Quiz: Test Your Energy IQ

By Carl Engelking | May 28, 2015 6:08 pm

question bulb

Your Score:  

Your Ranking:  

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment, top posts
  • OWilson

    Hate to be picky, but we don’t burn “fossils”.

    Our low info kids maybe reading this stuff.

    • Mike Richardson

      Quite so regarding the burning of fossils. I’d hate to see the Natural History Museum’s collection emptied out for energy production. Also, I’m a little confused on what size wind turbine we were supposed to envision in the question about how many homes they’d power. On a separate note, does Limbaugh demand royalty payments for each use of the term “low info ___,” or does he pay for folks to use the term? I wouldn’t mind a little extra dough for repetitive use of a dumb term, but I’d hate to enrich that black hole of intellect any more than his listeners already have. Keep fighting for the fossils, and have a great one!

      • duelles

        Ha! You know the low info term, so you listen to Limbaugh, but that would put you in the black hole of intellect, but then you read Discover. . . At least online, which might give you a broader sense of the universe, which may also be true for All Limbaugh listeners. Hmmm?

        • Mike Richardson

          Nope, picked it up on an internet search, after the previous poster used it for the umpteenth time. I figured it must be some sort of meme, and wouldn’t you know it, turns out it’s one of the Bloated One’s favorite terms from the search responses I got. I generally avoid all political commentators, particularly on the radio. As on the internet, the stridency of their opinions is usually inversely proportional to their command of facts.

      • Don’t Even Try It!

        I coined the word “lo-fo voters” a few years ago. I’ve actually seen it used in some conservative blog posts.

    • OWilson

      Looks like they fixed it.

      To the usual suspects who knee jerk and dissemble ad nauseum about internet searches and radio personalities, my comments were nothing more than irony! (first question in an I.Q test incorrectly put)

      It usually goes over the heads of low info voters :)

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    Producing energy reliably is key to maintaining a high standard of living” Necessary but not sufficient. Required is a large ratio of energy produced versus energy spent to produce, or it is a Red Queen race. Traditional oil and gas, and coal, and nuclear amortize around 15:1. Fracking is ~5:1. Fuel ethanol is no more than 0.9:1.

    Enviro-whiners excrete a protective layer of disingenuous authority to deflect dissonant facts and beliefs damaging to said Enviro-whiners’ tender underbelly of pure ignorance (e.g., faith, then self-righteous pique).

    • leanoracordova

      Do you use a Pay^pal address .in case you do you can get an additional 350 dollars week after week to your bank by working Online from comfort of your home two h every week… —>

    • Electric Bill

      You’re a disgusting, arrogant, dangerous twit. I read recently how they discovered how jackasses such as yourself deliberately choose non-environmentally benign technologies and resources out of a juvenile need for revenge against “tree huggers”, and anyone making an effort to keep the planet from imploding in one respect or another.

      I suspect you’re one of those that deliberately drive de-tuned diesels and archaic road machines, for the delight of seeing just how much black soot and crud you can pump from your uncatalyzed exhaust… the hell with those kids in Children’s Hospital on oxygen tanks and inhalers– if you wanna create havoc of any flavor, no one is gonna stop you… what an immature, spoiled brat your mama has raised.

      The higher the ozone levels on the nightly weather report, the more ecstatic you become. I have run into such Neanderthals as yourself at RV centers and truck stops… you dingbats amaze me with your total lack of concern for anyone: you saw off the very branch on which you sit.

      Hopefully one day you’ll wake up, grow up, and develop some responsibility.

  • Bruce Fouraker

    Is the statement in the article on Germany that solar PV units can be produced at $1500 per KW capacity really accurate? Does it take capacity into account. Here in sunny Florida, our utility’s PV vendor has 15 MW capacity but produces energy only 28% of the time. If you want to produce 1000 MW’s of power, you need over 3500 MW capacity with ability to store 2500 MW of what you are producing or you need to use fossil fuels or nuclear for the other 72% of capacity. The cost becomes $5250 per KW for just capacity before adding storage at $185 per KWh.

    With nuclear using a $7 billion 1100 MW plant cost of about $6300 per KW of capacity and still to reach 100% the added nuclear plants make the cost less than $7000 with no storage. After adding additional capacity and storage costs to solar, nuclear is still competitive. The cost for running, fueling, decommissioning and waste disposal still does bring nuclear to a disadvantage to solar.

    Germany, is reaching the point that its energy and thus its manufacturing will not be competitive.

  • Bruce Fouraker

    George, this (the LFTR) is the safest, most environmentally friendly and least expensive energy option that we have including all renewables.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.

See More

Collapse bottom bar