My government loves me and only has my very best interests at heart

My government loves our Constitution, and its only goal is to Constitutionally protect my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness. Of course, that's why they have prohibited me from playing poker for actual money online. I know that this can only be because their love and regard for me is so very high that they must do all in their power to prevent anyone, including me, from being able to engage in any activity that could conceivably cause me harm.

They are able to provide this desperately needed action of protecting me from myself by implementing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, a document that is erroneously believed to have the purpose of limiting their powers. But such beliefs are foolish - it's clear that the Commerce Clause is applicable to stopping me from harming myself and others by playing poker online for money because there is no conceivable activity or lack of activity to which that Clause cannot be applied by our benevolent protectors in Congress.

Fuckers.


Note: In my 218 posts, this is my first (and hopefully last) f-bomb.

New car, minimal carbon reduction

As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been contemplating replacing my Land Rover LR3 HSE with a new vehicle - something much more fuel efficient (despite the fact that I've gotten about 28% better fuel economy than the EPA rating for the LR3). Through a series of unfortunate circumstances, my hand was forced.


In the post linked above, I contemplated the Chevy Volt and the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Which did I purchase? Neither. Instead, I drove away with a newcomer, the Lexus CT 200h. This is a well-appointed, VERY small hybrid. Its EPA ratings are 43 m.p.g. city, 40 m.p.g. highway, and 42 m.p.g. combined. This exceeds the Ford Fusion Hybrid and will enable me to save something like 575 gallons of fuel per year and $2,400 on fuel costs (the number is greater than simply gallons times price because the LR3 requires premium while the CT 200h needs only regular).


This is certainly happy news, so why has my family's carbon footprint not decreased significantly as a result of this change? The unfortunate circumstances referred to above involved the total loss of the vehicle my wife had been driving (thankfully, no injuries occurred to any of the involved parties). The decision was to take the insurance settlement and purchase the LR3 from my Company and make it my wife's vehicle. Now, she does absolutely no hypermiling and puts a spectacular number of miles on a vehicle (on the order of 60,000 per year). Her previous vehicle was no fuel miser at 14 m.p.g. city, 23 m.p.g. highway, and 17 m.p.g. combined but many of her miles are highway miles where she'll get about 18 m.p.g. by my estimate. Thus, she'll add about 500 gallons per year for a net reduction in fuel consumption for my family of a mere 75 gallons.


Now, moving on to the CT 200h, this is a vehicle that shares the drivetrain of the Toyota Prius and is thus amenable to some of the more exotic hypermiling techniques such as pulse and glide. I will certainly run through a few tank fulls of fuel prior to experimenting with that technique so that I have a baseline for comparison. Frankly, I'm not so sure that I want to work that hard to drive. And with respect to another technique - drafting - the CT 200h is very small and very low. Thus, the danger level is increased (not to mention not wanting to damage a new vehicle's finish by rocks being thrown).


I'll make another post at a later time with some specifics of the CT 200h (Cd, weight, engine and motor sizes and ratings, etc.)

Hierarchy of qualifications to evaluate research-like information

I habitually listen to Radio Paradise when working (or playing) at the computer. The station's web site is equipped with a comment facility for the music Bill Goldsmith plays, and with listener fora where all manner of topics are discussed. There's a denizen of the fora with screen name "nuggler" with whom I've exchanged barbs in the song comment areas. In the fora, nuggler is about as rabidly anti (Israel, "big Pharma," American military, Republican, "big oil," etc.) as anyone with whom I've ever interacted.


Nuggler is also fairly tin foil hat conspiracist with respect to HIV-AIDS, GMO crops, "allopathic" (i.e., done by actual doctors) or "Western" medicine as opposed to CAM (complimentary/alternative medicine), etc. He believes the strain of E Coli recently determined to be responsible for multiple deaths in Germany was genetically engineered. He had a long rant about one Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who has supposedly developed an effective cancer cure involving "antineoplastons" that big Pharma and the FDA have brutally squelched.


