A hectowatt or a kilowatt?

I'm not an expert on radiative physics, but I've had a bit of physics here and there. There's a long-running debate on whether or not so-called "downward longwave radiation," that is, infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface after absorbing the Sun's shortwave (centered in the visible light band) radiation and subsequently absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases can cause the Earth to be at a higher temperature than it would otherwise be. In fact, there's even debate as to whether it exists, this despite the fact that it's been accurately and repeatedly measured. That's the 324 W/m^2 (watts per meter squared) in the graphic above. And Science of Doom has a thorough explanation extending over several posts.


I thought I'd see how it works for my body (as usual, making a bunch of assumptions and estimates).  I have figured that my rest metabolic daily calorie requirement is 1900 kilocalories. 1900 kilocalories in 24 hours is 92.0 watts. This is very straightforward. Since I'm in thermal equilibrium (for practical purposes), this heat mut be dissipated.


On the other hand, I also used a thermometer to measure my skin temperature to be 93.3 degrees F or 307.2K (Kelvins). I looked here to get a figure of 0.97 for the emissivity (the ratio of the energy radiated by a material to that emitted by a "black body" at the same temperature) of human skin. Finally, I went here to get an estimate of 2.00 m^2 for my body's surface area. This gives me sufficient information to determine the power I'm radiating using the Stefan Boltzmann Law (erroneously ignoring evaporation, conduction and convection):

 

Here, P is power in watts, sigma is Boltzmann's constant, 5.67*10^(-8) watts/K^4, A is surface area in m^2, and e is emissivity. Plugging in the numbers, I get P=980 watts. This is certainly a considerably higher number than 92 watts, the rate at which my resting body is converting food energy to thermal energy, what gives?

Let's look at this the other way: supposing that all heat dissipation in my body is by radiation, what temperature would my skin need to be at for me to radiate at 92 watts? Rearranging the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

This gives me T=170K or -154 degrees Fahrenheit. Wow, quite chilly. Have I discovered a flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law? Should the Nobel committee be called? Probably not. What is happening is that both my internal thermal energy and the radiative energy I'm absorbing from my surroundings are contributing to my outgoing radiation.

But the walls, the monitor, etc. are BELOW the temperature of my skin, at about 70 degrees F. Do these incoming (980-92) 888 watts warm me? Let's think about how we might get a grip on this question. First, a thought experiment: suppose that, somehow, the environment suddenly stopped supplying radiative energy to me (never mind how this could happen). What then?

I could continue to radiate at 980 watts, but that energy would need to come from somewhere. Assuming I didn't want to burn my flesh, food would supply it. My caloric intake would need to increase by a factor of greater than 10 (980/92) to keep the fires stoked. Failing this, I'd begin to chill to the 170K above (never mind that I'd soon perish), while my internal regulating processes attempted to maintain a normal temperature by burning whatever was available. I think it's safe to say that the radiation from my surroundings, which are at a measurably lower temperature than my skin, keep me warmer than I'd otherwise be. Now, substitute the Sun for my metabolism, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for my surroundings, and the Earth's surface for my skin and the analogy is complete.

A specialty within a specialty

Just when you think you've seen it all.

A wealth of data and analytics

While I certainly don't minimize the human, economic, and ecological consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, I must tip my hat to British Petroleum for the depth and availability of the data they gather with respect to energy use.

Likely I should have found it before, but I've just stumbled upon US Energy in Context: Data & Analysis of US Energy Supply, Production & Consumption, a freely available 360 page pdf compendium whose richness of information I've only barely begun to evaluate.

The document was published in October, 2008 so the data is a couple of years old and, of course, the Deepwater Horizon disaster is not included.

But if you're interested in any aspect of energy production, delivery, or consumption (keeping in mind that energy is never produced or consumed, but y'all know what I and they mean) this is a "must download." It even includes a lengthy chapter on the technology of oil and gas extraction, concentrating at length on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Ironically enough, it includes much data on oil spills.

Another must for the energy analyst is bp's Statistical Review of World Energy 2010. Here, you'll find links to a comprehensive library of pdfs, Excel spreadsheets, and a java "Energy charting tool" that I've only just started to play with.

If energy is your passion, these are invaluable sources. I hope that the loss of stock value and public credibility doesn't have the same effect on BP as the U.S. budget cuts had on the Energy Information Agency.

Die Hard 2

This is, by no means, a movie review blog but I just can't resist here. I've wasted a few minutes watching part of "Die Hard 2." The extent to which the way the airplanes, the air traffic control system, the communication systems, etc. work is confused and distorted is unparalleled. It's said that a film maker can ask the audience to suspend disbelief for one major item. After that, the minor items have to be right. This movie doesn't merely break this rule, it obliterates it. Nearly every aspect of the way the systems mentioned above work is rendered incorrectly.


A great example is when Sam Coleman, a reporter who's standing at the airport, ostensibly with a gaggle of airplanes who are in a low fuel emergency circling the vortac in a holding pattern because terrorists have disabled the instrument landing system and taken over the communications system, says "I can see airplanes circling above me." Really? Do you suppose that, perhaps, the pilots can see the airport?


When Colonel Stuart wants to punish the Airport Manager, he adjusts the instrument landing system by turning a dial and using a light pen and "lowers sea level to minus 200 feet" so an airliner, whose tanks are "as dry as a martini" and which is "running on fumes" will fly into the concrete. Never mind that the ILS system does not work this way (altitude information is gotten from the - ready now - altimeter) and the descent rate of an airliner at 200 feet, what does this airplane, whose fuel tanks are supposedly as dry as a popcorn fart, do when it crashes into the runway? It erupts into a massive oily orange and black fireball, that's what it does.


I won't bother to wonder why the aircraft don't talk to approach control or ARTCC and, oh, go to an alternate airport. And, while we're at it, the Mythbusters in Episode 88 demolished the idea of lighting a trail of leaking kerosene (jet fuel) and having it catch up to an airliner to blow it up as happens in the climactic scene in Die Hard 2. Then there are the little things. The news helicopter pilot won't set down in front of the terrorists' 747 because he won't "play chicken with a 20 ton plane." Hello? An EMPTY 747 weighs well over 200 tons. OK,OK, it was pointed out to me that he says "200 ton plane." Repeated listening using the digital video recorder has confirmed this. My apologies.


