Mist stack CO2 scrubber designed already!

Further to my description of a stack CO2 capture device I discovered a mist trap for smoke stacks has actually been patented. Being in 1972 the patent is no longer active and it was mainly meant for other types of pollution - particularly particulates. However it would catch CO2 as well. I find it highly ironic that we care most about controlling the most benign item coming out of a smoke stack but never mind.

Anyway, it's pretty much the design I had in mind. I suppose none were ever actually built. Instead of simple mist it creates high density fog, presumably because of the temperature of the flue gas. You are helped of course by the fact that the flue gas contains a lot of water vapour too. All you have to do is supersaturate and drain the liquid. Shouldn't cost very much should it? It might even cost less than a traditional tall stack. All this fuss about a simple engineering problem!

11-Pollution-sensor; 12-Elbow; 13-Roof; 14-Building; 15-Legs; 16-Conical body; 17-Pollution sensor; 18-High pressure water line; 19-Multiple nozzles; 20-Catch basin; 21-Drain; 22-Short stack; 23-Pollution sensor; 24-Baffles

Looks nice!

Found here http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3668841.html. 

Well done Howard R. Nunn of Napa California. You beat me by 40 years! I wonder if he's still alive? In homage I'm going to call it the "Nunn Foggy Scrubber".

Now I'll just get this into a 3d model when I have the time!

Sphere: Related Content

Selling a new product

This is a short distillation of stuff I'm trying to ensure I do as I launch a new product.

How to Sell (adapted):
1. Know your customer. Understand his personal (secondary) buying motive. ie what he really seeks from the product or service. Ask questions and listen to the answers.
2. Sell the features, advantages and benefits that relate to what the customer wants.
3. Be aware of the psychological steps that buyers go through and how to deal with them.
4. You need a) Empathy, so that you can understand customer needs. b) Confidence, so that your can bring customers to the point of buying, and c) Resilience, so that you can use rejection and temporary setbacks as spurs that constantly move you forward
5. Be honest and available. Sales are about relationships and relationships are about trust.
6. Plan for the possible objections.
7. Make it easy to buy.


Some of this doesn't relate to me but perhaps more to the website or the product. I am a stickler for simplicity. When it's simple it's usable and has less trouble. For usability it needs to be lightweight, with few options all of which are labelled clearly. To some extent this is a carry over from designing tools offshore. I listened to the complaints about existing tools, agreed they were indeed correct, noticed where they could be designed a lot better and made sure my own products did not have the same defects. It's most gratifying when the users of the tools say something like "this tool is a heck of a lot better than the last one we had".


I'm aware of course that others like complications but I'm thinking they are the kind of people who will buy the big name products, where you might know what you want but you can't a) find it in the interface, b) use it after you found it because you didn't do 3 or 4 previous steps correctly. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you clearly haven't used Ansys Workbench!


Now the reason some buyers/users value complexity is presumably the assumption that they are getting more bang for their buck. So if the buck is less maybe that would overcome that difficulty.


Then of course you get into the canard of "you get what you pay for". Well there is no way around that other than to target your audience. People may criticize Alibre for price reductions, just like they criticize Ryanair for cheap flights but if the sales are there then clearly it's just snobs or vested interests who are worried about buying something cheaper. Most of us here in France just love Ryanair because they provide a service that is convenient, unique, quick and fair. Their separations of the charges are a pain but clearly they are used to bring customers in the door. I think that's what I'm aiming for. The pricing issue is a problem that will sort itself out only by testing, in the way that Alibre just did. Having added 10,000 users at 100 dollars a piece it was an interesting million dollar gain as well as an experiment.

It should also be robust. Two things I made sure of with FEMdesigner after bad experience with other FE software were a) Keep a readable text file because binaries get corrupted easily, and b) if it ever crashes make sure these files are not affected. Potential crashes can be found by beta testing. What I'm discovering - the biggest headache - is that these crashes come almost exclusively from 3rd party issues so I'm trying to keep it simple regarding using the graphics card, threading and the like. Anything too new or controversial will fail. Currently I'm sorting out a deadlocking problem because I need a worker thread to overlay my plots on the host viewport but if the user or the operating system causes a refresh message on the other thread then everything freezes. It took me a while to discover that one and I've still only half-fixed it.