So, I read a little bit about Dr. Burzynski and some of the material regarding him from his own site and from sites like Quackwatch and Science Based Medicine. I'm obviously ill-equipped to digest material from the primary medical literature both by background and by opportunity cost of time. So again, I have to decide whom to believe. I went into this a bit in a previous post regarding Anthropogenic Climate Disruption. Thus, it's back to a "who seems most credible" situation which is not at all easy (or at least it hadn't ought to be).


So I decided to propose a little hierarchy of how much confidence to have in one's ability to trust one's interpretation of research conclusions (especially conflicting conclusions) based on background and proximity to that research. This is what I came up with, I welcome suggestions and criticisms.

1. I did the research.
2. I am an expert in the specific subject area of the research and, though I didn't do the research, I have fully read and understood it.
3. I have some specific knowledge in the particular area and deep knowledge in the general area of the research.
4. I have a reasonable background in the general area of the research.
5. I have done formal research, but not in any area related to that being evaluated.
6. I have studied this area in depth, but not in any formal venue.
7. I have completed a formal program of study though not one related to the topic at hand (this shows, at least, some ability to absorb and synthesize complex information).
8. I have evaluated the coherence of the arguments propounded with respect to agreeing and disagreeing viewpoints.

These levels are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But, if I'm at any level less than this, the fact is that I simply should not allow myself to have an opinion. "It fits the way I'd like the world to work and believe it to be" simply will not suffice.

Wait... what? Fox News "poll"

This is a screen shot of the result (after I "voted") of a Fox News Poll. I find it confusing. The response gathering the most votes is "No, it's purely a scare tactic." The implication is that running into the so-called "Debt Ceiling" is not a real problem. But, if that is the case, then why would raising it be a big deal to the typical Fox News reader? That is, if not raising it would not have dire consequences, then what purpose is it serving? I suppose that it could be quibbled that "no, it's not the ceiling we're saying is merely a scare tactic, it's the date. We think it's really September 4, (or whatever)." Because, you know, the average Fox News reader is well-attuned to the details of when specific obligations will be unable to be met. Is this really the level to which political economic debate has sunk?

Daily Kos makes sense - say WHAT??

It's true. There's a long article in Daily Kos (I was sent there by clicking on a link in a Tweet by @mtobis) by Mark Sumner that addresses steps to be taken in the two major areas of energy use in the U.S. - transportation and electricity. It has none of the insane leftist tripe typically characteristic of Daily Kos. And, I have to say, Daily Kos is not as wacky as it was a couple of years back. Yes, back in the waning days of the Bush administration and the 2008 Presidential election I wandered over there a bit. As I've repeatedly stated I try very hard, in electronic, print, and broadcast media, to listen carefully and critically to both "left" and "right" wing outlets.


In any event, it's well worth 20 minutes of your time to read. I have a few relatively minor criticisms:

• Sumner states that "Nearly all the energy numbers in this article came from the bounty of data made available at the U.S. Energy Information Administration site." All well and good but I'd sure like specific footnoting for many of the statements.
• Wind energy suffers from significantly more obstacles than Sumner indicates. Many who live near them hate them. Sumner suggests placing wind farms atop Appalachian peaks that may otherwise be removed in "mountain top removal" type coal mining. Maybe so, but many would find that to be (almost as) equally revolting.
• Sumner proposes a tax on gasoline and diesel fuel that starts at $0.01/gallon and increases by that amount each month for 10 years. I think a larger tax more quickly is crucial.
• Sumner makes almost no mention of distribution other than advocating the speeding up of "smart grid" technology.

But one key point explored by Sumner but often overlooked in dissertations about our electricity generating needs is that many, if not most, of the installations that currently provide our baseload power are at or beyond their expected service life and will need to be replaced in any event. Thus, the choice is not between spending money on replacing many of our current energy resources or not; it's between replacing many of our current energy resources in a systematic method geared toward reliability and independence from fossil fuel imports and spending much more money on ad hoc, sub-optimal "tourniquet" solutions as price fluctuations and equipment breakdowns force immediate action.

