Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.


Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz – which was entitled “Grading Bill Gates Pass/Fail & A thru F”


********************
A. Framing/Analyzing Properly The Solutions To Global Warming – Military Force or Economic Self-Interest

Question A-1

Does Bill Gates recognize that The Paris Climate Accord exempted China and India, the world’s two largest carbon polluters, from taking any action until 2030? And that the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (the predecessor of The Paris Climate Accord) did the same thing?

Answer A-1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question A-2

Does Bill Gates recognize that China has, for decades, been bringing on line a new monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant every week?

Answer A-2

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question A-3

Accordingly, does Bill Gates recognize that military force would probably have to be employed to force China to adopt any climate-control measures that adversely affect its economy or lower the standard-of-living of its citizens?

Answer A-3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question A-4

Does Bill Gates stoop to making the argument that if America spends the money to develop a climate-control technology, it can earn licensing fees from the rest of the world?

Answer A-4

Yes – please see p. 35 of “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster.”

Question A-5

After heading a company (Microsoft) that exported so many jobs to China while capturing virtually all of its worldwide profits in tax-haven subsidiaries to such an extent that its more-than-one-TRillion dollars trapped in tax havens had caused stock analysts to value Microsoft stock as a bank rather than a software company -- why does Bill Gates with all that knowledge of, and experience with, China and its notoriety for simply stealing technology rather than paying licensing fees to obtain it, think (or at least want his readers to believe) that China would “turn over a new leaf”?

Answer A-5

Yes, Bill Gates’ Microsoft exported so many jobs to China while capturing virtually all of its worldwide profits in tax-haven subsidiaries to such an extent that its more-than-one-TRillion dollars trapped in tax havens had caused stock analysts to value Microsoft stock as a bank rather than a software company.

So “God only knows” why, with all that experience with China and its notoriety for simply stealing technology, Bill Gates thinks (or at least wants his readers to believe) that China will “turn over a new leaf”!!!

Question A-6

So why doesn’t Bill Gates focus on whether climate-change solutions would be cheaper or more expensive than oil & gas and, therefore, whether military force would have to be employed to compel other countries to adopt them or whether other countries would freely adopt them as a matter of economic self-interest?

Answer A-6

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


********************
B. Progress Report on Climate-Solution Technologies

*****
B-1. Solar and Wind

Question B-1-A

Have either solar or wind been cheaper than oil & gas?

Answer B-1-A

Not without subsidies.

Question B-1-B

Accordingly, have solar or wind ever been able to exist without massive governmental subsidies and/or without governmental mandates?

Answer B-1-B

No.

Question B-1-C

What does Bill Gates think are the prospects for either solar and/or wind ever becoming cheaper than oil & gas?

Answer B-1-C

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


*****
B-2. Hydrogen

Question B-2-A

Does burning hydrogen (2H2 + O2 > 2H2O) produce any carbon?

Answer B-2-A

No.

Question B-2-B

Does burning hydrogen release tremendous amounts of energy (think Hindenburg Dirigible Disaster of 1937)?

Answer B-2-B

Yes.

Question B-2-C

Did both Europe and California invest heavily two decades ago in a “hydrogen highway” comprising zillions of hydrogen re-fueling stations? Did a lot of automobile manufacturers tweak their gasoline engines to run on hydrogen with BMW even offering a model that could run on either gasoline or hydrogen depending on local availability during long-distance trips?

Answer B-2-C

Yes – Yes.

Question B-2-D

Has the lack of development of Europe’s and California’s “hydrogen highway” been due to the costliness of obtaining hydrogen? In other words, has historically the only method of obtaining large quantities of hydrogen been electrolysis of water (2H2O > 2H2 + O2) which requires as much energy as is available when the hydrogen is burned (2H2 + O2 > 2H2O)?

Answer D-2-D

Yes – Yes.

Question B-2-E

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 which involves 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 will trap behind all remaining material including carbon for sequestration in situ?

Answer B-2-E

Yes.