But: below is a screenshot from Die Hard 2 where General Esperanza and Colonel Stuart are in their "getaway plane," a Boeing 747 of late 1980's (pre glass cockpit) era. Above it is a photo of an actual 747 cockpit of that vintage. Are you kidding me?

The one-time suspension of disbelief is used on McLane's circumstances. There are probably dozens of small errors, seemingly no five minute period could elapse without one. Just like newspapers, every time, without exception, some subject is covered in which I have either specialist or personal knowledge, there are factual errors.

Thinking of another new vehicle

The Land Rover LR3 HSE that has been my vehicle since November of 2006 now has about 95,000 miles on the odometer. I've stabilized at around 21 m.p.g. in the truck, which isn't so bad for a vehicle rated at 13 city and 17 highway. But it's getting a bit tired and fuel prices are on their way back up with, in my opinion, not excellent chances of dramatic decreases.

So, with the encouragement of our CFO (surprisingly), I'm thinking of a new vehicle. Unlike the last replacement which resulted in the LR3, fuel economy will be a primary consideration. I've fairly well narrowed the list down to two vehicles: the Ford Fusion Hybrid and the Chevy Volt. Each will achieve dramatically better fuel economy than the LR3 but they are quite different vehicles.

The sticker price of the Volt is around $40,280 with an available $7,500 tax credit for a net price of $32,780. With a couple of options (not many are available) the figures come to $42,395 and $34,895 respectively. The Fusion Hybrid, specced out as I would purchase it, comes to $33,260. Shockingly, this is about $8,585 above the non-hybrid Fusion.

With respect to fuel costs, my estimate is that the Fusion would use about 42 gallons per month compared to approximately 91 for the LR3. This is assuming that I'd get 46 m.p.g., based on information gleaned from a blog devoted to hypermiling the Ford Fusion Hybrid (seriously!). Thus, I'd spend about $170/month on regular vs. $392/month on the premium fuel demanded by the LR3 (all estimates in this post are based on regular gasoline at $4.09/gallon and premium at $4.39/gallon).

It's more than possible that I would not use any gasoline on some months with the Volt - if I leave home with a full charge and recharge at the office (actually close by at our laboratory since that has accessible outlets) I might only burn gasoline when going to meetings from the office. But speculation has to enter here and, using an estimate of trips that would require gasoline and this article about the mileage in "extended range" mode (i.e., using the internal combustion engine to charge the battery) I estimate that I'd use about 12 gallons per month, costing about $47.50.

But I'd also be using electricity. Using information from the same page, I'll estimate that I'd get 32 miles out of the 10.4 kilowatt hours usable in the battery pack. And subtracting the gasoline miles above from the annual total, I estimate that 17,700 miles per year would be on electricity purchased from the electric utility. Finally, I'm speculating that the average cost/kilowatt hour will be $0.12 for an annual and monthly electricity cost of about $690 and $58 respectively, or a total cost to provide motive power of a bit over $105.50/month. Note that this is $286.50 less than the LR3 and $64.50 less than the Fusion Hybrid.

I'm not completely sure why the U.S. government is in the business of subsidizing my Volt purchase but, without it there'd be no way I'd consider a four seat commuter car for over $42,000. With it, this looks like a viable purchase. For most, it likely would not be. The things that make it compelling are that it would replace a gas hog, and that I drive 23,000 miles/year.

There are a couple of non-financial considerations that push me toward the Fusion Hybrid. The first is that the Sync system looks pretty cool. The second is that Ford did not need to declare bankruptcy and undergo a takeover by the U.S. government. They survived the economic storm on their own and are doing well. Philosophically, I'd like to reward that. The economics may rule that out. The decision is not final, however. In a subsequent post, I'll determine the net present value of each vehicle given what we'd spend, what we'd get for the LR3, the fuel savings, and a discount rate base on our company's actual cost of funds.

YouTube - MrKenringweatherman's Channel

YouTube - MrKenringweatherman's Channel

This esteemed gentleman, who apparently has quite a following in New Zealand, claims (among many other hilarious contentions) that the fact that your hand doesn't get warm when you hold a can of Coca Cola implies that carbon dioxide can't be connected to global warming.


It's slightly comforting to know that the U.S. isn't the only nation infected with pseudoscientific crackpottery.

We're saved!

I was in Washington DC for the arpa-e Energy Innovation Summit February 28 through March 2. Never having been in our Nation's Capital before, I went a day early so that I could at least get a tourist blow by of some of the landmarks. I can say that much was deeply moving and it was a bit surreal to see these iconic buildings and memorials.

I was on my way to the Pentagon Memorial (for those who died in the 9-11 terrorist attack in both the Pentagon and on American Airlines Flight 77) and about to enter a tunnel through which we walked to get to the Memorial when I saw what I instantly knew will surely be the savior of us all, at least from an energy standpoint.

"There's the answer to all of our problems" I said to myself, "a solar powered compactor for a city trash receptacle." And here I was thinking that the government funded arpa-e program was necessary! But am I being unfair with my cynicism? I noted that the manufacturer was BigBelly Solar and visited their web site where I found that, indeed, theirs is a significant product. It may not save the world, but it represents the sort of thinking that will help.


According to the information on their web site (and taking them at their word), they hold five times the amount of trash as a conventional trash receptacle of equal size by utilizing solar energy to compact the waste on in the container. This saves 80% of the trips required to empty the container, thus reducing fuel use and carbon (and other pollutant) emissions.


Further, the compactors utilize a wireless monitoring system to notify owners of the need to empty them, thus eliminating wasted trips for partially full containers. Among others, the Cities of Albany, Chicago and Philadelphia, as well as Brown University have implemented the BigBelly Solar Collector system.


