# CNN Climate Change Quiz **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 8, 2019, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660 "2019-05-08T11:01:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/1 "2019-05-08T11:01:34Z")
This is pretty cool: \*\*The most effective ways to curb climate change might surprise you \*\*— [Quiz: Climate change solutions](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-change-solutions-quiz/index.html) I got 56% overall. Wish I did better! How’d you do? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/2 "2019-05-08T13:50:11Z")
A quiz that puts wind turbines ahead of nuclear energy is not a trustworthy quiz IMO. So I am more than slightly skeptical about the “right” answers to the other questions. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/3 "2019-05-08T15:00:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A quiz that puts wind turbines ahead of nuclear energy is not a trustworthy quiz IMO. So I am more than slightly skeptical about the “right” answers to the other questions. > > Regards, > Shodan Really? So nuclear energy is better than wind energy? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/4 "2019-05-08T15:18:45Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Really? So nuclear energy is better than wind energy? How do you define “better”? In many cases it’s not possible to meaningfully rank the vague options given, like wind power vs nuclear vs solar for electricity generation, because not enough specific information is provided: what magnitude of “investment” are they talking about, over what timeframe, etc. The answers they would like are based on a whole host of assumptions made in one particular report, which are not necessarily the “right” answers. For example there are real-life instances, like where I live, where nuclear is the dominant clean source of electricity (just under 60% of all power generation) and wind power is only a supplementary source (around 4%). ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/5 "2019-05-08T15:59:51Z")
That was the silliest ‘quiz’ I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/6 "2019-05-08T16:00:42Z")
Well it was **Shodan** that was saying that nuclear is better than wind, while the article is claiming the opposite. Maybe ‘better’ is not the best word. The different options are equated to the number of millions of cars taken off the road, so that is their definition of better. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/7 "2019-05-08T16:01:50Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > That was the silliest ‘quiz’ I’ve ever seen. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/8 "2019-05-08T16:15:03Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Really? So nuclear energy is better than wind energy? Yes. Wind turbines don’t work unless the wind is blowing about a certain level, so building a million new turbines doesn’t scale up the amount of energy produced proportionately. Nuclear energy works 24/7, everywhere it is built. The quiz is crap. Sorry. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/9 "2019-05-08T16:43:57Z")
The very first question is borked up. All the options were labeled as a thing “you can do”. Their answers said these were the top two choices: 1: Throw away less food. 2: Eat a plant-heavy diet. But their explanation is: \*"According to Project Drawdown, if all of the world’s cattle formed their own nation, they would be the planet’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, so eating less meat — especially beef — is good for the planet. But throwing away less of what we eat is an even more impactful way to reduce carbon emissions. A third of all food that we raise or grow never makes it onto our plates, and that waste accounts for around 8% of global emissions, according to Drawdown’s analysis. But, since there is food wasted all along the supply chain, eating less meat is probably the most effective way individuals can fight climate change."\* So in the last sentence that admit that eating a plant heavy diet is _the most effective thing you (as an individual) can do_. That was the option I chose you idiots! I didn’t look at it past the first question. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/10 "2019-05-08T16:43:59Z")
I took it a while back and I found the concept interesting, but the questions lack specificity on what they mean by “better” in each instance and the scoring method is ridiculous. So I didn’t share it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/11 "2019-05-08T19:39:46Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Well it was **Shodan** that was saying that nuclear is better than wind, while the article is claiming the opposite. Maybe ‘better’ is not the best word. The different options are equated to the number of millions of cars taken off the road, so that is their definition of better. Right, but that “number of millions of cars” equivalence is based on a large set of assumptions, and those assumptions (from that one report they cite) aren’t revealed until after you answer. Hence comparisons like wind vs. nuclear are just not possible to rank until you know what the assumptions are, like timeframes and monetary investment levels, as I said before. A good example of the meaninglessness of the comparisons without further qualification and quantification is the one about “how we move people and goods”. The electric car is supposed to be #1, which is reasonable and probably generally true, but it depends on a lot of factors: are you accounting for the carbon footprint of the total lifecycle? What about the electricity source? Is it still the best choice if most of the electricity is from coal-fired plants? And their choice for the #2 position is downright ridiculous in its vagueness: “Ship goods more efficiently”, without telling you _ **how much more** _ efficiently! Yet somehow you’re supposed to know that shipping goods “more efficiently” is exactly equivalent to taking 55.2 million cars off the road! It’s ridiculous. It’s like a scientific illiterate looked at the report and threw together a “quiz” without actually explaining (or understanding) anything. Which is probably close to just what happened. > [@Shodan](#): > > Yes. Wind turbines don’t work unless the wind is blowing about a certain level, so building a million new turbines doesn’t scale up the amount of energy produced proportionately. Nuclear energy works 24/7, everywhere it is built. > > The quiz is crap. Sorry. The quiz has some serious issues but what you’re complaining about isn’t one of them. The standard solution to the variability of wind power is to have wind farms broadly distributed geographically, and to have auxiliary power sources such as natural gas fired peak generating plants. These are classically needed for nuclear power sources, too, because nuclear is not responsive to rapid increases in demand. > [@naita](#): > > I took it a while back and I found the concept interesting, but the questions lack specificity on what they mean by “better” in each instance and the scoring method is ridiculous. So I didn’t share it. That’s what I felt, as I noted previously. To say that the questions “lack specificity” is putting it mildly! ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/12 "2019-05-09T04:04:58Z")