Question B-2-F

Do our calculations indicate the Proton Technologies method of producing hydrogen is approximately 50% of the cost of oil & gas products with an equivalent amount of energy?

Answer B-2-F

Yes, it appears that the Proton Technologies method can produce hydrogen at US$0.50/kg which means that the cost of producing the amount of hydrogen with the same energy content as one barrel of crude oil would be only $25.05 which is usually less than 50% of the cost of oil & gas (West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude is $62.14/bbl and Brent crude oil is $66.11/bbl per OilPrice.com at the time of this posting on 4/26/2021) – for details please see Q&A 15 of the Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz for our 3/10/2021 meeting available at viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2033&p=2774&hilit ... e77a#p2774.

Question B-2-G

Did we launch on 11/13/2019 one of our Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail campaigns to the Assistant U.N. Secretary General for UNEP and also to the Director General of the UN’s Worldwide Intellectual Property Organization entitled “Saving Global-Warming Solution From Being Killed”?

Answer B-2-G

Yes, please see viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1850&sid=da28a6d8c ... 8dfea4e77a.

Question B-2-H

Was the point of our 11/12/2019 e-mail campaign that there are zillions of owners of oil & gas (think Saudi Arabia) that might like to kill the new hydrogen technology and that could offer Proton Technologies (or its shareholders in a corporate takeover) much more than they could hope to earn from deploying the hydrogen technology – but would be a “drop in the bucket” from the viewpoint of a Saudi Arabia in preserving the profitability of its tremendous oil & gas reserves?

Answer B-2-H

Yes.

Question B-2-I

Is Bill Gates even aware of the Proton Technologies method for producing cheap hydrogen? Is this inexcusable in purporting to write a knowledgeable book on climate-change when the Proton Technologies announcement was 18 months before Bill Gates’ book was published?

Answer B-2-I

No, he is not aware.

And his ignorance is inexcusable.

Question B-2-J

Is Bill Gates still mired in the outmoded belief that the only way to produce significant quantities of hydrogen is electrolysis?

Answer B-2-J

Yes, Bill Gates still thinks the only way to produce significant quantities of hydrogen is electrolysis – please see pp. 93-94 of “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster.”

IN ADDITION, BILL GATES THINKS THAT THE ONLY USE FOR CHEAP HYDROGEN (IF IT CAN BE DEVELOPED) IS AS A METHOD FOR STORING ELECTRICITY!!! RATHER THAN ITSELF COMPRISING A FUEL AS ENVISIONED BY CALIFORNIA AND EUROPE’S “HYDROGEN HIGHWAY”!!!


*****
B-3. Nuclear

Question B-3-A

Has nuclear always been cheaper than oil & gas?

Answer B-3-A

Yes.

Question B-3-B

Have the owners of oil & gas been able to prevent nuclear from displacing oil & gas by preying on the public’s fear of nuclear?

Answer B-3-B

Yes.

Question B-3-C

In other words, can the climate-change crisis be largely blamed on Jane Fonda’s and Michael Douglas’ 1979 blockbuster movie “China Syndrome”?

Answer B-3-C

Unfortunately!!!

Question B-3-D

Haven’t the only three significant nuclear accidents in the world’s 76-year nuclear history been the result of unpardonable human actions?

Answer B-3-D

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

*****
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 electric 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 B-3-E

Is Bill Gates an unabashed proponent of nuclear energy even though he doesn’t unduly trumpet his personal appraisal in “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster”?

Answer B-3-E

Yes.

Question B-3-F

Indeed, wasn’t Bill Gates the “moving force” behind the 1/14/2019 enactment of the “Nuclear Energy and Modernization Act” and the 3/27/2019 introduction of the “Nuclear Energy Leadership Act” – both supported by a bipartisan group of Senate leaders including two Presidential candidates – Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)?

Answer B-3-F

Yes.