Far from my initial opinion that they're "greenwashing" in action, these modernized versions of the humble trash receptacle are innovative and energy saving. I'm going to see if the City of Anaheim, where I live, and the City of Long Beach, where I work, have plans to implement the BigBelly Solar Collector solution.

RealClearMarkets - Articles - The Rich and Their Taxes

RealClearMarkets - Articles - The Rich and Their Taxes

Evil California homeowners and their failure to repeal Proposition 13

Those evil, selfish California homeowners passed the infamous Proposition 13 (I won't link it until later because this is a riddle), thus depriving the State of the financial wherewithal to adequately fund its operations and the pension funds of the various public employee unions. That's the wailing and moaning we hear from Sacramento and, in fact, from around the Country.


Is it true? I've culled some data and made some charts to investigate (all charts can be enlarged by clicking on them). First, let's see the California budget from 1970 to present:

Can anyone guess from this when Proposition 13 was passed? Ah, but California's population has increased as we see here:

So naturally, the budget would increase. So let's look at the budget per capita:

I still challenge anyone to guess when Proposition 13 was passed. Wait, I hear you! What about inflation? Yes, this has a major effect, let's see California's budget in constant 1970 dollars:

Was Proposition 13 passed in, say, 1993? 2008? Well, for a final chart, let's see the budget per capita in 1970 dollars:

OK, time to end the riddle. Proposition 13 was passed by the voters of California in June of 1978. That year, California's per capita budget was about $371 1970 dollars. It peaked in 2008 at a bit over $690 and, even in the teeth of the recession and California's budget crisis, the most recent year stood at $538 or 45% higher than before Proposition 13 took effect.


In an earlier post I showed the outflow of funds from California to the Federal government, and certainly the cost of undocumented immigrants (or illegal aliens, depending on your political orientation) in the educational and criminal system has had a major effect. But that population is included (as much as possible) in the census data from which the per capita figures are derived.


For these reasons, I have a very hard time developing sympathy for the crocodile tears shed by the political class over the devastation wrought by Proposition 13. Full disclosure: I am a homeowner.

Burning fuel to learn to save energy

Ironically enough, I flew from Los Angeles International Airport to Dulles International outside of Washington, DC to attend the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit. The speakers include former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Department of Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu. The purpose of the Summit is to bring together developers of disruptive energy technologies, venture capitalists, regulators, and ARPA-E officials to discuss opportunities, successes, and failures. Frankly, I'm quite excited to be here.


But...anyone could be forgiven for thinking that this is a bit reminiscent of climate change conferences taking place in Bali. I wonder how many joules of stored fossil fuel energy were converted to dissipated thermal energy in the process of putting on such a conference? An estimate of that number will have to await my attendance so that I can determine the number of attendees, where they're from, what was hauled in to display, etc.


But I certainly converted a lot of fuel on the way here, and will convert more when I return to California on Thursday. I flew on an American Airlines Boeing 737-800. The flight was direct and, according to Wolfram Alpha, the distance was about (because the flight couldn't be quite direct) 2,288 miles. According to Wikipedia, in a two class layout (I flew coach, of course), this aircraft carries 162 passengers and was completely full.


On the way out of the aircraft, I asked the First Officer how much fuel had been burned on the flight, and he kindly checked his documentation and stated that the burn had been "just a bit under 20,000 pounds." I'm going to go with 20,000 since I have no firm definition of "just a bit." Using figures from Wikipedia again, the density of Jet-A fuel is 804 kilograms/meter^3 or 6.710 pounds per gallon so the flight burned 2,981 gallons of fuel. So the aircraft achieved 2,288/2,981 or 0.7675 m.p.g. But it did so while carrying 162 passengers, and so it achieved 124 passenger m.p.g. This is a slightly better figure than would be achieved in a car carrying 4 passengers at 30 m.p.g. And it did so at something like 550 m.p.h. I realize that carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere at 37,000 feet is more harmful than that emitted on the ground but this is still pretty impressive efficiency and is a testament to engine and aircraft designers.


I expect to come away from this conference with a much firmer grasp on the extent to which it is reasonable to expect such a means of transportation to be available in the future.

Field rules of evidence interpretation

Hanna's rule: If it did, then it can. Discovered teaching geology field classes.

Ryan's law: If they are, then they do. Discovered during inspection of contractors' activities.

The Hanna/Ryan tautology: If something's wrong, then something's wrong. Discovered during aviation activities.

How to get to Berkeley (other than study)

I tried, I really did. I'm going to have a transportation-intensive eight days beginning February 26. I'm flying to Washington, D.C. and returning, followed by a trip to Berkely, CA. Ironically enough, the Washington trip is for the arpa-e Energy Innovation Summit and the Berkely trip is for the American Physical Society Second Conference on the Physics of Sustainable Energy: Efficiency and Renewables.

While travelling to D.C. by any means other than airlines is out of the question, I thought that perhaps the Berkely trip might be a good opportunity to utilize something less energy intensive. My first thought was Amtrak. I was willing to leave from Anaheim and get somewhere near Berekely and fend for myself after that.

The one-way rate is extremely competitive at $53.00 but I need to depart Anaheim at 6:01pm, change to A BUS (!) in Santa Barbara at 9:45pm and arrive in Oakland at 5:55am Saturday morning. I would not envy the experience of those sitting next to me at the conference, to which I'd go directly by taxi from the bus station. Out of the question.

How about an intercity bus? Various sites claim that this is the most fuel-efficient form of transportation available (though, of course, factors such as frequency of stops, proportion of urban travel, load factor, etc. will cause individual trips to vary). So I checked Greyhound. For $51.92 I can leave Long Beach at 8:35pm and arrive in Oakland at 5:05am. This is a bit better but still leaves no time for a shower.

I did a perfunctory analysis of an arbitrarily designed merit index of different modes of transportation in a previous post and determined that, for a trip of intermdiate length such as this one, the order of preference of transportation modes would be: airline, driving my Land Rover; flying a business jet (if I had one); bus; and my Saratoga. I didn't include trains in that analysis but it hardly matters here since Amtrak will put me on a bus for the vast majority of the trip. This experience certainly bears that anlysis out.