The quiz is far from perfect, it does have flaws, but it gives some ideas on what we can do to help mother earth, with a rough estimate on their benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/13 "2019-05-09T13:36:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The quiz has some serious issues but what you’re complaining about isn’t one of them. The standard solution to the variability of wind power is to have wind farms broadly distributed geographically, and to have auxiliary power sources such as natural gas fired peak generating plants. These are classically needed for nuclear power sources, too, because nuclear is not responsive to rapid increases in demand. You can’t economically build a wind farm in places where the prevailing winds, on average, don’t blow above a certain level. And wind is no more responsive to rapid increase in demand than nuclear. Less so, in fact, because natural gas is necessary for average demand (where a wind farm is practical) and nuclear only needs it when demand increases rapidly. Natural gas is a source of GHG. So, if you need a new power plant in a given location - [ul][li]Does the location have high enough average wind speeds to run a wind turbine economically? If no, then your choice is [list][_]some source like natural gas or coal or oil, which emit GHG, or [_]nuclear, which doesn’t.[/ul][/li][li]If yes, then your choice is either [ul][_]wind plus natural gas, which emits GHG and doesn’t respond to rapid increases in demand, or [_]nuclear, which doesn’t.[/ul][/list][/li][quote=Bullitt] The quiz is far from perfect, it does have flaws, but it gives some ideas on what we can do to help mother earth, with a rough estimate on their benefits. [/quote] Their ideas are based on wrong assumptions and therefore the estimates of the benefits are meaningless. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/14 "2019-05-10T01:07:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You can’t economically build a wind farm in places where the prevailing winds, on average, don’t blow above a certain level. We only have to look at this first sentence, because the rest of your post is basically a rant premised on this. Do you feel that you’re giving us a valuable insight here? Like the rest of your post, this doesn’t tell us anything that isn’t trivially obvious. Guess where wind farms tend to get built? Where the conditions are most appropriate. Guess where wind farms tend NOT to get built? Where the conditions are NOT appropriate. But the thing is, conditions are favorable in most places. It’s been estimated that there is sufficient wind power to supply the world’s total electricity needs _ **40 times over** _. And the wind is always blowing somewhere. There is of course a practical limit to how far electricity can be transmitted, but we already engage in long-distance electricity exchanges across North America and elsewhere. The key to the problem of wind intermittency is partly to have a sufficiently widespread geographical area in the electricity grid so that it doesn’t matter as much. One can also benefit from schemes for electricity storage for which there are many technologies, from peak power plants, and of course from other sources of electricity. Denmark manages to generate more than 40% of its electricity from wind power, so it’s clearly viable. Perhaps Danes can’t watch TV or do their laundry half the time because there is no wind, as Trump claims, but I kinda doubt it. 😃 I’m all for nuclear power. I keep mentioning that nearly 60% of the power generation in Ontario is nuclear, and it’s one of the reasons that we were able to phase out all coal-fired plants years ago. But nuclear has its issues. Aside from the obvious ones like nuclear waste disposal, one of the biggest ones is cost. The cost issue is not helped by the fact that even here, where nuclear plants are efficient and well-run, some reactors have had to be decommisioned for various technical reasons, and this adds enormously to the overhead cost. And nuclear plants have long lead times and huge start-up costs, and have to have huge capacity in order to be efficient. Whereas with wind, you can have your own turbine in your backyard if you want, just like solar on your roof. So the real solution to clean electric power generation is a blend of multiple technologies, not a prejudicial rejection of one or another for stupid reasons. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/15 "2019-05-10T01:27:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You can’t economically build a wind farm in places where the prevailing winds, on average, don’t blow above a certain level. > > And wind is no more responsive to rapid increase in demand than nuclear. Less so, in fact, because natural gas is necessary for average demand (where a wind farm is practical) and nuclear only needs it when demand increases rapidly. Natural gas is a source of GHG. > > So, if you need a new power plant in a given location - > [ul][li]Does the location have high enough average wind speeds to run a wind turbine economically? If no, then your choice is [list][_]some source like natural gas or coal or oil, which emit GHG, or [_]nuclear, which doesn’t.[/ul][/li][li]If yes, then your choice is either [ul][_]wind plus natural gas, which emits GHG and doesn’t respond to rapid increases in demand, or [_]nuclear, which doesn’t.