Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz – Why Do Environmentalists Want To Keep Our Coal-Fired Electric-Generation Plants Running???


***************
Sec. A – General Questions

Question A-1

Who was Socrates?

Answer A-1

Socrates (470 BC – 399 BC) from Athens is generally recognized as the founder of Western philosophy.

He taught his pupils, e.g. Plato, by using “The Socratic Method” – asking questions to get students to think and then asking more questions (vs. making declarative statements) based on the students’ answers.

Question A-2

Have law schools historically been famous for using “The Socratic Method”? Asking questions to get students to think?

Answer A-2

Yes.

So is there any mystery why Yours Truly who taught part-time for NYU School of Law, seems to relish concocting our monthly Short Quizzes???

And why the so-called Short Quizzes are never short???

Question A-3

Do modern-day students become offended over being forced to think???

Answer A-3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question A-4

Will you be offended by the question comprising the title to this Short Quiz because it requires you to think???

Answer A-4

If you think so, please pretend that you are in Ancient Athens and I am Socrates.


***************
Sec. B – The Focus of This Month’s Focus Book “Volt Rush – The Winners and Losers in The Race to Go Green”

Question B-1

Does “Volt Rush” focus on all of the minerals that will be required to manufacture the batteries for electric vehicles?

Answer B-1

Yes.

Question B-2

And, for example, who already owns the existing mines for extracting those minerals?

Answer B-2

Yes.

Question B-3

As well as the CARBON-POLLUTION COSTS of obtaining them?

Answer B-3

Yes.

Question B-4

Is the description of “Volt Rush” reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter???

Answer B-4

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question B-5

Didn’t Jimmy Carter (a nuclear-engineering graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy) posit while in office that the earth only has a finite amount of oil & gas, as a result of which “peak production” has already been reached and the U.S. (and the rest of the world) will just have to get used to declining production??? And long gas lines???

Answer B-5

Yes and Yes.

Question B-6

Was Jimmy Carter wrong because new oil & gas reserves were discovered in many new geographic areas???

Answer B-6

Absolutely!!!

Question B-7

Was Jimmy Carter also wrong because it was only possible to produce a small fraction of oil & gas from existing reservoirs – and nuclear-engineer Jimmy Carter could not conceive that technology could improve???

Answer B-7

Absolutely!!!

Question B-8

Was Jimmy Carter also wrong because it was IMPOSSIBLE to obtain oil & gas that was locked in IMPERVIOUS rock formations within which oil & gas could NOT move – and nuclear-engineer Jimmy Carter could not conceive of the invention of HYDRAULIC FRACTURING that would pulverize those rock formations thereby releasing the oil & gas???

Answer B-8

Absolutely!!!

Question B-9

Similarly to myopic Jimmy Carter, does “Volt Rush” assume that all of the world’s minerals for manufacturing electronic-vehicle batteries have already been discovered???

Answer B-9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question B-10

Similarly to myopic Jimmy Carter, does “Volt Rush” assume that electronic-vehicle batteries can NOT be manufactured from other more-plentiful minerals???

Answer B-10

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question B-11

Similarly to myopic Jimmy Carter, does “Volt Rush” assume that A BREAK-THROUGH AS-YET-UNDISCOVERED “MIRACLE MOLECULE” which might turn out to be the most efficient electronic-storage substance – can NOT be discovered/invented??? A “miracle molecule” that can be produced cheaply from other substances that are plentiful and cheap (even in the face of incredible worldwide demand for electric-vehicle batteries)???

Answer B-11

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


***************
Sec. C – Why Do Environmentalists Want To Keep Our Coal-Fired Electric-Generation Plants Running???

Question C-1

Are journalists, such as our author Henry Sanderson, usually UNQUALIFIED to think of the first question an economist would ask – “do environmentalists seem to want to keep our coal-fired electronic-generation plants running???”???

Answer C-1

So it would appear.

Question C-2

BTW, is this also the first thought that would occur to a non-economist owner of high-end stereo equipment who is used to “trouble shooting” using a “with and without” modus vivendi to ascertain the source of the problem???

Answer C-2

Absolutely!!!

Question C-3

So what does “with and without” teach us vis-à-vis the CARBON-POLLUTION DISASTER that is currently posed BY ELECTRONIC VEHICLES???

Answer C-3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Keeping in mind that -- per "with and without" -- if the amount of electricity used by electric vehicles IS LESS THAN the amount of electricity from the nation's grid that is generated by coal-fired electricity-generation plants, then electric vehicles are preventing the nation from shutting down coal-fired electricity-generation plants with a capacity equal to total electric-vehicle usage!!!

Question C-4

Every time we have looked at this issue, have we ascertained that the entire electricity-usage of electronic vehicles from the nation’s electric grid IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE GRID’S ELECTRICITY THAT IS PRODUCED FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC-GENERATION PLANTS???!!!

Answer C-4

Yes – every time since our 11/18/2009 meeting which focused on the all-electric Chevrolet Volt when General Motors was effectively a wholly-owned subsidiary of the U.S. Government as a result of a bail-out to protect worker pension plans.