Question B-3-G

HOWEVER, hasn’t Bill Gates been a proponent (and large investor) in uranium-fission rather than thorium-fission even though uranium has NO ADVANTAGES over thorium, and thorium has MANY ADVANTAGES over uranium including its inability to explode and the world’s vast amounts of cheap thorium (e.g., most of India’s “sand” beaches comprising thorium from which a child’s pailful of “sand” can produce all of the energy requirements for one human being’s entire lifetime)?

Answer B-3-G

Yes, in addition to being a “Johnny come lately” vis-à-vis nuclear power, Bill Gates has been a proponent of uranium fission rather than thorium fission despite the many advantages (and no disadvantages) of thorium over uranium –

[The following advantages are virtually identical to those listed by famous-nuclear-physicist Dr. Victor Stenger in The Huffington Post at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lftr-a-l ... _b_1192584.]

(1) LFTR’s (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) require minimal containment chambers because meltdowns are physically impossible since LFTR’s operate near atmospheric pressure (this is both a safety and cost factor).

(2) LFTR’s do not require elaborate cooling systems because they operate well below the boiling point of molten salt and can be passively cooled (this is also both a safety and cost factor).

(3) Thorium is so stable that, as mentioned above, it is impossible to make a nuclear weapon from thorium which is why the U.S. turned to uranium and plutonium instead of thorium.

(4) Thorium has such an incredibly-high “burn-up” that there is virtually no long-lived radioactive waste.

(5) LFTR’s can safely consume uranium from decommissioned nuclear warheads and from spent uranium-reactor fuel rods. Indeed, the Oak Ridge MSRE in the 1960’s was able to use U-235, Pu-239 and U-233 at the same time as thorium. [NB: Since former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of NV prevented the opening of Yucca Mountain NV as the repository for our spent uranium-nuclear fuel rods, the spent uranium-nuclear fuel rods have been left on site at each uranium-nuclear plant to remain cool in the equivalent of home swimming-pools even though many of those uranium-nuclear plants are situated in high-volume air corridors!!!]

(6) Because LFTR’s are economically practical in small sizes, they can be mass-produced in factories and assembled near electrical demand so that the huge energy losses during electricity transmission are virtually eliminated -- though to replace huge uranium reactors, it would only be necessary to assemble several of the small modular thorium reactors into a larger plant.

(7) In addition, thorium is so plentiful that proven thorium supplies are capable of supplying 100% of the world’s energy (not just electricity) for more than 1,000 years. Indeed, virtually all of India’s “sand” beaches comprise thorium.

[Our calculation was 80 years of “proven” reserves of uranium for current (electricity only) usage multiplied by 3 (the minimum abundance factor of “proven” thorium reserves vs. “proven” uranium reserves) multiplied by 99 (usable thorium energy content vs. usable uranium energy content) multiplied by 5.8% (the percentage of total worldwide energy including transportation fuels, that comes from nuclear plants) = 1,378 years.]

Proven thorium/fission has all of these advantages and only needs 2-3 years of final development = the equivalent of having already produced a Ford Model T proving an automobile is feasible but still needing 2-3 years of development (and relatively-modest funding) to design a Ford Fusion for mass production.

The relatively-modest funding for the 2-3 years of final development has been estimated by many experts at $5 billion to build the first commercial prototype.

[ThEC15 was a worldwide conference on thorium research that 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. The ThEC15 website (http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/thec15-mumbai.html) contains 127 papers and speeches by 46 speakers from 30 different nations.]

Question B-3-H

BTW, is the earth itself a gigantic thorium nuclear reactor? Isn’t this the reason why the earth’s core is 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit – hotter than the sun’s surface? So is it any wonder that molten lava billows out of any fissure in the earth’s thin surface?

Answer B-3-H

Yes, the earth itself is a gigantic thorium nuclear reactor.

And yes, this is the reason why the earth’s core is 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit – hotter than the sun’s surface.

And yes, this is the reason why molten lava billows out of any fissure in the earth’s thin surface.


*****
B-4. Harvard U’s Proposal To Seed The Earth’s Atmosphere

Question B-4-A

Isn’t it well known that large volcanic eruptions will throw into the atmosphere gases and dust particles whose shading of incoming solar radiation can cool the earth for months and even years?