Update - fixed it: Confucius he says "Use too many threads and deadlock is your downfall".

Sphere: Related Content

CO2 capture device

Now I was just musing about the SO2 scrubbers that were used to prevent acid rain. We retrofitted them to power station stacks and now the problem is no more. Actually whether it was a problem in the first place is debatable - according to Bjorn Lomberg's book "the skeptical environmentalist" it wasn't - but let's gloss over that. Are we presuming that a similar thing can't be done with CO2? Because if we are then it doesn't make much sense to me. When air capture is mentioned at all then they always assume it should be in the form of artificial trees. See here for the most promising one of these:

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2523

Now Lackner got his idea first from a fishtank scrubber and then from a leaf. However he forgot the most efficient natural scrubber of the lot - rainwater. Yes CO2 indeed easily dissolves in rainwater to form carbonic acid. In fact though Lackners idea uses this mechanism to collect the CO2 from the ion-exchange mechanism. Why did he use an ion-exchange mechanism? - because he is simulating a tree. Why is he simulating a tree? - because he is capturing CO2 from the air. Why is he capturing CO2 from the air rather than from chimney stacks? - lord alone knows, it seems dumb to me!

So in summary - and if anyone wants to fund me in this planet saving mission my email is jg@femdesigner.com

a) skip the dumb tree idea and go straight to the power station stacks exactly as with the SO2 scrubbers,
b) put in a 90 degree bend and add a fine mist spray in the corner, like the type that sprays mist on lettuces in my local supermarket,
c) drain off the carbonic acid and the wet soot from the bend corner,
d) pipe the liquid to an algae farm or a greenhouse. Be sure to use gravity rather than a pump.

Now how much would that cost? Peanuts? A working prototype is worth 25 million from Richard Branson. Alas the idea is now officially out in the public domain (ie here) so you can't patent it! Ha ha!

Sphere: Related Content

unequivocal warming, but not unequivocally human

Interesting quote from Andy Revkin buried deep in his comments section at dotearth:


////quote
There's utter logic in concluding that if there is, as the IPCC concluded, 90-percent confidence that more than half of recent warming is greenhouse-driven, that implies a substantially higher level of confidence (well up toward, if not precisely 100 percent) exists that some greenhouse warming is under way.

But the IPCC -- outside of the questionable line in this chapter -- never stated there was no doubt about human-driven warming. Again, that doesn't mean there's no doubt, given the breadth of evidence. It just means they never formally said it.

I actually had prolonged discussions with both Susan Solomon and Michael Oppenheimer of the IPCC about this after some IPCC authors expressed concern over that very phrase in an update we ran on the latest climate science just before Copenhagen. http://j.mp/noCO2doubt

Using that logic, I wrote that the panel “...concluded that no doubt remained that human-caused warming was under way and that, if unabated, it would pose rising risks.”

They both disagreed:

Dr. Oppenheimer: "The 'no doubt' or 'unequivocal' refers only to the warming part, not the human-caused part."

Dr. Solomon: "This could be true but it's not something that we said."


////endquote


Time they reminded some of their colleagues and disciples who regularly use that phrase cavalierly.  The trouble is, the fact of warming does not suggest the cause of it. The warming of the last century though has been a linear trend with fluctuations. We think we know the fluctuations are down to ocean cycles but the trend is not so easy. It could be just another long term fluctuation - as suggested by Avery and Singer in their book "Unstoppable warming every 1500 years". Certainly if 50% of it was natural last century and the trend in the 2nd part is the same as in the first part then the rest of it has a good chance of being natural too, in the form of a natural recovery from the little ice age. The idea that it was manmade was based on a false assumption that we could tease out the natural component from 1985 to 2000 so what was left must be man-made warming. It was a ridiculously optimistic or misleading idea - no doubt entirely to influence policy. The significant pause in recent warming put paid to the idea that natural fluctuations were predictable on these shorter timescales. So to really answer the question of what caused the warming, we really need to first ask the questions a)- what caused the little ice age, and b) what caused the medieval warm period before it, because these were 100% natural and seem to have been global. When we know that long-term natural component then we can tease out the manmade contribution and not before. 