It's by no means a scholarly article with references, etc. but I highly recommend reading it. By the way, Dr. Tobis' Bruce Sterling's comment in Dr. Tobis' re-Tweet that sent me to the article was "Great Program. Now do it while broke with planet on fire." So I guess despair is the solution.


Update: Corrected attribution of despair quote.

Central Air for sale - cheap!

I'm attending the Clean Technology Conference and Expo 2011 in Boston, MA. One of the featured programs is the CTSI Utility Challenge, where early stage firms in the Clean Tech "space" vie for recognition of their technology by a panel of judges from the Utility and Municipal sectors.


One of the 15 finalists was 7AC Technologies, a firm whose technology uses a "Liquid Desiccant Chiller" for cooling buildings. The Company's representative caught my attention when he stated that "a typical residential central air conditioning unit costs as much annually to operate as its initial purchase price." Really?


I looked into the A/C unit at our house in Anaheim Hills (not known for a Mediterranean climate, and I like it very cool) in a post in 2009. I determined at that time that the 1995 Goodman Manufacturing unit draws about 5,890 watts when cooling. I'd measured it at about 5,000 watts but I'll go with the higher number to make my point.


I will estimate on the high side that the A/C unit is on about 12 hours per day for 150 days per year. This certainly does not underestimate its usage. Thus, I'd use 12*150*5.89, or 10,600 kilowatt hours. I'm paying $0.14/kilowatt hour so this usage will cost me slightly under $1,500. And I'm in a hot area, with an old and inefficient A/C unit with our thermostat set at around 70 degrees Fahrenheit.


I want my new central A/C unit for $1,500! I wonder why the speaker felt it necessary to MSU (make s _ _ t up)?

Shall I become an expert on Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Apparently, I must. In the past, I've concluded that I can comfortably decide how to vote, purchase, act, etc. with respect to the possibility of mankind-caused climate disruption due to the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant carbon dioxide emissions (hereafter abbreviated by "AGW" - anthropogenic global warming) by determining whom to trust as "experts." I've linked several blogs that clearly support the notion that we are dangerously destabilizing the atmosphere/ocean system by our prodigious carbon dioxide emissions.


But, while such as "Watching the Deniers," "Eli Rabett," and others discount many, if not most, who are skeptical of the AGW claim as lacking in intelligence, being in the pay of fossil fuel interests, the Chamber of Commerce, or other less than savory motivations, there is a sizeable contingent of folks who seem to have intelligence and integrity and yet who argue against AGW.  Some aren't even listed in Sourcewatch. The one who's caused me to ask the question in the title of this post is Warren Meyer of the Coyote Blog.


Meyer is (apparently) a small business owner and avowedly a political and philosophical libertarian. I'm a medium sized business partner and inclined toward a libertarian philosophy. I'm inclined to think that libertarianism will meet its downfall in the excessive discounting of the long term so that when people acting in their individual interest recognize the phenomenon of energy descent it will be (if it isn't already) too late. I would be interested in Meyer's opinion of the societal goal directed behavior that was necessary to enable the U.S. to fight and win the Second World War.


And while Meyer acknowledges that his credentials to speak as an expert on climate change do not come from peer reviewed papers, a professorship in the Earth Sciences Department of a University, or a Doctorate in a Climate Science related field, the arguments in the paper linked above are compelling and, were it not for a couple of years of absorbing the information in the "pro AGW" (exceptionally stupid phrase) blogosphere I would have found them dispositive. He states that he thinks his paper should be read as journalism rather than a scientific paper.


