Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.

Question 1

During our many meetings on thorium fission over the last 10.5 years, have we always asked for a show of hands by anyone who favors invading China militarily to force it to stop bringing on line a new monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant every week or so?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Are the world’s greatest (by far) carbon polluters China and India, and are they NOT required to do anything to limit their carbon emissions by the Paris Climate Accord of 2016 until the distant future? Did this exemption mirror a similar provision in the Accord’s predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997?

Answer 2

Yes and Yes.

Question 3

During our many meetings on thorium fission over the last decade, has anyone raised her/his hand in favor of invading China militarily to force it to stop bringing on line a new monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant every week or so?

Answer 3

Of course not!!!

Question 4

Is the climate-change conundrum that (1) wind and solar are much more expensive than fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) and require massive subsidies, (2) hydroelectric power is severely limited by the world’s relative (to need) paucity of dammable rivers, and (3) nuclear power has, since WW-II, been the target of scare campaigns?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Is conventional uranium fission cheaper than fossil fuels?

Answer 5

Let’s treat this answer as “under construction” or “subject to research” for current information.

HOWEVER, the obvious answer is A RESOUNDING “YES” for anyone who spent 13 years 1974-1987 as Senior Tax Counsel for Texaco Inc. which at that time was, inter alia, one of the 4 shareholders in Aramco which still owned every drop of oil & gas in Saudi Arabia, on-shore and off!!!

The reason why “yes” is obvious???

Every large oil company during that era, and every large oil producer ever since (e.g., Saudi Arabia), keeps an eye on the price of oil & gas alternatives.

Wind, solar, geothermal, etc., were never a threat because of their high cost.

[Indeed, as our Thorium-Fission Working Group reported (viewtopic.php?f=619&t=2230&sid=2bdf8249 ... 216130a8a4), America’s so-called Inflation-Reduction Act of 2022 actually fuels inflation by using the standard-though-fraudulent Washington DC game of taking into account 10 years of revenue gains while providing the “give aways” will only last 3 years secure in the knowledge that a future Congress will prevent the “give aways” from expiring – and, as usual, the major “give aways” were astronomical additional subsidies for NON-NUCLEAR green-energy fuels, PRIMARILY WIND & SOLAR.]

OPEC countries with long-lived reserves (primarily Saudi) would always keep an eagle eye on the price of alternative energy – secure in the knowledge that their own typically-infinitesimal production costs for oil & gas (often no more than a few cents on the dollar of value) would enable them to continue to make alternative fuels uneconomic.

The only energy source OPEC countries had to worry about was conventional uranium-fission because it has always been so incredibly cheap. But arm-in-arm with Hollywood, the oil producers were able to keep conventional uranium-fission in check with a simple “scare campaign” in which the mainstream media was delighted to serve as a pawn.

But let’s see whether we can dredge up some statistics on the magnitude of oil & gas production from high-cost areas (e.g., the North Sea) that would fall victim to cheap small-module nuclear reactors, even those powered by scarce uranium rather than plentiful-and-safe thorium – before the shrunken oil & gas market share is stabilized by the low-cost (only a few cents on the dollar) producers.

Question 6

Is thorium fission cheaper than fossil fuels?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Did the Huffington Post on 1/9/2012 publish an article by world-renowned particle-physicist Prof. Victor Stenger which catalogued the reasons why thorium fission would be cheaper than fossil fuels in general, and coal (the cheapest) in particular?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

Was one of Prof. Victor Stenger’s many reasons why thorium fission would be cheaper than fossil fuels that LFTR’s (small-module Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors) can be mass-produced in factories and assembled near electrical demand so that the huge energy losses during electricity transmission are virtually eliminated?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

Did “A Bright Future” even inkle that wind and solar are much more expensive than fossil fuels and that thorium fission is much cheaper?

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 10

Indeed, during the brief discussion of thorium fission in “A Bright Future” (pp. 163-165), does it virtually ignore cost except for the cryptic comment that one thorium-fission developer “plans to produce CO2-free electricity for 3-5 cents/kWh”?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Whether this quotation comprises the words of the thorium-fission developer or the words of our authors, is it inexcusably opaque because it fails to specify whether the “3-5 cents/kWh” is an electric-generation-site cost rather than use-site cost?

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

In failing to specify whether the “3-5 cents/kWh” is an electric-generation-site cost rather than use-site cost, does the “3-5 cents/kWh” also fail to “carpe the diem” by explaining that, per Prof. Victor Stenger in Question 8 above, the “3-5 cents/kWh" can be BOTH THE ELECTRIC-GENERATION-SITE COST AND THE USE-SITE COST because “LFTR’s (small-module Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors) can be mass-produced in factories and assembled near electrical demand so that the huge energy losses during electricity transmission are virtually eliminated”?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

BTW, regardless of whether the quotation “plans to produce CO2-free electricity for 3-5 cents/kWh” comprises the words of the thorium-fission developer or the words of our authors, were our authors careless in including the term “CO2-free” since much, if not most, carbon EMISSIONS are carbon-MONOXIDE, versus carbon-dioxide – leaving the reader of “A Bright Future” to wonder whether thorium-fission will generate massive CO, though not CO2?

