Suggested Answers to the First Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.

Suggested Answers to the First Short Quiz – which was entitled “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster” Reading Guide


***************
A. Our Author

Question A-1

Is Bill Gates a bona fide celebrity who can focus public attention on pressing problems that face humanity?

Answer A-1

Absolutely!!!

Question A-2

For example, when our 4/10/2021 weekly e-mail announced our focus book for our May 12 meeting, did it traditionally list Amazon’s hard copy and Kindle prices AND availability at local libraries with the lament “OF NOT MUCH HELP WILL BE the Salt Lake COUNTY Library which has 0 of 46 copies available with 122 holds or the Salt Lake CITY Library which has 0 of 6 copies available with 26 holds” – the number of copies for each already being 10 times the normal number for other new books?

Answer A-2

Yes.

Question A-3

Doesn’t Bill Gates deserve a medal (perhaps even America’s or the U.N.’s highest medal) for focusing public attention on Global Warming (aka Climate Change)?

Answer A-3

What do you think??? We can discuss this at the end of our May 12 meeting!!!


***************
B. The Reasons For Concern/Action

Question B-1

Does Bill Gates do a good job of explaining why action should be taken?

Answer B-1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question B-2

What is the difference between Bill Gates’ “51 Tons” and “16 Tons” which was the title of one of our grandparents’ favorite hit tunes by Tennessee Ernie Ford in 1955?

Answer B-2

The humorous answer is 51 tons minus 16 tons equals 35 tons.

The superficial answer is that Bill Gates’ 51 tons relates to the amount of carbon that is added to the world’s atmosphere every year -- and Tennessee Ernie Ford’s “16 Tons” was the amount of No. 9 coal that, as a miner, he had to hack out of the earth every day.

A more thoughtful answer is that both Bill Gates’ measure of carbon and Tennessee Ernie Ford’s measure of coal which is a probably the world’s dirtiest carbon fuel are both dealing with carbon and they are both dealing with survival.

For the curious, the lyrics for Tennessee Ernie Ford’s “16 Tons” --

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded 16 tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said, "Well, a-bless my soul"

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Can't no high toned woman make me walk the line

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't get you
Then the left one will

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

*****
Question B-3-A

Is one of the traditional reasons for concern/action that Global Warming will cause enough melting to raise sea levels?

Answer B-3-A

Yes.

Question B-3-B

Are there even websites where you can plug in a location (such as NYC) and see a map that shows flooding related to any rise in the sea level, even several feet, that you want to input?

Answer B-3-B

Yes.

Question B-3-C

Have the proponents of this reason for concern/action ever heard of Holland???

Answer B-3-C

Apparently not!!!

Question B-3-D

For any local area that might be threatened by rises in the sea level, why should the world economy have to bear tremendous costs in order to benefit local areas threatened by sea-level rises???

Answer B-3-D

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question B-3-E

Taking NYC as an example, isn’t one of the FEW AREAS threatened by sea level rises the Hudson River’s New Jersey riverfront opposite Manhattan with all those fantastic views as a result of which the N.J. riverfront has been populated in recent decades by MULTI-ZILLION-DOLLAR homes so that the wealthy can enjoy those views while living close to their Manhattan offices??? And couldn’t those super-wealthy autocrats easily afford to hire some engineers to build the necessary dykes??? And aren’t we talking about, to a great extent, the same super-wealthy people who have beach homes on New Jersey’s Atlantic Shore where for many decades they have convinced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that their primary training exercise each year should comprise dredging sand that has been washed away so that it can be returned to those lovely sand beaches – free of charge to those super-wealthy beach-home owners???

Answer B-3-E

Yes, one of the FEW AREAS threatened by sea level rises in NYC is an area of MULTI-ZILLION DOLLAR homes.

And yes, the super-wealthy autocrats who occupy those homes could easily afford a dyke.

And yes, to a great extent, they are the same super-wealthy people whose beach homes on New Jersey’s Atlantic Shore have benefitted for decades by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as their primary annual training exercise, dredging the sand that has washed away and returning it to those lovely sand beaches.

