiator at Kyoto, Vice President Al Gore, was given “guard rails” by the U.S. Senate which would have to ratify any agreement as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Question 8

Did Vice President Al Gore defy the U.S. Senate by agreeing at Kyoto to exempt China and India, and by agreeing to restrictions on the U.S. that adversely affected the U.S. standard of living?

Answer 8

Yes, Al Gore defied the U.S. Senate.

Question 9

Was Vice President Al Gore’s defiance of the 95-0 vote of the U.S. Senate the reason why the Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution?

Answer 9

So it would seem.


****************
C. Hydrogen

Question 1

Is hydrogen a 100% carbon-free fuel? In other words, does burning hydrogen (2H2 + O2 > 2H2O) produce only water?

Answer 1

Yes - Yes

Question 2

For those of us who remember the Hindenburg dirigible disaster from high school history, can we testify that hydrogen is a potent, if not explosive, fuel?

Answer 2

Yes.

For those who don’t remember, dramatic pictures are available all over the internet.

Question 3

Did the governments of both Europe and California construct by the early 2000’s a network of hydrogen-fueling stations that permitted hydrogen-powered cars to travel vast distances?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

And were several manufacturers, such as BMW, selling standard models whose engines had been tweaked to run on hydrogen or, in the case of the BMW models, on either gasoline or hydrogen depending on availability at the moment/locality?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

However, was the so-called “hydrogen highway” (and using hydrogen to produce all of the rest of the world’s power, not just vehicular) NOT practical at that time because there had been no economical source for the vast amounts of hydrogen fuel that would be required?

Answer 5

Yes, there was no economical source for vast amounts of hydrogen at that time.

Question 6

In other words, under the famous physics/chemistry “Law of Conservation of Energy,” doesn’t the tremendous amount of energy produced by burning hydrogen (2H2 + O2 > 2H2O) mean that it would take AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF ENERGY to split water molecules back into hydrogen and oxygen (2H2O > 2H2 + O2)?

Answer 6

Absolutely – if that is how you’re trying to produce hydrogen.

Question 7

So if, historically, the principal method for generating hydrogen molecules which do not occur in substantial amounts naturally (less than 10 parts per million in the earth’s atmosphere at ground level) was water electrolysis (using electricity to split water molecules), is it easy to understand why hydrogen, despite all of its other virtues as a fuel, failed the economics test?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

So is it understandable why President Obama would cause America to turn away from “the hydrogen highway” being paved by Europe and California, and focus instead on electric cars?

Answer 8

What do you think???

After all, if President Obama was NOT trying “to pick winners and losers,” why didn’t he pursue all possible avenues???

Question 9

On 8/19/2019, did Proton Technologies (a Calgary Alberta-Canada corporation) make a presentation to the Goldschmidt Conference announcing that it had invented (and obtained patents for) a method of obtaining vast amounts of hydrogen economically?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

Did their invention involve injecting oxygen into reservoirs of heavy oil and tar sands, and into coal seams, in order to separate the hydrogen from the oil/tar/coal thereby enabling the hydrogen to float to the surface through hydrogen filters that trap behind all remaining material including carbon for sequestration in situ?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Is a report of their announcement available at https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientist ... tumen.html?

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

Did we launch on 11/13/2019 one of our “Six Degrees of Separation” E-mail Campaigns aimed at sending 340 million e-mails each to the Assistant U.N. Secretary General for UNEP and the Director General of the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

Was the purpose of that e-mail campaign to void the patents of Proton Technologies in the event that they were sold to, say, Saudi Arabia whose purpose in buying the patents was to kill the technology?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Does Proton Technologies (https://proton.energy/) appear to be developing their hydrogen business in good order?

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

Is the Proton Technologies hydrogen-production process (per https://proton.energy/proton-process/ > “How Affordable Is Proton’s Process?” from the FAQ’s menu) capable of producing hydrogen in high volumes at less than US$0.50/kg for high volumes appear to be economic in terms of costing less than oil & gas?

Answer 15

Per the U.S. Department of Energy’s U.S. Energy Information Administration (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/uni ... lculators/), one barrel of crude oil produced in the U.S. contains 5,698,000 Btu.

Per the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Efficiency & Renewable Energy (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage), one kilogram of hydrogen contains 120 megajoules of energy.

Since 1 megajoule is equal to 947.82 Btu, one kilogram of hydrogen contains 113,738.40 Btu.

And therefore it would appear that it would take 50.10 kilograms of hydrogen to equal the energy content of one barrel of crude oil (5,698,000 Btu divided by 113,738.40 Btu).

So if Proton Technologies can produce hydrogen at US$0.50/kg, it can produce the same energy content of one barrel of crude oil for $25.05.

This looks quite promising since crude oil prices today, even with depressed demand due to the world’s economies operating at COVID levels, is in the range of $60/bbl.