One final option would be to switch vehicles with my partner and drive his Prius. Google Maps shows this to be a 396 mile trip taking somewhere between 6 1/2 and 8 hours (depending on traffic). I'd likely spend $56 on about 16 gallons of gas. In the Land Rover it would take about $143 to buy 38 gallons of more expensive (premium) gas. Since I'm alone though, and the airlines typically get somewhere in the range of 50 miles per gallon per occupied seat, it's a toss up for fuel with the Prius and quite a bit quicker.

Strictly in dollar terms, the Prius wins by a factor of about 9 (since I'd be purchasing tickets late). But it's symptomatic of where we stand in transportation that the two modes of transportation of which the green community is most enamored are completely out of the question and the villians of the eco-movement (airlines and owner occupied vehicles) are my realistic choices.

Too personal?

I tend to listen to the radio while I shower and get ready for the day. During the week I listen to KNX, the local outlet of CBS Radio. The format is "all news all the time," but on weekend mornings it's food news. This interests me not in the slightest. So I'll often turn to KPFK, the local Pacifica outlet. Here, I'll often find intelligent (though frequently infuriating) discussion.

Last Sunday, there was a woman being interviewed regarding meditation and mindfulness. I've not practiced meditation but she claimed that, among other things, regular practice of meditation would have a beneficial effect on ability to concentrate, to imagine, and to reduce stress. These things all sounded good but, being in the shower, I couldn't log onto a website or take notes. Thus, I remember neither the interviewee's name nor the name of her book.


Here it is the next Saturday and I wondered if her book might be available in a Kindle edition (I'm too impatient to wait for a print version - perhaps meditation could help). So I went to the Amazon site and searched for "meditation mindfulness". The first couple of pages returned didn't trigger the "ah ha" reaction so I thought I'd search for an appropriate book even it it wasn't the one the KPFK person wrote.


I found a book on the second page that had a title that sounded appropriate, "Meditation for Beginners: Techniques for Awareness, Mindfulness and Relaxation (For Beginners (Llewellyn's)). Gosh, sounds perfect, I'm a beginner!


I thought I'd check the reviews, the synopsis, and the author information and found the following:

A professional astrologer for over twenty-five years, Stephanie Jean Clement, Ph.D., is a board member of the American Federation of Astrologers and a faculty member of Kepler College and NORWAC. Her Ph.D. in Transpersonal Psychology has prepared her to work with clients in defining their creative potential and refining their creative process. Her published books include Charting Your Career; Dreams: Working Interactive, What Astrology Can Do for You; The Power of the Midheaven; Charting Your Spiritual Path with Astrology; Meditation for Beginners; and Mapping Your Birthchart.

 
Seriously? What do I make of this? There's pretty much nothing such a one could say about any subject that I could take seriously. Does this represent the reality of the supposed benefits of meditation?


Update: Based on Michael Tobis' comment and a brief review of the conclusions for the papers at the page he linked, I decided to not dismiss meditation and mindfulness out of hand. I went to the archives of KPFK (they handily archive many of their broadcasts) to find the book and author - it's Real Happiness: The Power of Meditation: A 28-Day Program. It doesn't seem Kindle-friendly in that there are CD's included in the dead tree version and, according to a reviewer, some formatting issues in the Kindle version as well. I guess I'll see if I can locate the book at a Barnes and Noble or Borders. If not, I'll order from Amazon and wait out the couple of days.

The "Gadgetman Groove"

There's a very nice gentleman named Ron Hatton who sells a vehicle modification called the Gadgetman Groove. The modification consists of utilizing a Dremel tool to cut a groove in the throttle body of a fuel injected car (though the site indicates that it's possible to modify multi and tuned port injectors and carbureted sysems as well) just past the throttle plate. Hatton states that by doing so, it causes "amplification of the pressure wave" thus providing "more fuel blended with the air at the point of ignition" and "more complete combustion."

There is a collection of youtube video testimonials from satisfied customers who've had the modification done to their vehicle, with some very dramatic claims for fuel economy increases. Here is the most extreme claim I saw, where Kyle claims an increase from 12 m.p.g. to 27 m.p.g. while going 5 to 10 m.p.h. faster.

There was an internet dustup (in which I participated) regarding the Groove at an Ecomodder blog post about the Groove back in July of 2010. It was very clear to me that Ron is no crook and really believes in this "technology." However, his web site at the time (since changed) discussed having a car tested on a dynamometer at Automotive Testing Laboratories in Mesa, AZ. The results were posted at Ron's site (they're not there now) and showed a decrease in fuel economy and an increase in emissions in both the FTP (Federal Test Procedure) and the HFET (Highway Fuel Economy Test) protocols. Ron attributed this to an inappropriate choice of vehicle and its poor mechanical condition. To the best of my knowledge, Ron was responsible for the choice of vehicle and the test protocol.

In any event, I'd more or less forgotten about the Groove, but received an email that someone had posted a comment to the thread. This turned out to be "Dave," an ex-policeman who has had the Groove installed, is quite satisfied, and posted to defend Ron against a "hatchet job." I replied that I believe that both he and Ron believe, but that none of this constitutes evidence.

But let's take a look. Kyle's 1993 GMC truck was claimed to exhibit a 125% increase in miles per gallon. So, call the initial m.p.g. "x." Then, after the modification, the m.p.g., with a 125% increase, he would be getting 2.25x miles per gallon. Inverting this fraction, that means he's using 1/2.25 or 4/9 as many gallons per mile. The conclusion is that the other 5/9 of the gallons were not burned or were burned in such a way as to not move the car. To emphasize, this is NOT the 75% of the heat from burned fuel that's wasted due to thermodynamic limitations, friction, etc., this is fuel that is supposedly NOT BURNED! How about a tangible example? Suppose that Kyle has an 18 gallon tank. Every time he filled up pre-Groove, 10 of those gallons were not burned. This is Kyle and Ron's claim!