WE SHOULD BE THANKFUL THESE SUPER-WEALTHY PEOPLE DO NOT CHARGE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR PROVIDING A TRAINING PROJECT FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO TACKLE EACH YEAR!!!

Question B-3-F

Doesn’t the attempt to get the world to help the few who insist on living near the sea remind you of the attempts decades ago to have the U.S. Government provide subsidized “flood insurance” for people who insist on living in “flood plains” of rivers, etc., whenever the obvious flooding hazard meant that commercial flood insurance was not available at any price???

Answer B-3-F

Well, does it remind you???


*****
Question B-4-A

Is another reason for concern/action that Global Warming has caused the earth’s “Sixth Extinction”?

Answer B-4-A

Yes.

Question B-4-B

Did our 1/13/2016 meeting 5 years ago focus on Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History”?

Answer B-4-B

Yes.

Question B-4-C

Due to Global Warming, is the earth currently in the middle of its SIXTH extinction in the last 500 million years?

Answer B-4-C

Yes.

Question B-4-D

Are as many as 50% of the world’s species becoming extinct and is this extinction caused almost wholly by human activity?

Answer B-4-D

Yes and yes.

Question B-4-E

Was Yours Truly struck by Elizabeth Kolbert’s failure to spell out any adverse effects of the extinction?

Answer B-4-E

Yes.

Question B-4-F

In the Short Quiz for our 1/13/2016 meeting 5 years ago, did Yours Truly question (Q&A-10 through Q&A-20) whether most medical cures are discovered by ascertaining the natural enemies of the species causing the disease?

Answer B-4-F

Yes.

Question B-4-G

Meaning that humanity might itself face extinction if a species that could wipe it out suddenly becomes unchecked due to the extinction of another species that had been keeping in check the fatal-to-human species?

Answer B-4-G

Yes.

Question B-4-H

And also meaning that finding a cure for the fatal-to-human species could be lost if medical research can NO LONGER ascertain what species had been keeping in check the fatal-to-human species SO THAT medical research could ascertain what there was about the checking species that kept the fatal-to-human species in check so that a cure can be based on synthesizing the feature of the checking species that kept the fatal-to-human species in check?

Answer B-4-H

Yes.

Question B-4-I

Did the attendees of our 1/13/2016 meeting 5 years ago include the University of Utah Radiology Research Professor?

Answer B-4-I

Yes.

Question B-4-J

Did the attendees of our 1/13/2016 meeting 5 years ago also include the recently-retired U.S. Air Force Doctor who, inter alia, headed the medical staff at the U.S. Defense Department’s Regional Medical Center at Landstuhl Germany, the first hospital to which wounded American service personnel in the Middle East have been taken since Gulf War I (1990-91)? [And who, like many if not most of our local members, have retired to ski Utah?]

Answer B-4-J

Yes, he headed the medical staff at DoD’s Regional Medical Center at Landstuhl DE to which American service personnel in the Middle East have been taken since Gulf War I.

[And yes, he and many if not most of our local members have retired to ski Utah.]

Question B-4-K

Did both the U/U Radiology Research Professor and the retired U.S. Air Force Doctor immediately inform Yours Truly about what an uninformed idiot he was??? [And presumably still is on many other matters!!!]

Answer B-4-K

Yes!!!

[And presumably they would opine that he is still an idiot re many other matters.]

[But that is the beauty of our meetings – bringing together participants of different backgrounds whose different insights can spur each other to heights none of us could achieve independently.]

Question B-4-L

Did both of them inform Yours Truly that medical research to find a cure for each new pandemic is virtually always confined to Big Pharma going through their current roster of cures for other diseases to ascertain whether any of them are effective against the new threat?

Answer B-4-L

Absolutely!!!

Question B-4-M

And, by implication, that there is NO REASON TO LAMENT the loss of 50% of the world’s species in the new SIXTH EXTINCTION?

Answer B-4-M

I didn’t attempt to embarrass them by asking this question, but neither of them offered during the course of our meeting a reason to lament the loss of 50% of the world’s species.


*****
Question B-5-A

Is yet a third reason for concern/action that Global Warming will render vast areas of the earth uninhabitable deserts that can no longer support farming, etc.?

Answer B-5-A

Yes.