NEVERTHELESS, Yours Truly can testify from his days as the Senior Tax Counsel and Director of Worldwide Tax Planning for Texaco Inc.in the 1970’s when it was still a Fortune-Ten company and when it and its 3 Aramco partners (Exxon, Chevron & Mobil) owned 100% of the oil & gas in Saudi Arabia -- that the cost of producing Arab Light was only a few cents/bbl!!!

[The remainder of the value of Arab Light, by which all of the world’s crudes were priced in those days ($4.00/bbl before OPEC began flexing its muscles to set “posted prices” by which royalties and income taxes were calculated and $32.00/bbl a mere year or so later after OPEC dictated higher “posted prices”), was virtually all royalties and income taxes paid to Saudi.]

Accordingly, it is easy to understand why hydrogen at only $25.05/bbl of crude oil equivalent would drive a considerable amount of HIGH-COST oil & gas production (think North Sea, for example) out of business.

But at $25.05/bbl, the Saudis can still make almost $25/bbl – though not the monster profits that supported “the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed.”

BTW, lowering world oil prices from $60/bbl to $25.05 might be an opportune time for the world’s governments to execute a “sleight of hand” requirement that hydrogen be used for all energy purposes vs. oil & gas and coal.

Yes, some “cheater” governments might still use now-bargain-priced Saudi crude, but voters in democracies (and the public in dictatorships) could probably be fooled.

So enough already!!! I’ll shut up re this issue, but would be interested in everyone else’s views!!!


Question 16

Does the Proton Technologies process appear capable of producing hydrogen in sufficient quantity to satisfy all of the world’s energy needs (heating, transportation, electricity, etc.)?

Answer 16

So it would appear.

The overwhelming percentage of oil & gas is NOT even producible after secondary and tertiary production.

So if the hydrogen in the oil & gas that can NOT be produced can be obtained by the Proton Technologies technology, quantity should NOT be an issue.

HOWEVER, it is difficult to tell from the Proton Technologies website (https://proton.energy/) whether they are dealing solely with oil & gas that can NOT be produced after secondary and tertiary production.

ANY INFERENCE that they are dealing with such impossible-to-produce oil & gas (at least with current technology and current prices) IS NOT JUSTIFIED because it would appear that Proton is still in the experimental stage – and anyone might take UNECONOMIC actions in conducting experiments.

Question 17

Did the Proton Technologies process receive an “honorable mention” in Daniel Yergin’s “The New Map: Energy, Climate and the Clash of Nations”?

Answer 17

No!!!

Even though Proton Technology’s announcement was made on 8/19/2019 and Daniel Yergin’s book was not released until 9/15/2020.


****************
D. Thorium Fission and Bill Gates’ Uranium-Fission Campaign

Question1

Are nuclear energy and hydro-electric power the only two carbon-free energy sources that are cheaper than oil & gas?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Is hydro extremely limited in terms of the world’s total energy needs?

Answer 2

Yes.

And this would be true even if all of the world’s rivers could be damned in every location where reservoirs could be created.

Question 3

Was “the well poisoned” for nuclear energy by Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas in the 1979 Hollywood “scare piece” entitled “China Syndrome”?

Answer 3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 4

Of the only three significant nuclear accidents in the world’s 76-year nuclear history, were ALL THREE the result of unpardonable human actions?

Answer 4

Yes.

*****
Three-Mile Island (Pennsylvania) – 1979

There were more than 100 blinking lights and wailing sirens indicating the reactor core was NOT getting enough cooling water!!!

But the operators couldn’t believe their instruments!!! And, UNFORTUNATELY, assumed that the exact opposite was happening!!!

By the time corrective action was taken, there was a small release of radioactive gas and $2.4 billion of damage had been incurred. But no deaths were caused.

BTW, Three-Mile Island blew on 3/28/1979 while my first child (born 9/7/1979 two weeks overdue) was still in utero, and my wife and I were enjoying a "Last Hurrah" in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Because of all the "scare pieces" in the media, we decided since NYC is downwind from Three-Mile Island PA, that we would NOT return from Europe until it was absolutely safe!!! After all, it is one thing to accept risk to yourselves, but quite another thing to risk harm to a fetus!!!

*****
Chernobyl (Ukraine, Soviet Union) – 1986

Soviet uranium-powered nuclear plants did NOT have containment chambers because Soviet engineers were so “cock sure” of their expertise!!!

And on that fateful 4/26/1986, TWO TEAMS of Soviet operators were warring with each other to use the plant for two contradictory purposes – the regular team supplying power to the grid and the other team experimenting to determine whether the momentum of the turbines would be enough to power the cooling system during an accidental shutdown!!!

[Why couldn't the Soviet geniuses have shut down power-generation by lowering the fuel rods into the cooling water and then, when all possible danger of a nuclear accident was "off the table," have fired up solely the turbines to ascertain whether their momentum was sufficient to power the cooling system during an accidental shutdown???]

