Clean Energy IQ Test
When I sit down with my family at dinner each night and we talk about our experiences of the day, my kids often remark how seriously I take all this renewable energy stuff. “Dad, isn’t there anything you can smile about here?” they might ask.
I’ve come to realize that they’re largely right; in fact, I do need to lighten up and see this subject with a bit more whimsy. And to that end, here’s a fun little piece I wrote recently: The Clean Energy IQ Test. I invite you to take the test and see how well you do.
I also invite you to comment, to suggest new questions, to make any recommendations that you feel will make this a better experience for other people who may come across it in the future. As always, thanks.
The question about Michael Klare confused me because I know he wrote the book Blood and Oil but I was not aware he directed a movie – maybe that’s not the best way to ask that question, unless you are very concerned people know about the movie as well as the book.
The question about Fleishman and Pons says no one duplicated their experiments at the U of Utah. That’s true, I think. But I just looked at the question again and the U of Utah phrase is not necessarily referring to the duplicators but is just describing where Fleishman and Pons are from. You see the ambiguity in that question?
So I would have gotten a 100 % had the test appreciated my knowledge of Klare as book author, and not misled about where the follow up cold fusion tests occurred.
BUT! Great test, and very funny. You wanted suggestions about more questions:
Something about heat pumps (something you wear on your feet), something about cogeneration (it happens as a result of cohabitation), something about daylighting (it’s moonlighting from 9 am – 5 pm), and demand side management (what you do with your children to bring them up right).
I didn’t learn anything. I got all of the answers correct.
DARN, I missed one, I think I read to much into the “cold Fusion” question, and tripped myself. many of the choices were Hilarious, and I noticed myself “Chortling” and others staring at my cheerfulness while at the Daily Grind.
My E-Mail has recently changed as I opened a new web site {Oh I know this is published, but I am on “Facebook, and Linked-in, and others. ) visit my new site at http://WWW.E-V-T-I-Inc.com and E-mail me at : EVprofessor@E-V-T-I-Inc.com if you-all would like to talk about Electric Vehicles, [some consider me knowledgeable on that subject.] Dennis
Great questions Craig! I have one for you to add.
Over the last 100 years the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil. How long will will it take for the world to consume the last 1 trillion barrels?
A. 100 years
B. 80 years
C. 50 years
D. 30 years
E. 15 years
Answer is D, 30 years!
Thanks for the quiz Craig!
Excellent! Certainly makes you think. Maybe we need to knock this off…
Cold fusion is not accepted by the scientific community. The claims of excess heat being generated has not been reproducibly reproduced and only a few researchers are now seeking funding to continue the work.
The question and answer referring to EV pollution is somewhat shortsighted in that EV’s can be 3X-5X more efficient in energy use, but the electricity got to come from some where, if were on wind power or tides its best, or nuclear (sink the waste in the geological subduction zone off the coast of California, the most stable unstable place in the world), solar has the problem that it can take 2-5 years to generate the power it took to make them.(energy break even), or the hard to choose by default:
coal, but you only use 20-30% of the hydrocarbon to move around as before.
Craig, I like your format of education through test questions. What I would find interesting is to educate people on their need to start to conserve energy and how do we do that? I am still advocating that we the American people are addicted to cheap energy and are wasting it. The only way to break that addiction is what is called Hard Love. We need to tax people to cause them to look at other alternatives. Today status quo is cheaper than alternative energy and consequently people do not want it. If we tax status quo, we can break bad habits and make people look more favorably at alternative energy. Would there be as much negative talk about electric vehicles if gas were $5 per gallon and going up every year to reach $10 per gallon? Do you think the car makers would be charging $40,000 for an electric vehicle if people were lining up to buy EV’s? Competition would bring the prices down dramatically. Same with coal generated electricity. If the price of coal generated electricity doubled, either the utilities would put in more alternative energy produced electricity or people would start putting in their own wind generators or solar panels to save money. Lastly we need to educate people that whether the dollars spent by the Government for alternative energy (tax payer debt for the future) or direct tax on carbon based energy (tax payer debt today) the results are very different. The debt we are piling up is changing nothing! A direct tax on the consumer will change our bad wasteful habits. What are we waiting for? Another oil crisis like in the 70’s but 10x as bad? Do we really need to wait for a disaster to happen to do something when it is too late? This we need to educate the public on. But this lesson into another quiz!
I’d like to share my point of views here:
1. You need extend your question related with FOSSIL FUELS ADDICTION. You have only focused on Middle East countries but need more attention on other Asia countries who produce fossil fuels and conclude them also. And need more specific negative impact of using fossil fuels in the future.
2. The issue of tar sands-oil is still going to develop by many scientist and need more attention to figure this out, specially when we want to explore any benefit of using this sands-oil. We have to calculate about sustainability product of this kind of oil.
3. Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. As proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, a global depression is predicted, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market that might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization, potentially leading to large population declines within a short period.