This is about as good an example as could be hoped for of the futility of reliance on anecdotal testimonial evidence. I am reasonably sure that not only Kyle and Dave and the other youtube stars on the Groove web site, but that Ron Hatton as well are truly convinced of the efficacy of this simple modification.

And yet I am not claiming that the Groove produces no benefits, only that there's no valid evidence that it does produce them. If Ron stated that the result of multiple runs of blind testing of otherwise identical vehicles under controlled conditions showed an improvement of 5% in m.p.g. with a standard deviation of 1.5% and a confidence level greater than 95% I'd believe it and consider the modifcation for my vehicle. But I wouldn't consider spending $500 based on a series of enthusiastic youtube testimonials.

Drafting experiment

I've posted a couple of times about drafting to increase fuel economy. And the Mythbusters have covered this as well. There seems to be no question that it's effective, witness the Tour de France and Nascar. So, what is the nature of the improvement?

I can only get better fuel economy if I have to overcome less force to go forward. Drafting certainly doesn't change rolling resistance or drivetrain losses, hence it can only affect aerodynamic drag. As I've discussed on previous occasions, aerodynamic drag, D, can be modeled by 

where rho is density, v is speed, Cd is drag coefficient, and A is frontal area. At a fixed speed (where Cd will also be constant) the only thing that can change is rho, the density. Thus, my working hypothesis is that drafting is effective due to a zone of lowered pressure behind the front vehicle.

I've purchased the Vernier LabQuest and a variety of sensors, one of which is the Gas Pressure Sensor which measures absolute (not gauge) pressure. I determined to see if I could measure this effect. I attempted to do so by cracking my window and extending the inlet tube of the sensor through the crack. My idea was to approach to and withdraw from the rear of the truck, recording my estimate of distance from the truck and the time as shown on the LabQuest display on my iPhone. I'd be looking for a reduction in measured pressure as I approached the truck.

So how did it go? Not so well. After multiple attempts, if anything, I recorded a trend to lower pressures as I moved away from trucks, higher as I moved in. And yet that can't be right. Or can it? This was a poorly designed experiment in that all factors that might affect the measured pressure were not controlled. My speculation is the confounding factor is the fact that I am on a freeway with hills and a general upward trend (I was eastbound, that is, away from the ocean toward the inland area). As I climb, the pressure will decline by about 0.012 kilopascals/meter and the range measured in the entire experiment was about 0.3 kilopascals, which would represent a climb of something like 25 meters. Now, the experiment was over a period of about 250 seconds and a driven distance of about 6 kilometers so such a variation in elevation is certainly not out of the question.

How can I get a better result? Since I don't have maps that indicate elevation and location with sufficient accuracy to adjust the pressure data to remove elevation changes, I can only think of two options. First would be to repeat the experiment in a controlled location. This is very difficult in that I don't have access to a truck and a suitable location. What else? My plan is to run the experiment and note the location, then to run it at the same location with no drafting. This should give me the ability to subtract out changes caused by elevation changes.  A negative result would cause major head scratching, stay tuned.

Economics - doomers and the BIG view

As I've previously expressed, I have a difficult time with economics (though I got A's in all my economics and finance courses in college). I think this is, at least in part, because it's abstracted from reality in that it's based on "money." Money necessitates a social structure such that something that has little or no actual value (greenbacks can't be eaten though I suppose they can be burned; electronic entries in a computer file don't even have this value).

There is a huge body of blogging (this last one uses the same template on blogger as I do) devoted to a doomer viewpoint predicting various degrees of collapse ot the economy and society. The consensus on such sites is that debt levels are completely unsustainable and will overwhelm all attempts to return to business as usual. Whether such a return is desireable is a different question but I think we can all agree that a return to a hunter gatherer society would not be. And if our doom is imminent, there are steps I need to take while I can.

So what is debt and when does it become unsustainable? In thinking about this, I find it helpful to ignore money. There is a certain amount of "stuff" that has been created by mankind and another, smaller, amount of stuff that has been returned to the universe in one form or another (solid, liquid, and gaseous refuse and heat). The difference is the amount of stuff we have collectively at this point in time. We use this stuff to sustain ourselves, to derive pleasure and comfort, and to create opportunities to get more and better stuff and to repay debt. Time engaged in productive (however one chooses to define it) activites is part of the stuff that we have. And there are other things that can't be touched that constitute stuff in this analysis. Movies, software, plays, and music come immediately to mind.

So, with this in mind, I think it's fair to characterize debt as a commitment to give some (greater) amount of stuff in the future in return for access to some (lesser) amount of stuff in the present. Upon assuming this debt, we decide to use some of it to derive sustenance, comfort, and pleasure and some to create opportunities to get more and better stuff. Whatever stuff is left over can be used to repay debt. Or, if you're the creditor, stuff should be used to repay debt followed by using it to create opportunities to get more stuff to enable the continuation of debt repayment and anything left over can be used to derive sustenance, comfort, and pleasure.

The last concept I need for my ultra-simplistic analysis is the concept of time value of money and discount rate. This captures the idea that it's better to have an amount of stuff now than the same amount of stuff in the future. The discount rate is that amount by which the value to get an amount of stuff one year from today is lowered from the value of getting the stuff today.

Thus, I'll theorize that debt and standard of living is sustainable if the World Gross Stuff Product ("WGSP") is sufficient to meet the continuing requirements of sustenance, comfort, pleasure, opportunity for stuff creation and have enough stuff left over to pay back the interest and principal of the borrowed stuff from newly created stuff. Is there enough stuff and are "we" continuing to produce enough stuff?

I'll need the following:

1. The total amount of stuff created (or mined, grown, etc.): S_c
   
2. The total amount of stuff discarded as waste stuff or waste heat: S_w
3. The rate of stuff use for sustenance: S_s
4. The rate of stuff use for new stuff creation: S_n
5. The effectiveness of creation of new stuff as a function of stuff used in its creation: dS_p/dS_n where S_p is stuff produced (or extracted or grown). Hopefully this will increase with time.
   