The "real world" answer courtesy of the Soviet geniuses??? The momentum of the turbines was NOT sufficient!!!

*****
Fukushima Daiichi (Japan) – 2011

Yes, the Tōhoku earthquake measured 9.0 on the Richter scale – 2.63 times more powerful than California’s famous 1906 earthquake, the largest since California earthquake records began being kept in 1769 which was nearly a century before California was detached from Mexico and became part of the U.S. And 16.99 times more powerful than California’s most powerful earthquake since 1906.

And yes, the earthquake generated a 43-foot high tsunami.

HOWEVER, Fukushima Daiichi was a conventional uranium-powered nuclear plant whose fixed uranium fuel rods had to be cooled by water and for a complete shut down, the rods had to be lowered into the cool water. NB: cool-water circulation was by electric pumps.

AND THE GENIUSES WHO DESIGNED Fukushima Daiichi put the emergency generators in the basement where a tsunami was sure to knock them out due to flooding!!!

AND THE GENIUSES WHO DESIGNED Fukushima Daiichi put the fuel tanks for the emergency generators at ground level where they were sure to be washed away by a tsunami!!!

NEVERTHELESS, the containment chambers survived the earthquake and the tsunami, While the highly-publicized but limited radiation contamination of sea water was caused by (1) limited venting LONG AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE/TSUNAMI to guard against a build-up of pressure in the containment chambers because of the continued lack of cooling due to the continued lack of electricity (caused by the design geniuses), and (2) water from the containment chambers leaking FROM PIPES OUTSIDE THE CONTAINMENT CHAMBERS just like your own home plumbing might spring a leak, especially after an earthquake.

Question 5

Did Al Gore lie to Congress in 2009 when he famously said that “nuclear plants only come in one size – extra large”?

Answer 5

Yes!!!

After all, how could someone “a heartbeat away” from being Commander In Chief be so ignorant of nuclear-powered U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers???

Question 6

In ignoring the zillions of nuclear-powered U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers, was Al Gore also oblivious to why U.S. civilian nuclear plants have such a good safety record?

Answer 6

So it would seem.

Question 7

In other words, aren’t virtually all U.S. civilian nuclear plants manned completely by U.S. naval personnel who have manned the nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers and who then took early retirement after earning a Navy pension for 20 years’ service?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

Is so-called solar power actually nuclear power?

Answer 8

Yes.

Though the sun’s power is produced by nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission.

Question 9

In addition to the sun generating its power from nuclear energy, is the earth itself a giant thorium-fueled nuclear reactor whose core is 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit – hotter than the surface of the sun?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

Is it any wonder that molten lava billows out of any fissure in the earth’s surface?

Answer 10

Of course not.

Question 11

After a successful 18-month continuous thorium-fission-reactor demonstration project in the 1960’s at the U.S. National Nuclear-Research Laboratory at Oak Ridge TN, did President Nixon cause the nation to turn away from thorium (and toward uranium and plutonium) because thorium is incapable of exploding or being utilized to produce nuclear weapons?

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

Are thorium’s 7 other advantages over uranium catalogued in our 4/19/2019 letter sent to each of the Democrat presidential candidates which is available for download as the attachment to the 6/10/2019 letter to the debate moderators at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1781&sid=571163c58 ... d3f3971c8d?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

As noted in the 6/10/2019 debate-moderator cover letter just referenced, does Bill Gates support nuclear energy as the only realistic solution to global warming?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

However, is Bill Gates a “johnny come lately” to the issue and does he promote uranium-fission rather than thorium-fission?

Answer 14

Yes, Bill Gates is a “johnny come lately.”

And yes, Bill Gates is promoting uranium-fission rather than thorium-fission.

But welcome to the party!!!

Especially since Bill Gates can command much more attention than, combined –

(A) A famous nuclear expert extolling in the Huffington Post the virtues of thorium-fission over uranium-fission (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-s ... 92584.html), and

(B) A worldwide conference on thorium research featuring speeches by 46 experts from 30 different nations and the submission of 127 papers by the experts. The website of the conference which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2015 by the Government of India and two of its agencies, BARC and NPCIL, along with HBNI and IThEO (http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/thec15-mumbai.html) contains the 127 papers and transcripts of the 46 speeches.

Question 15

Did nuclear energy in general, or thorium fission in particular, receive an “honorable mention” in Daniel Yergin’s “The New Map: Energy, Climate and the Clash of Nations”?

Answer 15

Yes, nuclear power was mentioned a few times by Daniel Yergin.

But no, Daniel Yergin did NOT mention thorium.

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments – “The New Map: Energy, Climate & the Clash of Nations” by Pulitzer-Prize Winner Daniel Yergin – March 10”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests