Suggested Discussion Outline

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 1712
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Discussion Outline

Post by johnkarls »

.
The title of Daniel Yergin’s book is “The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations.”

According to his sub-title, “Climate” is at least 33% of his focus.

And if “Clash of Nations” is also interpreted as “Climate,” then “Climate” is 67% of his focus.

So no mystery why Daniel Yergin describes the world’s current energy picture geographical area by geographical area – and then homes in on “Climate” for the last 24% of his book (103 of 430 pages).

The following outline is respectfully suggested –


*******************************
A. Comments About The World’s Energy Picture

Our tradition is to devote the first portion of each monthly meeting to going through the focus book, chapter by chapter, to invite important comments that are specific to a particular chapter. After all, each participant (except, perhaps “first timers”) have taken the time to read the focus book and her/his opportunity to opine on anything in the focus book should NOT be denied.

HOWEVER, let’s try to limit the portion of our two-hour meeting that is devoted to the world’s current energy picture to 60 minutes so that we will have an hour to discuss the raison d’être of Daniel Yergin’s book.

Part I: America’s New Map

Part II: Russia’s Map

Part III: China’s Map

Part IV: Maps of the Middle East


*******************************
B. Methods for Reducing/Eliminating Global-Warming

(1) Solar and wind

[Please see Sec. B of the Short Quiz - viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2033&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.]

(2) Hydrogen

[Please see Sec. C of the Short Quiz - viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2033&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.]

(3) Thorium Fission and Bill Gates’ Uranium-Fission Campaign

[Please see Sec. D of the Short Quiz - viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2033&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.]

(4) Harvard U’s Proposal To Seed The Earth’s Atmosphere

[Please see viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2034&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.]

(5) Pres. Biden’s Global Warming Solution: The Iran Nuclear Deal (per posting by “Solutions”)

[Please see viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2035&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.]

(6) Other???


**********
Misc – Electric Vehicles (“Misc.” because EV’s target only a very-small part of the problem making it a proverbial “teat on the whale”)

[Please see Sec. A of the Short Quiz - viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2033&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.]


**************************************************************
**************************************************************
C. Volunteers Requested For Research

Unfortunately, I am a proverbial “one-armed wallpaper hanger” who doesn’t have time to chase every possible research project.

Accordingly, volunteers are requested to step forward and “chase the following rabbits” AND REPORT ON WHAT THEY FOUND AT OUR MEETING –


*******************************
(1) Natural Gas – a “clean” fuel???

Quite a bit is made in the first 76% of Daniel Yergin’s book (and by the general media) about how natural gas is a “clean” fuel.

From a “climate” viewpoint, of course, this is NOT true. Though it may be quite a bit cleaner than oil. And most certainly is quite a bit cleaner than coal.

If memory serves from our studies over the years (without double-checking by a “one-armed paper hanger”), the fuel value in oil and coal comes predominantly from sugar (C6-H12-O6) from zillions of decayed organisms over zillions of years.

And natural gas (methane) is C-H4.

First question – since both carbon and hydrogen can burn (which is what makes them fuels that release energy when oxidized), how much carbon dioxide (CO2) results PER UNIT OF ENERGY PRODUCED from burning oil, from burning coal, and from burning natural gas (methane)?

[At first glance, it would appear that the reason why burning natural gas (methane) may be “cleaner” than burning oil is that the ratio of hydrogen to carbon in the methane (C-H4) is higher than the ratio of hydrogen to carbon in oil (C6-H12-O6).]

Second question – how “clean” (from a climate viewpoint) is the production of natural gas (methane) from fracking vs. how “clean” is the production of oil?

[NB: in this regard, “primary” production of oil is simply using any already-existing pressure on the oil reservoir (either from natural gas or from compressed water) to drive the oil to the surface. “Secondary” production is pumping water into an oil reservoir to drive the oil to the surface. And “tertiary” production after “primary” and “secondary” have run their course and, typically, much if not most of the oil is still too sticky (think grease on a frying pan), comprises pumping detergents into the reservoir to loosen up more of the remaining oil so that it can be driven to the surface (though BTW still leaving much if not most of the oil as unrecoverable).]


*******************************
(2) Pope Francis’s Global Warming Crusade

Since being elected, Pope Francis has been on a climate crusade.

Indeed, during his first visit to the U.S. in 2015, we launched one of our “Six Degrees of Separation” E-mail Campaigns to Pope Francis imploring him (since we were alarmed by his exclusive focus theretofore on climate) to also focus on the poor – POINTING OUT THAT UNICEF REPORTS THAT 23% OF U.S. CHILDREN LIVE IN POVERTY AND NO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION TOLERATES EVEN HALF THAT RATE!!!

The text of the e-mails sent to Pope Francis (Cc: The President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) is available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1328&sid=38e28c848 ... acfed23720.

Unfortunately, both Pope Francis and the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops WITHIN ONLY AN HOUR OR SO BEGAN BOUNCING OUR E-MAILS!!! Please see viewtopic.php?f=402&t=1329&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720 and scroll down to the first so-called “reply” entitled “Pope Francis and Archbishop Kurtz Now Bouncing Our E-mails.”

First Research Question – What is the Biblical authority (if any) for Pope Francis’ climate position?

[NB: there is beaucoup reporting on WHAT the Pope’s position is – but NOT the WHY per the Bible.]

Second Research Question – IF THE ONLY Biblical authority for Pope Francis’ climate position (whether or not the Pope claims any Biblical authority) is the SECOND of Christ’s TWO commandments for “inheriting eternal life” (to love God with all your heart/soul/strength/mind and to love your neighbor as yourself followed immediately by the Story of the Good Samaritan to drive home the point THAT EVERY HUMAN BEING IS YOUR NEIGHBOR) –

THEN is the Pope concerned with the tremendous migrations that will be caused by global warming making uninhabitable vast areas of the earth;

AND PERHAPS EVEN MORE INTERESTINGLY, is the Pope concerned with future generations – and must future generations (e.g., Gen X, Gen Y and Gen Z) be born in order to qualify AS CHRIST’S “NEIGHBORS” or can as-yet-unborn future generations also qualify as Christ’s “neighbors”?


*******************************
(3) American Energy Independence

Is American “energy independence” a myth or a reality???

Our 4/5/2019 letter to each of the Democrat Presidential Candidates regarding thorium fission and entitled “Solving Global Warming 100% Without Military Action – A Subject We Will Be Requesting Every Debate Moderator To Raise” addressed the myth/reality energy-independence issue in its footnote –

*****4/5/2019 Democrat Presidential Candidate Letter Footnote*****

The seventh paragraph listing three advantages shared by uranium and thorium fission said “(b) eliminating the dependence of the U.S.* and its allies on members of OPEC (the long-standing Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries) and, in the case of Europe, natural gas imports from Russia (in addition to oil & gas imports from OPEC).”

The reason for the asterisk was that it has been widely reported recently that the U.S. has become “energy independent” so that it no longer must import oil & gas from the world market which is dominated by OPEC.

These reports are misleading if not fraudulent.

They are based on an article from Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-75-years) which claims, under a banner headline “THE U.S. JUST BECAME A NET OIL EXPORTER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 75 YEARS” that the U.S. was a “net oil exporter” FOR ONE WEEK in early December 2018 -- while admitting in the body of the article that the net-export period would be “likely brief”!!!

No wonder they are confessing their banner headline is misleading if not fraudulent!!! [Though that did NOT prevent other news media outlets from repeating the false claim, many citing Bloomberg and most of the rest citing no authority at all.]

By way of background, http://www.cia.gov’s World Factbook reports for 2017 (the last year for which it contains such data) that the U.S. produced only 9.351 million barrels/day of crude oil and had to import (net) 6.811 million b/d. The CIA also reported a slight natural gas surplus (total gas production of 772.8 billion cubic meters in 2017 vs. consumption of 767.6 billion cubic meters). In other words, the CIA is reporting for 2017 total crude oil usage of 16.162 million b/d compared to total natural gas usage of only 13.088 million b/d of crude oil equivalent. Which meant the C.I.A. was effectively reporting a SHORTFALL in energy independence of 23% for 2017!!!

But what about 2018 and beyond???

Bloomberg “cherry picked” ONE WEEK during December 2018 for its claim that the U.S. had become “a net oil exporter.” Which Bloomberg CONFESSES was based on statistics from the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration.

HOWEVER, based on DOE’s Energy Information Administration is an American Petroleum Institute graph available at https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas ... de-exports that shows the NET-IMPORT GAP narrowed slightly in 2018 BUT IS NOT EVEN EXPECTED TO BE ELIMINATED BY 2040, THE END OF THE PERIOD IN THE GRAPH!!!

Shame on Bloomberg!!!

*****End of Footnote*****

BTW, the 4/5/2019 letter which was sent to the Moderators of the first five debates, is available for download (entitled "RL-f610-Moderator Cover Letter + Attachment – Final”) at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1781&sid=38e28c848 ... acfed23720.

UNFORTUNATELY, the CIA’s “World Fact Book” which is discussed at length in our footnote STILL TO THIS DAY FEATURES ONLY 2017 STATS!!! Please see https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ ... es/#energy.

THE RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT???

Follow in the footsteps of Bloomberg’s fraudulent article which “cherry picked” one week of energy imports/exports in late 2018 BUT COMPILE THE IMPORT/EXPORT STATS FOR ALL OF 2020!!!

Yours Truly would be willing “to bet the ranch” that even with fracking, the U.S. is NOT energy independent – even for energy consumption levels restrained by COVID.

johnkarls
Posts: 1712
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Administrative Post

Post by johnkarls »

.
This is an administrative post to place the Suggested Discussion Outline first in this section followed by any Research Project Report(s) and any other comments.

Post Reply

Return to “Discussion Outline – “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 1 guest