6. The rate of stuff production as a function of time: dS_c/dt (where t is time)
   
7. The rate of stuff "wasting": dS_w/dt
8. The discount rate for stuff: i (for interest)
   
9. The total amount of stuff owed in the future and the terms thereof: S_to
   

This will be my model, and with it I can speculate that we're sustainable as long as, for all t, there's sufficient stuff created to provide for sustenance, new stuff creation, and paying interest and principal on stuff. All I have to do is get data or approximations or estimates for those nine parameters. A large problem here is that they're mostly measured in money. But I have to proceed with this, there's really nothing better.


I'm well aware of the dwindling availability of easily and cheaply acquired concentrated solar energy in the form of crude oil, natural gas, and coal. But many of the doomer variety (and I do not use this noun disparagingly, I have doomer tendencies myself) predict doom even without such effects and so that's where I intend to start.

This analysis makes no account for the fact that the universe (not to mention the small portion of it to which we have access) cannot provide an infinite amount of stuff nor can it contain an infinite amount of waste. Nor does it account for the desires of a large portion of humanity to catch up with the rate of stuff creation and utilization enjoyed by the so-called "developed nations." It further takes no account of misallocation of stuff (the market is supposed to take care of that). And it ignores the possibility of increasing amounts of stuff having to be invested to procure the energy to create more stuff. Whatever conclusions may be reached, these considerations will certainly make them overly optimistic. However, I believe that manipulation of the parameters will provide guidance on where changes may be effective.


This project will, of necessity, be a fairly lengthy process upon which I'm just getting started. I'll post the results or, if it really takes a long time, status of progress. In the mean time, comments on the model are welcomed. If you're wondering why I've decided to post these thoughts now, it's because I haven't posted anything in almost a month.

Is California getting a raw deal?

OK, it's clear that California is a financial basket case. It's also true that, with a disfunctional legislature pandering to a bunch of vested interests, much of the pain is self-inflicted. That said, everyone should take a look at this graphic:

This is the amount of dollars received from the Federal Government for each tax dollar sent Washington D.C.'s way from 1981 through 2005. The source of the data is The Tax Foundation. Does anyone notice a trend here?

I totalled the defict for those years (and from all I've seen it's as bad or worse since 2005) and the cumulative deficit (including the early years when it was a surplus) is $489B (that's right, half a trillion dollars). Now, the incoming governor (meet the new boss, same as the old boss - will we get fooled again?) Jerry Brown met with the legislature to discuss how to handle the estimated $26B deficit CA is currently running.

The Tax Foundation figures are disputed, particularly with respect to their treatment of deficit spending. That said, recovery of 10% of the Tax Foundation's calculated deficit would go a long way toward curing California's budget ills. Unfortunately, even if the Feds said "OK, you're right, here's $48.9B" the ills that got us here would remain.

Wikileaks and the reaction

It's difficult to know exactly what to say about the Wikileaks saga and it's well outside my typical topic space. But its importance is hard to overstate and I feel like I must commit my thoughts to my virtual soapbox.

I am not in agreement with Julian Assange's expressed goals and I don't think that I have a right to know every syllable of every email, cable, and phone conversation of anyone who receives a check from a Government agency of any type. Diplomats must have the ability to speak in confidence and those in the military must be able to operate in secrecy. There truly are bad people out there who want to kill them and to kill us and our allies. That said, I do think that the reaction of the U.S. Department of Justice, of various members of the legislature, and a number of commercial enterprises is contemptible. And, of course, the those venal and cynical morons who are continually seeking to cause me to disavow conservatism wasted no time in accusing the Obama administration of not acting harshly enough.

We criticize the Chinese when they censor the internet or crack down bluntly on free speech of any kind, and yet our government is attempting to block (by, among other things, coercion of  the sites hosting Wikileaks) any access to the site of an organization that has not been indicted, let alone convicted of any violation of law. The indivdual who founded the AA group in which I got sober says "if you'd be embarrassed if someone found out about what you're doing, you should stop doing it."

Through Michael Tobis' Only In It For The Gold Post I followed a link that, I believe, captures my position fairly accurately. The post is well worth reading in its entirety and is not very long but a key quote is:

The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us “You went after Wikileaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.

There are many things that have been done in my name that lead me to believe that Bin Laden, et al, have achieved a huge victory. The USA Patriot Act allows prosecution without the right to confront witnesses, criminalizes telling anyone that one is under investigation under its provisions, criminalizes contributing money even for peaceful purposes to arbitrarily (e.g. Wikileaks) designated "terrorist organizations," and facilitates surveillance of U.S. citizens (not to mention anyone outside the U.S.) that is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

Have I added anything to the debate here? No, but I do feel better having gotten it published.

When ignorance becomes a movement: The rise of Snookiism - By David Rothkopf | David Rothkopf

When ignorance becomes a movement: The rise of Snookiism - By David Rothkopf | David Rothkopf


The "embarrassed to be conservative" meme of my blog is, I'm afraid, becoming more and more prevalent. Why is it necessary to celebrate ignorance in order to be "conservative?"


C: Did a scientist say it?
S: Yes
C: Did he/she go to a college or university?
S: Yes, of course
C: Then I don't believe a word her or she says. All colleges and universities are nothing more than institutions for brainwashing attendees into believing in one-world government and the socialist agenda.
S: But we're talking about (climate, public health, evolution), not politics.
C: You weren't paying attention, were you? It's all part of the conspiracy for one-world government and the socialist agenda.


I really don't want this blog to become a platform for political commentary, and my belief in preserving the environment, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility, minimal government intrusion, and the brilliance and timelessness of our Constitution is unshaken. But the TMZ/MTV/"I don't really like reading books"/Jersey Shores/Rush Limbaugh/Marc Morano/Glenn Beck absorption of the American dialogue is filling me with grief for the disappearance of thinking, moral conservatism.


Hello? Is there anybody out there?


Update: I tried my first xtranormal movie to illustrate my point.

What can the wind do?