Answer B-4-A

Yes.

Question B-4-B

BTW, hasn’t this caused some wags to remark (however, true) that Global Warming can be solved by occasional, small nuclear wars which, of course, will be much more likely if a nuclear-arms race occurs between “The World’s Greatest ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’” (The U.S. State Department’s long-standing legally-required description of Iran) and “The Gulf Cooperation Council” (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates, and Oman)?

Answer B-4-B

Yes.

Question B-4-C

In a similar vein, hasn’t Harvard University proposed seeding the earth’s atmosphere with various substances to achieve the same effect as volcanic eruptions or small nuclear wars?

Answer B-4-C

Yes.

Question B-4-D

Wasn’t this approach featured in an interview of a Harvard Professor by the PBS Newshour’s anchor and managing editor, Judy Woodruff?

Answer B-4-D

Yes.

For a thorough discussion of the Harvard approach and Judy Woodruff’s 3/27/2019 interview of David W. Keith, Harvard’s Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard’s Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science (aka SEAS) and a Professor of Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, please see “Seeding The Earth’s Atmosphere To Halt Global Warming” at viewtopic.php?f=629&t=2034&sid=38e28c84 ... acfed23720.

For a transcript of Judy Woodruff’s interview of Prof. Keith, please see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-pl ... pheric-co2.

Question B-4-E

Was Judy Woodruff apparently so “star struck” by the claim of Harvard University that seeding the earth’s atmosphere COULD BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY and COULD SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING COMPLETELY like a thermostat that could cool the earth’s temperature to any desired level – that she failed to ask the Harvard Professor the obvious question of whether Harvard’s “world thermostat” could be adjusted back upwards again if desired/necessary?

Answer B-4-E

Yes.

Question B-4-F

For example, what if Pres. Biden succeeds in groveling his way back into the Iran Nuclear Deal which has always guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons by 2030, as a result of which the “Gulf Cooperation Council” (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates and Oman), as widely expected, goes nuclear with weapons from Pakistan, North Korea or a variety of “black market” sources – resulting, as widely feared, in a nuclear war requiring the “world thermostat” to be adjusted back upwards again because of all the particles put into the earth’s atmosphere by the nuclear explosions???

Answer B-4-F

Yes, following the nuclear holocaust caused by The Iran Nuclear Deal and the massive “global cooling” caused by that nuclear holocaust, it might be nice to be able to turn up the “world thermostat”!!!

Question B-4-G

And was Judy Woodruff also apparently so “star struck” that she failed to ask the Harvard Professor the obvious question of whether some of the world’s nations would object to seeding the earth’s atmosphere, perhaps leading to military conflict?

Answer B-4-G

Yes.

Question B-4-H

After all, didn’t The Russian Federation refuse to ratify The Kyoto Protocol for many years because Global Warming would increase Siberia’s growing season -- until the European Union finally agreed to subsidize Russia’s economic loss? And wasn’t The Russian Federation’s ratification necessary to achieve the minimum number of country ratifications to bring the Kyoto Protocol into effect?

Answer B-4-H

Yes – Yes.

Question B-4-I

Is Bill Gates ignorant of the Harvard approach?

Answer B-4-I

So it would appear.


********************
C. Modern-Day Malthusian Economics

Question C-1

Was Thomas Robert Malthus famous for his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population” that posited that the earth was only capable of supporting a finite human population? BTW, has the world’s population grown from 0.8 billion in 1798 to 7.9 billion today?

Answer C-1

Yes – Yes.

Question C-2

Was Malthus’ rationale that any increase in a nation’s food production improves the well-being of its population, but the improvement is only temporary because it always leads to population growth? And that the earth only has a limited capacity to produce food?

Answer C-2

Yes – Yes.

Question C-3

Without a nod to Malthus, does Bill Gates posit that global warming is due to the massive amount of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere – much, if not most, of which is the result of the world’s mushrooming human population which has now passing through 8 billion?