[/ul][/list][/li] As usual, there are a lot of assumptions based on the technology of a few years back. There is a lot of progress in the wind (and battery) front that is ignored so as to conclude that wind power is not worth it. [https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/windpower/windpower-learning-centre/how-windy-does-it-have-to-be/](https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/windpower/windpower-learning-centre/how-windy-does-it-have-to-be/) > [@](#): > > In summary, any site that has an annual average wind speed of 7 m/s or more would be considered excellent for farm wind turbines, and in fact many sites with as little as 5.5 m/s can still be viable when using some of the ‘oversized rotor’ wind turbines now available. If you have less than 5 m/s it almost certainly wouldn’t be economically viable to install a farm wind turbine. And based on the 5.5 m/s, there is plenty of space for development in the USA [http://hint.fm/wind/](http://hint.fm/wind/) > [@Shodan](#): > > Their ideas are based on wrong assumptions and therefore the estimates of the benefits are meaningless. > > Regards, > Shodan Well, more points to disregard. 🙂 As **wolfpup** noticed, and there are more reports that show that nuclear power has **now** an uphill battle to compete with renewables now. > **[Falling Costs Make Wind, Solar More Affordable](https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/04/26/falling-costs-make-wind-solar-more-affordable)** > [@](#): > > Harnessing wind and solar energy for low-carbon electric power generation was once considered uneconomical. Now, rapidly falling costs for these technologies are boosting global renewable energy capacity. Renewable energy sources can help reduce carbon emissions substantially and the effects of global warming. > > As the Chart of the Week from the April World Economic Outlook shows, solar and onshore wind turbines saw the biggest price declines among low-carbon energy sources between 2009 and 2017. Prices dropped 76 percent for solar panels and 34 percent for turbines during that time, making them competitive alternatives to fossil fuels and more traditional low-carbon energy sources such as hydropower and nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/16 "2019-05-10T12:45:44Z")
As usual, this is wrong. > [@](#): > > Wind is unpredictable and the availability of wind energy is not constant. Wind energy is therefore not well suited as a base load energy source. If we had cost-effective ways of storing wind energy the situation would be different. > > We can hope for breakthroughs in energy storage technologies in the future, but right now, wind turbines have to be used in tandem with other energy sources to meet our energy demand with consistency… > > The cost-competitiveness of wind power is highly debatable. Both utility-scale wind farms and small residential wind turbines typically rely heavily on financial incentives. [Cite](https://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/). Unfortunately, much of the debate around AGW is like the CNN quiz - faith-based rather than science-based. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/17 "2019-05-10T14:33:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As usual, this is wrong. > [Cite](https://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/). Your cite is a website looking to sell solar panels. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, much of the debate around AGW is like the CNN quiz - faith-based rather than science-based. This is true. Certainly the entire AGW-denier side of the debate is largely based on faith. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/18 "2019-05-10T18:20:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As usual, this is wrong. > [Cite](https://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/). > > Unfortunately, much of the debate around AGW is like the CNN quiz - faith-based rather than science-based. > > Regards, > Shodan And as usual, disregarding, because it is a cite from 2012.\* (the articles cited and commentaries show that) even there one cite actually does report that: [“Research demonstrates that wind power could generate all the world’s electricity needs without large atmospheric effects”](https://www.insidescience.org/news/studies-show-wind-powers-massive-potential). What did I told you about ignoring progress? Your cite even noticed that “If we had cost-effective ways of storing wind energy the situation would be different.” **And this is 2019** : > **[Batteries are key to clean energy — and they just got much cheaper](https://grist.org/article/batteries-are-key-to-clean-energy-and-they-just-got-much-cheaper/)** > > Battery technology is ahead of schedule, opening the door for storing renewable energies. Soon, renewables might rival gas and oil in affordabilty. > [@](#): > > Batteries are critical for our clean energy future. Luckily, their cost has dropped so low, we might be much closer to this future than we previously thought. > > In a little less than a year, the cost of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 35 percent, according to a new Bloomberg New Energy Finance report. Cheaper batteries mean we can store more solar and wind power even when the sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing. This is a major boost to renewables, helping them compete with fossil fuel-generated power, even without subsidies in some places, according to the report. Massive solar-plus-storage projects are already being built in places like Florida and California to replace natural gas, and many more are on the way. > > The new battery prices are “staggering improvements,” according to Elena Giannakopoulou, who leads the energy economics group at Bloomberg NEF. Previous estimates anticipated this breakthrough moment for batteries to arrive in late 2020, not early 2019. - As mentioned for the 1000th time: why is that many conservatives have a blind spot for timelines and the march of time? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/19 "2019-05-10T19:24:37Z")
12.5%. I suck. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660/20 "2019-05-10T20:02:38Z")
Regarding the quiz, I usually did get the first 2 of each quiz right, but messed the placement of the last 2 usually. So I got: “score: 56.3% Not bad — you’re a potential planet protector” So I will agree with the ones that do point out that while this quiz does point at the main items, some comparisons are strange or the differences for several of the items are so similar that it is silly to ding respondents for having one item put over the other. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-climate-change-quiz/833660.md?page=2)