So what am I to make of this? If I rely on the experts mentioned above, Meyer is to be ignored. And yet I find that to be problematic. Dr. Tobis, Eli Rabbet, Steve Carson, etc. are not going to take the time to absorb Meyer's paper, dissect it, and summarize its errors and misconceptions. My choices are thus to ignore it or to learn enough to evaluate it on its merits myself.


Specifically, Meyer argues that:

There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is pretty clear that CO2 produced by man has an incremental impact on warming the Earth’s surface.  However, recent warming is the result of many natural and man-made factors, and it is extraordinarily difficult to assign all the blame for current warming to man.  In turn, there are very good reasons to suspect that climate modelers may be greatly exaggerating future warming due to man.  Poor economic forecasting, faulty assumptions about past and current conditions, and a belief that climate is driven by runaway positive feedback effects all contribute to this exaggeration.  As a result, warming due to man’s impacts over the next 100 years may well be closer to one degree C than the forecasted eight.  In either case, since AGW supporters tend to grossly underestimate the cost of CO2 abatement, particularly in lost wealth creation in poorer nations, there are good arguments that a warmer but richer world, where aggressive CO2 abatement is not pursued, may be the better end state than a poor but cooler world.

This is far different than Dr. Tobis, Grinzo, Rabbet, et al would contend. But I need more than simply "Meyer is wrong, we know, trust us." I guess I will have to build my edifice of knowledge from the ground up.

Split personality

Yes, I'm talking about me. I'm currently reading some of the posts of John Michael Greer, the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America. Don't laugh, this is one extraordinarily intelligent, thoughtful, and perceptive man. His posts cover the topic of the inevitable end of our era of profligate energy waste based on plentiful fossil fuels. He has many innovative ideas and, as I read, I think "I could do that" and that it would actually be productive and enjoyable.

But, as I sit in front of my iMac 11.3 with its 27" display and quad core i7 Sandy Bridge processor on the second floor of our 2,500 ft^2 house in suburbia, contemplating my work week in our Engineering Consulting firm in the construction sector and whether or not my airplane's annual inspection will be completed this week, planning my trip to Boston next weekend for the Clean Technology Conference and Expo, planning to meet with some people for the purpose of developing new business opportunities with the hope of being able sell the Piper Saratoga and purchase a Piper Meridian turboprop aircraft and build a custom home on a hillside in the desert exurbs - let's just say I'm a bit conflicted.

On the one hand, it could be a case of "hope for the best, plan for the worst." On the other, it could be that I'm simply full of BS. But I do intend to rekindle the steps I planned to start taking and documenting in my other blog (which has a single entry from over three years ago). To that end, I have some skills in the Archdruid's suggested portfolio, having learned to do some woodworking and machining and possessing some tools for those purposes. Such skills will probably be at a premium in James Kunstler's World Made By Hand. By no means do I think that such changes will have a measurable effect on the trajectory of civilization, but they should enable me to be better equipped for what's to come - for better or worse.


It's fun to contemplate arming myself to the teeth, providing a bunker for myself and my family, and figuring out how to provide for the bottommost two levels in the ubiquitous Maslow's hierarchy of needs in a post-apocalyptic world. But I'm not sure that that's a constructive approach for a 56 year old businessman, even one who was a Boy Scout and can self-sufficiently camp in the desert and is very familiar with firearms.


So, what (watt?) can be done? Well, in the most recent billing period, my household used electricity at the continuous average rate of 1.92 kilowatts. What about cutting that by, say, 40%? I've blogged previously about replacing my Land Rover with, say, a Chevy Volt. Of course, I'd be using electricity to charge it, so adjustment in the 40% reduction in electricity use would be in order. My tools are located about 70 miles from where I currently sit, I will be bringing them here. I have a roof that's ideally suited for a solar installation, and sufficient room for both solar photovoltaic electricity and solar water heating. I'll seriously look at these types of investments of time, financial resources, and energy in the ensuing few months. Implementation of some more of the Archdruid's recommendations may well follow.