Question B-5-B

Will turning vast areas into uninhabitable deserts cause mass migrations that can NOT be stemmed unless governments are willing to close their borders and watch millions of human beings perish on their doorsteps?

[NB: This bears no relationship to the current crisis on America’s southern border which has little or nothing to do with the areas from which the migrants are coming, having become uninhabitable deserts.]

Answer B-5-B

Absolutely!!!

Question B-5-C

Is this the reason why Pope Francis, during his first Papal visit to the U.S. in 2015, focused on Global Warming and utterly ignored Christ’s nearly-constant focus on the poor and Christ’s second of TWO COMMANDMENTS for inheriting eternal life (i.e., to love your neighbor as yourself)???

Answer B-5-C

It was the reason why Pope Francis focused on Global Warming.

But “God only knows” why Pope Francis chose to ignore Christ’s nearly-constant focus on the poor and Christ’s second of TWO COMMANDMENTS for inheriting eternal life (i.e., to love your neighbor as yourself)!!!

Question B-5-D

Indeed, did we launch on 6/20/2015 one of our Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaigns to Pope Francis (with a CC to the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which was organizing his visit) to at least mention during the Pope’s trip that UNICEF reports that 23% of U.S. children live in poverty and that no other industrialized country tolerates even half that rate which is TRIPLE THE RATE in Germany, Austria and France AND QUADRUPLE THE RATE in such countries as Denmark, Slovenia, Norway, The Netherlands and Finland???

Answer B-5-D

Absolutely!!!

Question B-5-E

Within only a matter of hours, were both Pope Francis and the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops bouncing our e-mails???

Answer B-5-E

Absolutely!!! [Please see viewtopic.php?f=402&t=1329&p=1785&hilit ... 4ccf#p1785!!!]

Question B-5-F

But getting back to Pope Francis’s seeming obsession with Global Warming, is he a modern-day Cassandra who can foresee the impending doom???

Answer B-5-F

So it would seem!!!


*****
Question B-6

Are there any other reasons for concern/action traditionally offered by Global Warming activists?

Answer B-6

There are many other relatively-unimportant reasons.

It is respectfully suggested that if any RSVP-er wants to discuss one or more of them at our May 12 meeting, s/he post a “reply” to this posting that identifies the relatively-unimportant reason(s) and that explains why it/they are worth addressing in a meeting that only lasts 120 minutes.


***************
C. Practical Considerations Usually Ignored by Global Warming Activists

Question C-1

Has Yours Truly begun each of our dozens of meetings on Global Warming during our 15.5 years of existence, with a request for a show of hands by everyone who favors invading militarily any country that refuses to combat global warming – such as China which brings on line a new monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant every week?

Answer C-1

Yes.

Question C-2

During those dozens of meetings on Global Warming over our 15.5 years of existence, has there ever been A SINGLE HAND RAISED in response to that question?

Answer C-2

In our dozens of Global Warming meetings over 15.5 years, nobody has raised a hand!!!

Question C-3

If that is the universal attitude around the world, does that mean solutions to Global Warming (aka Climate Change) are effectively confined to carbon-free energy sources that are cheaper than oil & gas?

Answer C-3

So it would seem.

Question C-4

Are China and India the world’s primary carbon polluters?

Answer C-4

Yes, by a long shot!!!

[Which is not surprising as a result of the U.S. Government’s policy of Exporting American Jobs To China and India since 1993!!!]

Question C-5

Did the Paris Climate Accord IGNORE THE OBVIOUS by requiring the U.S. (and some other economically-advanced countries) to begin restricting their economies and lowering their standards of living in exchange for the promises of China and India to begin restricting their economies in 2030?

Answer C-5

Unfortunately!!!

Question C-6

If you believe that China and India will begin restricting their economies in 2030, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

Answer C-6

If you do, I have a bridge between Brooklyn & Manhattan I would be willing to sell you!!!

Question C-7

Was the same problem faced with the predecessor of the Paris Climate Accord -- the Kyoto Protocol of 1997?

Answer C-7

Yes.

Question C-8

Was the U.S. Chief Negotiator at Kyoto our sitting Vice President Al Gore?