After my post regarding the wind turbines atop Houston's Hess tower, I thought a very brief and very elementary primer on wind power might be in order. Moving air posesses kinetic energy in accordance with E=1/2*m*v^2. This energy can be harnessed to generate electricity. So how much energy is this?

Let's look at the turbines from the Hess Tower that I discussed in the post.  Here, each turbine intercepts an area of 8.25 m^2. Let's let s be the wind speed (since the turbines have a vertical axis the wind direction doesn't matter, so we don't need the vector quantity) in m/s (meters per second). Then, in one second, each turbine will intercept a volume V of 8.25*s m^3 (meters cubed). Assuming air has a density, d, of 1.16 kg/m^3, the mass,m, of air intercepted in a second is V*d=8.25*s*1.16 kg. This mass, moving at a speed of s m/s has a kinetic energy, E, of 0.5*m^s^2 or 0.5*8.25*s*1.16*s^2.


One thing to note before moving on is that s is present twice - once to the first power and once squared - meaning that the available energy PER SECOND (remember, we are talking about the amount of energy available in one second's worth of wind) is proportional to the cube of the wind velocity. Now, the total available energy per second in the wind is otherwise known as power. In other words, this number is the power that would be produced at a given wind speed, s, if 100% of it could be converted to electrical energy. Of course it can't, and we'll get to that later.

So, where are we? For a speed, s, the kinetic energy, E, per second, or power, P, in watts passing through one of the Hess turbines is 0.5*8.25*1.16*s^3 or, P=4.785*s^3 watts. Like a good physicist, let's check the units: 0.5 is dimensionless; 8.25 is m^2; 1.16 is kg*m^(-3); s is m*s^(-1) but it's cubed so that factor has units m^3*s^(-3). Thus, we have: for m, m^2*m^(-3)*m^3 or m^2; kg is merely kg^1; for s we have  s^(-3). The total is kg*m^2*s^(-3). Now, power is energy per second, or force * distance/second, or (mass*distance/time^2)*distance/second. This is kg^1*m*s^(-2)*m*s^(-1) or kg*m^2*s(-3). The units check. For ANY equation relating physical quantities, the units on each side MUST match, this is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the equation to be valid.

Let's stick a number in and see what we get. A 15 m.p.h. wind is fairly robust, how much power is available for the turbine's conversion to electricity? 15 m.p.h. is 6.71 m/s, the total power (through an area the size of a single Hess turbine) is 4.785*6.71^3 or 1,443 watts. If it all could be converted to electricity, it would light a little more than 14 100 watt light bulbs.

Of course it can't all be converted. One excellent intuitive way of understanding this is that the kinetic energy comes from the speed, to extract it all we would need to bring the wind to a complete stop, requiring a solid wall at the "turbine" location, something that obviously cannot work. Albert Betz was the first to calculate the absolute theoretical maximum energy that could ideally be extracted from wind. This is called, appropriately enough, the Betz Limit, and it's 59.3%.

Now a real turbine will not approach this limit, and horizontal axis wind turbines, at least in steady wind, are more efficient than vertical axis wind turbines like those at Hess Tower. From the data available at the Cleanfield Energy site (the manufacturer of the Hess turbines) I estimate that the claim is that the turbines are about 37% efficient.



I've included a chart showing the total power in wind, as well as the Betz Limit and the power at 37% efficiency for wind from 0 to 30 m.p.h. The actual numbers apply specifically to a single Cleanfield turbine like the ones on the Hess Tower, but the shapes apply to all wind turbines, and keep in mind that the turbines typically don't turn at all until the wind speed reaches somewhere around 8 or 10 m.p.h. (Click to enbiggen).

Here's a graph showing the Betz Limit power in wind for speeds from 2.5 m/s to 20 m/s (about 5.6 m.p.h. to 44.7 m.p.h.) and turbine area of 5 m^2 to 25 m^2. Note the extreme dependence on turbine size and, especially, wind speed.

Could the boys and girls at the Wall Street Journal please buy Keith Johnson a calculator?

As I read some of the news of the day, concentrating on some of my RSS feeds for wind related stories, I was drawn to this article in the (formerly) esteemed Fox Financial News Wall Street Journal. The thrust of the article is that offshore wind power is expensive to install. I have no reason to think that that's not true, it looks like South Korea expects to pay about $3.32M per megawatt, a lot of money in anyone's book.

But in the linked article we find:

"Take the new proposal for the world’s biggest wind farm by another Texas oil man, peak oil prophet Matt Simmons. His Ocean Energy Institute proposes building a 5,000 megawatt deepwater wind farm in the Gulf of Maine, blessed with some of the world’s strongest sustained winds.

The problem is that, as envisioned, the Maine offshore wind farm would be very expensive—and that vision includes some very optimistic assumptions.

Ocean Energy figures capital costs for the project could go as high as $4.5 billion a megawatt, a lot more than Mr. Pickens projects for his massive Texas wind farm. All in, the costs for the Maine project could come to $25 billion, or $5 billion a megawatt, the Ocean Energy folks told Earth2Tech. That compares to upfront costs of about $600 million per megawatt for old-fashioned coal-fired plants."

Woah. Let's see here. $5B/megawatt for 5,000 megawatts. That's $25T (trillion). But didn't he say that it would cost $25B? Yes, he did. So, which is it? I can assure my panic stricken windpower fans that $25B is correct for an installed cost of $5M/megawatt.

Keith Johnson is the lead writer of the Environmental Capital section of the Wall Street Journal which "provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape." It's led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold.

The first commenter pointed out the three order of magnitude error, saving me the trouble.