Another foolish "fuel saving" gadget

As I've mentioned previously, I frequently listen to SirisuXM RadioClassics. This particular channel has advertising on the half-hour. I was listening the other day and heard an ad for the "Platinum 22," which promised dramatic increases in gasoline mileage. The product comes from National Fuelsaver.


Upon checking, I found that this concept has been around for decades and its idea is that huge amounts of gasoline are not burned in the cylinders of an internal combustion engine. The spiel continues that the purpose of a catalytic converter is to utilize a platinum catalyst to burn this fuel after it leaves the engine. The Platinum 22 claims to inject microscopic amounts of platinum through the vacuum system into the cylinders, and thus to catalyze much more complete oxidation of fuel in the cylinders.

The "22" comes from a claim that, in a typical engine, only 68% of the hydrocarbon fuel is oxidized (!) and the Platinum 22 boosts this to 90%, a 22% increase. Never mind that this is actually a 32% increase. There is a huge variety of other specious claims of, for example, non-existant government agencies having run tests to verify that the product works as claimed, etc. A  look here at an EPA report debunks this claim (refer to No. 7, "Conclusion").

A complete debunking of the concept is available here, by a Tony (last name unknown), a UK "Chartered Engineer" who has worked in the automotive industry for Land Rover, BMW, Bosch, and others. His site should be your first stop when you hear about a miraculous fuel saving device. Suffice it to say that, rather than 22%, more like 2% of the fuel entering an engine is not oxidized. Evidence of this is presented in the linked page.


Among other things, Tony points out that if the catalytic converter in the exhaust (not using the Platinum 22) were to be burning 22% of the fuel from the tank, almost one third (22/68) as much heat would need to be dissipated from the converter as that from burning fuel in the engine. Note that the engine uses a complex system of water jackets, a water pump, and a large heat exchanger (the radiator) to dissipate the heat from fuel burned in the engine. That 32% as much heat could conceivably be dissipated by the catalytic converter, which is without any cooling system, is completely out of the question.

It's disappointing to me that SiriusXM allows such pixie dust to be advertised.


Update: I sent the following to SiriusXM, we'll see what happens.

YouTube - Was Extra Equipment Attached To Flight 175? (The plane that struck the south Twin Tower on 9/11)

YouTube - Was Extra Equipment Attached To Flight 175? (The plane that struck the south Twin Tower on 9/11)

OK, disclaimer up front. I am emphatically not a conspiracy theorist and I'm not claiming that the events of 9/11 were anything but the act of 19 hijackers. In fact, I'd downloaded the Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tool and was looking for video to utilize to familiarize myself with the software. I downloaded a high resolution video of the North Tower collapse to see if I could dispel the notion that the towers had fallen at a free fall velocity as claimed by the conspiracists, unimpeded by the piston effects of air in the buildings, structural and non-structural building elements, etc. In this, I was arguably successful:

This is the plot of the "y" position of an identifiable spot on the antenna atop the North Tower at the start of the collapse and followed for about 2.25 seconds. Fit to a parabola, the "a" parameter should be the 0.5*g in the term s=0.5gt^2, the equation for gravitational acceleration. For free fall, "a" should be 16 (this was done in feet and g=32 ft/s^2). The -12.2 would indicate an acceleration of 24.4 ft/s^2, implying that there is an upward vertical force acting against gravity, consistent with the factors mentioned above.

All well and good (though I'm certain that it's unconvincing to the conspiracy sector), but then I looked at the video linked above. My initial motivation was to chuckle at the silliness of some of the videos, and this I did. In the case of the linked video though, I have to concede that while I'm unwilling to agree that it is proof that the Towers were not hit by hijacked civil airliners, I also cannot explain its key elements to my complete satisfaction.

I'm certainly interested in any deeper analysis and possible explanations for what seem to me to be anomalies. The best I've seen in explaining the points raised is in this video, part of a series entitled "9/11 Debunked" and subtitled "Debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory, one at a time." But there's nagging doubt as to whether this is the explanation.