Answer 13

Yes, many readers will be left to wonder.

After all, it is common knowledge that a relatively-painless suicide method (versus, e.g., shooting yourself) is to close your garage door and start your car’s engine because gasoline engines produce CARBON-MONOXIDE.

BTW, as we have studied vis-à-vis suicide, the completely-painless (vs. relatively-painless) way to commit suicide is with helium, which can be purchased at any party store for filling balloons.

Carbon-monoxide is only RELATIVELY painless because as the level of carbon-monoxide rises, the human body senses the oxygen deficiency and there is a terrifying sense of suffocating.

Helium is COMPLETELY painless because the human body cannot distinguish between helium and oxygen. Accordingly, there is no sense of oxygen deprivation or any other discomfort. Five or six breaths of helium produces unconsciousness and 8-10 minutes later the person’s heart stops.

Please forgive this digression, but “A Bright Future’ demonstrates throughout its pages an omni-present reference to CO2 as if carbon dioxide is the only significant type of carbon EMISSION. And an esoteric explanation of how CO is converted over time to CO2 in nature – WHICH “A BRIGHT FUTURE” DID NOT PROVIDE – would have been no excuse for ignoring carbon monoxide EMISSIONS.

And please forgive a second-level digression –

(A) It is frustratingly-difficult to ascertain the percentage of annual worldwide carbon EMISSIONS comprising (1) carbon-MONOXIDE emissions versus (2) methane (CH4) more from, incidentally, cow belching than cow flatulence versus (3) CO2 from animal (including human) oxidation of sugar from which they derive their energy (6C6H12O6 + 6O2 > 6CO2 + 6H2O). HOWEVER, www.sciencedirect.com estimates annual worldwide carbon-MONOXIDE emissions at 2.6 TRillion tonnes “of which about 60% are from human activities including combustion of fossil fuels and oxidation of hydrocarbons including methane” (NB: so-called natural gas is primarily methane).

(B) Carbon-MONOXIDE emissions are caused by incomplete-combustion of carbon fuels BUT, as mentioned above, carbon-MONOXIDE is converted in nature over time to carbon-dioxide (i.e., 2CO + O2 > 2CO2) – which BTW is why carbon-MONOXIDE remains only a trace gas in the world’s atmosphere. Nevertheless, our authors exhibited an unpardonable lack of clarity regarding the form of carbon EMISSIONS versus the ultimate form of those EMISSIONS, once the carbon-MONOXIDE has been converted by nature to CO2.

Question 14

But back on the second part of Q-9 whether “A Bright Future” even inkled that thorium fission is much cheaper than fossil fuels, does “A Bright Future” have an entire chapter (pp. 191-206) on “Pricing Carbon Pollution” which strongly suggests that massive subsidies in the form of a “carbon tax” are necessary to subsidize nuclear energy – just like wind and solar require massive subsidies?

Answer 14

Unfortunately!!!

Question 15

And indeed, did the Harvard Gazette article about the preview at Harvard of Oliver Stone’s “Nuclear Now” followed by a panel discussion that included MIT Assistant Provost Richard Lester and the Director of Harvard’s Center for the Environment, Daniel Schrag, focus on the ALLEGED BUT FALSE “fact” that nuclear energy is more expensive than fossil fuels?

Answer 15

Yes.

Question 16

According to the Harvard Gazette article, did Oliver Stone and his “Nuclear Now” co-author, Joshua Goldstein (who also co-authored “A Bright Future”) – both of whom served on the Harvard panel with Professors Lester and Schrag – have any answer to the ALLEGED BUT FALSE “fact” that nuclear energy is more expensive than fossil fuels?

Answer 16

The Harvard Gazette did not report any answer!!!

Question 17

Weren’t engineers such as MIT PhD Joshua Goldstein and MIT Prof. Richard Lester taught in Engineering 101 that cost is the bed-rock basis on which EVERY engineering project is evaluated???

Answer 17

It would appear that MIT fails to teach in Engineering 101 that cost is the bed-rock basis on which EVERY engineering project is evaluated!!!

Question 18

So what excuse do either of them have for wallowing so badly in their apparent ignorance of the cost of nuclear energy???

Answer 18

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 19

Could it be that “A Bright Future” is “A Cruel Hoax To Falsely Disqualify Nuclear Energy For Cost Reasons”???

Answer 19

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!