Per the CIA’s World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ ... es/#energy), the sources of U.S. electricity in 2020 (the last year available) were –

Fossil fuels – 59.9%*
Nuclear – 19.5%
Wind – 8.3%
Hydro – 7.0%
Solar – 3.2%
Biomass & waste – 1.7%
Geothermal – 0.4%

* The CIA no longer provides a breakdown between coal and other fossil fuels whose carbon emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated are also “eye popping.”

HOWEVER, to get a sense of U.S. coal usage, the CIA’s World Factbook goes on to report U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2019 (the last year available) were –

Coal and metallurgical coke – 1,078 million metric tonnes
Petroleum and other liquids – 2,383 million metric tonnes
Consumed natural gas – 1,684 million metric tonnes

YES, OF COURSE, coal has uses other than electricity generation – JUST LIKE PETROLEUM AND OTHER LIQUIDS are also used for, e.g., car/truck fuel AND NATURAL GAS is also used for, e.g., plastics and fertilizers.

------------------------------------------
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT TAKING THE TIME THIS TIME TO BREAK OUT U.S. ELECTRIC GENERATION FROM COAL (VS. OTHER FOSSIL FUELS) USING ONLY OBVIOUSLY-REPUTABLE SOURCES, BUT THE CIA WORLD FACTBOOK NO LONGER PROVIDES SUCH A BREAKDOWN AND ELECTRIC-VEHICLE USAGE OF ELECTRICITY HAS NEVER BEEN CLOSE TO THE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY-GENERATION PLANTS!!!

AND Q&A-6 BELOW POINTS OUT THAT ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM OTHER FOSSIL FUELS IS A PROBLEM ALSO!!! AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE “CERTIFIABLE” TO BELIEVE ELECTRIC-VEHICLE USAGE OF ELECTRICITY EXCEEDS 59.9% OF ALL ELECTRICITY GENERATED IN THE U.S. (which also provides light/heat/air conditioning/etc.)!!!
------------------------------------------

Question C-5

Does this mean that INTELLIGENT policy makers should BAN ELECTRIC VEHICLES until the last coal-fired electric-generation plant has been closed???

Answer C-5

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question C-6

Does this line of reasoning also mean that ELECTRIC VEHICLES SHOULD BE BANNED until oil & gas electric-generation plants have been closed???

Answer C-6

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question C-7

Are politicians reluctant to cause coal-fired and oil/gas-fired electric generation plants to be replaced by solar and wind because of the massive subsidies that are still required because wind/solar are still so UNECONOMC contrasted with the “benchmark” price of oil & gas???

Answer C-7

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question C-8

Is wind/solar's chasing the “benchmark” of oil & gas a losing proposition because so many oil & gas producers (e.g. Saudi Arabia) have such LOW PRODUCTION COSTS that they can simply reduce their prices to keep wind/solar uneconomic???

Answer C-8

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question C-9

Has hydro and nuclear always been cheaper than oil & gas???

Answer C-9

Absolutely!!!

Question C-10

Has hydro always been severely limited by the world’s extreme lack of dammable rivers???

Answer C-10

Absolutely!!!

Question C-11

Have oil & gas producers (e.g. Saudi Arabia) benefitted from the PUBLIC PREJUDICE against nuclear power???

Answer C-11

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question C-12

Is nuclear power actually safe???

Answer C-12

Nuclear power can be generated from uranium, plutonium or thorium.

Thorium is incapable of exploding – the world’s LARGEST THORIUM REACTOR IS THE EARTH ITSELF which is why molten lava billows from any rupture in the earth’s thin surface AND WHY THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IS 7,000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT WHICH IS HOTTER THAN THE SURFACE OF THE SUN!!!

Indeed, thorium’s inability to explode is the reason why – after the U.S. National Nuclear-Research Laboratory at Oak Ridge TN conducted a successful 18-month continuous demonstration project comprising a thorium-fueled nuclear reactor in the 1960’s – President Nixon caused 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.

Question C-13

Should the U.S. convert to electronic vehicles that obtain their electricity from a grid powered SOLELY BY THORIUM FISSION???

Answer C-13

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Though to help frame the discussion, IN ADDITION TO PRODUCING NO GREENHOUSE GASES, proven thorium/fission has the following advantages over conventional uranium/fission –

[These advantages are virtually identical to those listed by Dr. Victor Stenger in The Huffington Post – 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.]”


***************
Sec. D – Does China Export All 100% Of The Fentanyl It Makes?

Question D-1

Does our focus book “Volt Rush” document that most wind/solar equipment is manufactured in China and that China already owns many, if not most, of the mines worldwide for obtaining the minerals necessary for manufacturing electronic-vehicle batteries???

Answer D-1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question D-2

Does this foster the SUBCONSCIOUS BELIEF that if China is going “whole hog” vis-à-vis manufacturing electronic-vehicle batteries, then China itself must be planning to use electronic vehicles domestically???

Answer D-2

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question D-3

Or is manufacturing electronic-vehicles similar to China’s manufacturing fentanyl for the U.S. market – nothing more than providing the U.S. with the means to commit suicide???

Answer D-3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question D-4

In other words, didn’t the Paris Climate Accord (and its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol) exempt China from doing anything until the distant future??? As a result of which, China still brings on stream EVERY WEEK a new monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant???

Answer D-4

Yes and Yes.