Answer C-8

Yes.

Question C-9

Before Vice President Gore departed for Kyoto, did the U.S. Senate vote 95-0 that he should NOT agree to anything (A) that would adversely affect the U.S. standard of living, OR (B) THAT WOULD EXEMPT CHINA OR INDIA???

Answer C-9

Yes.

Question C-10

Did Vice President Gore DEFY THE U.S. SENATE by doing both???

Answer C-10

Yes, V.P. Gore DOUBLY DEFIED THE U.S. SENATE BY DOING BOTH!!!

Question C-11

Is that probably the reason why President Bill Clinton NEVER SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. SENATE FOR RATIFICATION AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION the Kyoto Protocol???

Answer C-11

The U.S. Constitution requires all treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate!!!

Which is obviously the reason why President Bill Clinton did not submit V.P. Gore’s Kyoto-Protocol treaty to the U.S. Senate when it embodied Gore’s double-defiance of the Senate.

If memory serves, this is the incident that kicked off the SEMANTIC BUTCHERY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE with regard to calling “treaties” something else such as “executive agreements” so that Senate Ratification can be ignored!!!

[Though Pres. Bill Clinton knew that his 1994 North-American Free-Trade Agreement (aka NAFTA) would never be ratified by the Senate BECAUSE OF DEMOCRAT OPPOSITION TO ITS WHOLESALE EXPORTATION OF JOBS TO MEXICO -- so in 1994 (three years before Kyoto), he had the chutzpah to pass NAFTA as an ordinary law which did not require a 2/3 vote in the Senate!!!]


***************
D. Some Observations About Bill Gates’ Perspective

Question D-1

Have the only two energy sources that have historically been cheaper than oil & gas, been either hydroelectric or nuclear?

Answer D-1

Yes, only hydroelectric and nuclear have been cheaper than oil & gas.

Question D-2

Has hydroelectric NEVER constituted much of a threat to oil & gas because the world only has a finite number of rivers and a finite number of places where they can be dammed to create reservoirs?

Answer D-2

Yes, hydroelectric is severely limited when contrasted with total world energy needs.

Question D-3

Has nuclear ALWAYS constituted an economic threat to oil & gas that could only be thwarted by preying on the public’s fears of nuclear?

[This quiz is already too long to focus on “China Syndrome” – a 1979 Hollywood blockbuster featuring Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas – and contrast it with the nearly-impeccable safety record of the nuclear industry marred significantly only by human idiocy at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi.]

Answer D-3

Yes, to a great extent we have Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas to thank for Global Warming!!!

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 D-4

And have solar and wind power, for example, always required massive governmental subsidies or mandates in order to exist?

Answer D-4

Yes.

Question D-5

BTW, as we have studied many times in the past, are electric vehicles STILL A DISASTER from a global-warming viewpoint because their existence has prevented the RETIREMENT FROM THE NATION’S ELECTRIC GRID OF COAL-BURNING ELECTRIC-GENERATION PLANTS in the same amount as the electricity used by the electric cars?

Answer D-5

Yes, electric vehicles are STILL A DISASTER from a global-warming viewpoint.

[Any economist worth her/his salt will look at the “big picture” incremental impact of anything to assess its effect.]

But better days are probably ahead.

Unless President Obama’s “picking winners and losers” with his decision to focus on electric cars rather than California’s and Europe’s famous “Hydrogen Highway” turns out to be a Las Vegas “LOSING bet.”

[Burning hydrogen (2H2 + O2 > 2H2O) produces only water and no carbon!!! For hydrogen’s energy potential, think “Hindenburg Dirigible Disaster – 1937.”]

For anyone curious about California’s and Europe’s famous “Hydrogen Highway,” it featured car manufacturers tweaking their engines to run on hydrogen rather than gasoline with BMW even fielding a model that could run on either depending on local availability during long-distance trips.

Like electric cars, hydrogen faced a challenge – the high price of obtaining hydrogen from electrolysis -- which is really nothing more than expending as much energy to break water molecules apart (2H2O > 2H2 + O2) as is available from burning/oxidizing the hydrogen (2H2 + O2 > 2H2O).