Regardless, the inability to explain every single detail in such a complex chain of events is certainly not sufficient to posit an inside job. 

Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics « JoNova

Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics « JoNova


Joanne Nova is an Australian skeptical climate blogger whose blog is quite a popular link from the vast universe of such blogs. The link above takes you to a post that I'd never expected to see there. A guest blogger explains that the the Greenhouse Effect, or downward longwave radiation makes the Earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise be and, in so doing, does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


One statement (though far from the most general) of this most fundamental of physical principles is the Clausius formulation: No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. Many skeptics simply state that a cooler atmosphere warming a warmer Earth is in violation of this law and thus the Greenhouse Effect is falsified and no further discussion is necessary.


Of course, this is incorrect. The wonderful site Science of Doom has a series of articles that explain this thoroughly, but the naysayers will not be dissuaded. I'm somewhat amazed that there's a glimmer of acknowledgement of reality at Joanne's site.


And, in the intervening few days since I started this post, Joanne received so many comments to her post above that she started another thread where she sensibly replies to Joseph Postma's paper and comments. This development actually seems to me, in some small way, to be hopeful.

Gasoline tax thoughts

The U.S. faces a variety of problems, some of which fall into the topic space of my blog. Among these are:

• Use of primary energy at an unsustainable rate
• Emission of greenhouse gasses at an unsustainable rate
• Massive trade deficits
• Reliance on unreliable, at best or hostile, at worst sovereign nations to supply much of our primary energy
• Massive and unsustainable deficits at nearly all levels and units of government

And all of these problems are beset by "sub problems."

What could immediately be done that would have a significant effect on all of these problems? I offer a $1/gallon gasoline tax. It's quite a thorny problem to calculate precisely what effect this would have on consumption and on tax receipts, given the difficulties of capturing an accurate number for the price elasticity of demand of gasoline, particularly since such a tax would be (at least for the moment) over 25% of the pre-tax price. But it would surely either reduce consumption of primary energy or increase government income, or both.

It would unquestionably reduce consumption, particularly over an extended period as people adjusted where they live, their vehicle choices, their decisions with respect to public transportation, etc.


Such a tax is, to an extent, Pigovian in that it would work toward building the externalities of gasoline usage into its price. But it's not strictly such a tax, in that I haven't made any attempt to actually calculate what those externalities may be. The obvious one is pollution of all kinds. But, of course, there are others. One would be the military expenditures necessary to ensure that the Straits of Hormuz remain open, etc.


So, were such a tax to be implemented, what would the immediate effects be? In the very short term, the price elasticity of demand for gasoline (a measure of the effect that an increase in price has on consumption) is low, that is, large price changes produce relatively small changes in demand. Here it's estimated that the elasticity figure in the short term is 0.2, i.e., a 1% increase in price will produce a 0.2% decrease in consumption. Using some numbers quickly gleaned from the EIA web site I suspect it's lower - as I mentioned above, firm numbers are difficult to determine.


But if 0.2 is the number and a ballpark figure for gasoline prices is about $3.85/gallon, then a $1/gallon, that is, a 26% increase would produce a 0.2*26% or a 5.2% decrease in consumption. In the long run, the site listed above gives the number 0.7, implying a long-term 18% decrease as people make the adjustments above. This tax would then produce somewhere in the vicinity of $130B in annual revenue.


Now, other than staple foods and necessary medical supplies, it would be hard to think of a more regressive tax so some of the proceeds would need to go to those who are hurt most severely by such a tax, possibly in the form of an adjustment in the earned income tax credit. 
But it is clear to me, based on the problems listed above, that we need to convert less primary energy. Thus, a tax that directly impacts that activity and, and least in part, recognizes the externalities of gasoline consumption would be a step in the right direction.


One possible effect of such a tax would be to cause many more people to adopt some of the driving habits I've been refining over the last five years.

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.