Answer C-3

Yes.

Question C-4

After all, aren’t all those 8 billion human beings all breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide? Not to mention the methane (CH4) in their flatulence?

Answer C-4

Yes – Yes.

Question C-5

Aren’t all the animal herds that have been created to help feed those 8 billion human beings also breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide? Not to mention the methane (CH4) in their flatulence?

Answer C-5

Yes – Yes.

Question C-6

And what about all those forests and plains containing all those plants that could absorb the atmosphere’s carbon molecules and convert them back to oxygen (6CO2 + 6H2O > C6H12O6 + 6O2)? Haven’t they been destroyed in large part to make way for farms whose plants are destroyed as they are consumed by human beings and their animal herds – rather than left intact to balance the carbon in the earth’s atmosphere?

Answer C-6

Thank God that the Amazon Rain Forest has such a thin layer of soil that it has not long since been destroyed to make way for farming!!!

Question C-7

After recognizing that much, if not most, of the carbon in the earth’s atmosphere is the result of mushrooming human-population growth, does Bill Gates recognize that the earth’s human population is likely to continue to mushroom? And what that means?

Answer C-7

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question C-8

Has our organization already solved this problem?

Answer C-8

Yes – please read Q&A-9 thru Q&A-15.

Question C-9

After all, don’t plants use their chlorophyll (the green in plant leaves, etc.) TO USE SOLAR POWER in order to convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and sugar (6CO2 + 6H2O > C6H12O6 + 6O2)?

Answer C-9

Yes.

Question C-10

So why couldn’t nuclear energy, say from small thorium-fission reactors, SUBSTITUTE FOR SOLAR POWER in driving that chemical reaction (6CO2 + 6H2O > C6H12O6 + 6O2) in a food-production factory? And couldn’t such nuclear-powered food-production factories make conventional farms obsolete?

Answer C-10

So it would appear!!!

After all, it should not be that difficult to ascertain what there is about chlorophyll (since it consists of chemicals) that enables it to harness light to drive the chemical reaction 6CO2 + 6H2O > C6H12O6 + 6O2.

Question C-11

Would there be any limit to the amount of carbon dioxide that could be removed in this fashion from the earth’s atmosphere???

Answer C-11

Not really!!!

[Wiseacres may point out that we are limited by the amount of CO2 that exists in the earth’s atmosphere. But that is the kind of word joke one would expect of lawyers.]

Question C-12

So like the Harvard approach of seeding the earth’s atmosphere to comprise a “world thermostat” that can turn down the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere to any desired level, wouldn’t nuclear-powered factories that remove carbon from the earth’s atmosphere be able to do the same thing???

Answer C-12

Yes.

Question C-13

And if the PBS Newhour’s Judy Woodruff is not “asleep at the switch” when she interviews us, aren’t we ready to tell her that our method of reducing carbon in the earth’s atmosphere is readily curtailed/reversed if desirable/necessary?

Answer C-13

Yes.

Question C-14

After all, couldn’t the output of our carbon-reduction (food producing) factories be easily be reduced?

Answer C-14

Yes.

Question C-15

And if all of the output of our carbon-reduction (food producing) factories isn’t needed for human-population growth (even after reductions in the world’s temperature has become too low), would it be so tragic for all the excess sugar had to be stored in a manner that would not adversely affect the environment?

Answer C-15

Of course not!!!


********************
D. Grading Bill Gates Pass/Fail & A thru F

Question D-1

What grade do you think Bill Gates deserves for his “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster”?

Answer D-1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question D-2

Because of all the developments of which Bill Gates seems to be ignorant, shouldn’t “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster” have been published as a loose-leaf service whose components could updated frequently?

Answer D-2

So it would appear!!!

Question D-3

Nonetheless, doesn’t Bill Gates deserve our profound heartfelt gratitude? And a prestigious medal from the U.N., the United States, and the rest of the world’s nations?

Answer D-3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!