And for anyone interested in how it now appears economic to obtain hydrogen from oil & gas WITHOUT RELEASING ANY CARBON INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, please see our Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign entitled “11/13/2019: Saving Global-Warming Solution From Being Killed” available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1850&sid=cf48a2dc8 ... 58ad785946.

BTW, this would mean that Pres. Obama’s “bet” on electric cars rather than hydrogen cars will probably lose.

Question D-6

And BTW, couldn’t California do more for combatting global warming (than even the entire country outlawing many if not most of the nation’s cars, trucks & buses) by simply requiring all of those cargo ships in California ports to shut down their engines which are kept running for on-board electricity and requiring them to accept electricity from the on-shore grid instead?

Answer D-6

Yes, California might well concentrate on “cleaning up its own back yard”!!!

Question D-7

And BTW wouldn’t such action by California be a proverbial “god send” for all of those poor people who have to breathe all of that ship pollution in the areas next to those ports where property values are in the toilet because only the poor can afford to sacrifice their lungs to live there?

Answer D-7

Yes, California might well show a bit of compassion for its poor people!!!

Question D-8

But back to Bill Gates – even though he is a “Johnny Come Lately” to the Global Warming imbroglio, hasn’t he become an unabashed proponent of nuclear energy?

Answer D-8

Yes.

Question D-9

And curiously, hasn’t Bill Gates become a proponent of uranium-fission rather than thorium-fission which has so many advantages over uranium-fission (and no disadvantages) such as being incapable of producing an explosion and such as the world’s incredible supply of cheap thorium (e.g. virtually all of India’s “sand” beaches comprise thorium, a child’s pailful of which is sufficient to provide all of a human being’s energy requirements for an entire lifetime!!!)???!!!

Answer D-9

Yes, it is hard to understand why he promotes uranium fission rather than thorium fission.

Uranium fission has NO ADVANTAGES OVER THORIUM FISSION.

However, proven THORIUM/FISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES OVER CONVENTIONAL URANIUM/FISSION --

[These 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 D-10

Nonetheless, is Bill Gates an “honest broker” in presenting all of the known possible energy sources and what each would need to be the “winner” or, at least in one or more energy-usage areas, a “winner”?

Answer D-10

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question D-11

In doing so, is Bill Gates handicapped by his background in computer technology? After all, in making obsolete the gigantic costs of so many human jobs (e.g., clerks, accountants – even junior scientists who used to crank out all those numbers in scientific studies), isn’t he oblivious to costs the way the rest of us have to toil so much over budgeting our resources?

Answer D-11

So it would seem.

After all, if your product generates gigantic savings, you don’t have to be particularly worried about how much it costs.

Question D-12

Indeed, doesn’t Bill Gates in “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster” recommend the U.S. adopt a “carbon tax” on such things as oil & gas?

Answer D-12

Yes.

Question D-13

Putting aside the issue of whether a “carbon tax” would comprise a subsidy for non-carbon fuels or, instead, a long-warranted accounting for the ecological costs of carbon fuels, doesn’t this proposal (A) IGNORE WHETHER OTHER COUNTRIES will impose comparable levels of carbon taxes in order to inflict equivalent damage on their economies and standards of living, and (B) IGNORE THE INCREDIBLE REGRESSIVENESS of carbon taxes which would constitute a heavy blow to the budgets of poor people while being hardly noticed by the wealthy?

Answer D-13

(A) Yes, it IGNORES WHETHER OTHER COUNTRIES will impose comparable levels of carbon taxes in order to inflict equivalent damage on their economies and standards of living.

(B) And, yes, it IGNORES THE INCREDIBLE REGRESSIVENESS of carbon taxes which would constitute a heavy blow to the budgets of poor people while being hardly noticed by the wealthy

Question D-14

BTW, wasn’t it for precisely these reasons that Congress rejected the carbon-tax proposal made by President Obama upon entering office?

Answer D-14

Yes!!!


***************
EXTRA-CREDIT Q = Do the foregoing 56 questions set a record for one of our so-called Short Quizzes?

Answer

Yes – by a long shot!!! But they all seemed necessary for a “How To Avoid A Climate Disaster” Reading Guide.