I don't have a barometer but I have an iPhone

There's an old apocryphal tale of a high school physics student taking a test who's asked "how would you use a barometer to measure the height of a building?" The expected answer is "measure the barometric pressure at the bottom and the top, use the pressure lapse rate with altitude to determine the height." This was not the answer given by the student. When his teacher marked the answer as incorrect, the student protested, telling the teacher that there are many ways to use a barometer to find the height of a building. The teacher was curious and asked the student to name a few. The student came up with (in addition to the obvious answer above):

• On a sunny day, set the barometer on a sidewalk and measure the height of the barometer and its shadow. Measure the building's shadow, apply the ratio.
• Drop the barometer from the roof, time its descent to the street and use s=.5*g*t^2.
• From the roof, tie the barometer to a string, lower it until it almost touches the street. Set it swinging and measure the period, and apply t=2*Pi*(L/g)^0.5
• Measure the height of the barometer, use the core stair to count barometer heights to the top of the building, multiply.
  
• The easiest? Take the barometer to the building manager and say "I have a fine barometer here, and if you'll tell me the height of your building, I'll give it to you."

Not having a barometer handy, I didn't do any of those, but I used the Pasco SPARKvue program on my iPhone to measure and record the acceleration during an elevator trip from the third floor to the 11th of the Hilton Americas-Houston where I'm staying. The program will email the data in CSV format. I then used Excel to numerically integrate the acceleration and the velocity to find displacement. The distance worked out to  be 100' 1 1/2" for the eight floors, a floor height of about 12.5'. This is a little more than I'd have estimated. The hotel has 19 floors and, I assume, a mechanical penthouse, so I'm going with 19*12.5 + 10 (the mechanical penthouse will be shorter) for a total of 247.5'.

The top (and steady) speed reached by the elevator (a Schindler) was 7.9 m.p.h. The peak acceleration was about 0.8 m/s^2, less than 0.1 "g". And if my iPhone were as smart as it (and Steve Jobs) thinks it is, it could distinguish acceleration from gravity in a closed elevator cab. Oh, wait...

A wind blows in Houston

I'm at the ASNT (American Society for Nondestructive Testing) Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show in downtown Houston, TX. I'm staying at the Hilton Houston Americas, with a northward view across Disovery Green Park. I was here in May of 2009 for the Clean Technology Conference and Expo and saw an office building under construction. It's now completed, it had been called Discovery Tower but has now been renamed Hess Tower since the Hess Corporation (formerly Amerada Hess) leased all 872,000 square feet of space in the building.

As I looked out my 11th floor window at the 30 story tower, a spinning motion caught my eye. I looked up at the tower and, sure enough, there appeared to be a series of vertical axis wind turbines adorning the top of the tower. They are certainly eye-catching and, to my uneducated eye, add to the visual appeal of the building. But do they provide enough energy to justify their cost to manufacture, install, and maintain?

Information as to the cost and expected energy output is sparse in the google-verse though I did see that Cynthia Cisneros of KTRK did a brief television piece about it. She exhibited her and her editor's cluelessness by stating that each of the 10 turbines is "designed to generate approximately 3.5 kilowatts per hour." She does state (and I've read at a couple of other sites) that the turbines should generate sufficient energy to light the building at night or to power two office floors.

I was able to finally determine that the turbines are manufactured by Cleanfield Energy, headquartered in Ontario, Canada and that they are Cleanfield's Model V3.5. They're "designed to harness urban wind efficiently and effectively." On their web site Cleanfield provides a specification sheet for the turbine which I would copy here if it weren't for fear of a lawsuit.

But using the "Estimated Energy per Year" chart and an average wind velocity of 4.5 meters/second (downgraded for the urban setting from an 80 meter wind average wind velocity chart here) I'll estimate that each turbine will provide about 1,500 kilowatt hours/year for a total of 15,000 kilowatt hours/year, or 15 megawatt hours/year. Note that this is a capacity factor (assuming 3.5 kilowatts rated power) of 1,500/(3.5*24*365) * 100% or about 4.9%.

Now, I suppose that Hess Corporation gets a better deal on energy than I do, but it's probably not too far off to figure they pay about $0.10/kilowatt hour. So, by avoiding the purchase of 15,000 kilowatt hours they'll save something like $1,500. I don't know what the generators cost but I suspect that the net present value of the investment is negative no matter how small Hess' cost of capital.

I've found a couple of estimates for electricity use in office buildings on a "per square foot" basis, at 18.9 and 17 kWh/year. If I assume that the Hess building is MUCH more efficient at, say, 15 kWh/year/ft^2, then at 872,000ft^2/30 floors there are about 29,000 ft^2/floor. Two such floors would use 870,000 kilowatt hours/year. Use of a median rather than an average electrical energy usage might cut this number by about a third (very optimistically) so let's say 580,000 kilowatt hours/year might be a reasonable lower bound. I don't think the turbines will do it. They'd supply about 1,250 ft^2, a small office.

A video is here:

$200M/day, 34 naval vessels, raining kittens and puppies

I'm going to have to come up with a new name for my personal political viewpoint, I can't continue to be associated with what are commonly referred to now as "conservatives."

I've mentioned on a couple of occasions that I make it my habit to listen to and read from sources of editorial opinion that span the political spectrum, e.g., I listen to both KPFK, the local Pacifica network outlet where National Public Radio is regarded as a bunch of right wing reactionaries and tools of the bourgouisie, and to KRLA, the Salem Radio Network outlet where Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller, Bill Bennett, and Glenn Beck (!) hold forth.

I was listening to Mike Gallagher Wednesday evening to sample the conservative talk radio reaction to Tuesday's election. I was hearing generally what I expected when my ears pricked up as Gallagher started going on about Obama's visit to India. He said he'd read that $200M per day would be spent on the trip, including hotels, security, air transport, 34 naval vessels, etc. He didn't buy into this figure with complete abandon, saying that it was from an Indian newspaper, and prefacing some of his remarks with "if this is true..." But in speaking with subsequent callers he did rail against Obama using that figure.

Now, as it turns out, even the hardcore conservatives have distanced themselves from the story, but just how clueless do you have to be to hear such a thing and not immediately reject it out of hand? What mental processes must have broken down to make a person WITH A NATIONALLY SYNDICATED TALK SHOW so credulous that he even momentarily took such a thing seriously?

Does being a conservative mean that if someone tells you it's raining kittens and puppies you worry about taxes being raised to clean up the poop?