Of course several solar theorists have said the long term trend seems to match solar activity. One that springs to mind was Scaffeta and West who compared solar reconstructions with Moberg's proxy reconstruction. A bit iffy mind you but interesting. The exchange between Scaffeta and Rasmus on realclimate.org was quite entertaining. To me Scaffetta won on points and Rasmus gave up. It didn't help that he got the Stefan-Boltzmann equation wrong; somewhat of a howler for a man in his position. Neither did it help that he was pretending that the now utterly discredited and even disowned hockey-stick reconstructions were better than Mobergs effort.  Nor that his main defense for that was the utterly illogical canard that if natural variation proved large then that is even more reason to worry about CO2 rises.

Sphere: Related Content

Science as a blunt instrument

No doubt anyone who's followed the debates on global warming that occur on the blogosphere have noticed the reference to tobacco industry scientific studies and in particular that S. Fred Singer and perhaps a few others were involved in downcrying the science that second hand smoke causes cancer. What I'm wondering though is why anyone needed a scientific report to call on any ban for smoking? As I just read a lawyer repeating, "my right to swing my fist ends just before it touches your nose". Well substitute blowing smoke for swinging fists and you have all the justification you need. For all the blather that selfish smokers make about society impinging on their liberties they don't ever consider for one second that us non-smokers find smoke offensive and that our right to not breath their pollution far outweighs their rights to do it. The case is this simple; you can smoke as much as you like as long as you don't blow any over anyone else. It doesn't even matter whether it causes cancer or not, the mere fact that it is disgusting is sufficient reason to send the buggers outside.

A similar report was recently released on the health effects of Diesel. Apparently long distance lorry drivers are showing certain signs of something or other. This is no doubt another effort to undermine fossil fuel use in some way. That I saw it on the green car congress blog confirms the audience for this stuff. But again it wasn't necessary because everyone agrees that diesel smoke and soot is particularly disgusting and I'd have thought pedestrians are more at risk than anyone. So who needs a report? Answer - absolutely nobody. People get bogged down arguing on scientific reports that show spurious correlations and talk about statistical significance (a phrase that should be outlawed in my opinion) in order to invoke some health law. Yet they don't need that - they can turn to civil liberties laws instead.

And of course the upshot is that even smokers prefer to be in a smoke free environment. This is why they blow it out so far in the first place. Now that discos have become smoke free zones, my smoking friends remark that it's much more pleasant and they are quite happy to go outside to prevent the inside getting smoky.

I guess I'm particularly cranky about smoke because one of these 2000 poisons gives me a migraine from time to time. It took me a while to narrow it down to smoke but then I narrowed it down even further to US cigarettes. Ah the US free market economy - allows you to consume all the junk you like and a lot more you didn't know about! Have some growth hormones with that steak won't you? By the way, did anybody ever tell you you're beginning to resemble a bullock? What happened to the science that investigated that anyway? Maybe the entire grant went towards investigating truckers lungs. Or maybe the fossil fuel industry is fair game but the food industry gets a free ride for some reason.

Sphere: Related Content

Insourcing; think about it!

There was an interesting segment on French TV last night. Apparently some companies who had outsourced their labour to foreign countries were scuttling back after it all went wrong. Both companies featured complained about the lower quality costing them customers and the first explained that the cheap labour cost in Roumania wasn't all it seemed: ie Although the cost in France was 30 euros per hour versus 6, there were hidden costs, such as low productivity, transport, more management staff, etc that put the full Roumanian cost at 36 euros per worker. These were all things they just hadn't thought of. Meantime the manufacturer who'd gone to China complained about only having two colour options - both gray - and the hand-finishing causing fit-up problems. As Jeremy Clarkson would say, "hand-built is just another way of saying the door won't shut right", which is fair comment on metal objects at least. A 3rd businessman made an all-out effort to have a made in France label as a matter of pride. Let's face it a prestige manufacturer with a made in China label is just not possible. But in order to do that he needed to squeeze his suppliers. Well there's no better time than a crisis to try that. We need to take risks and make strong partnerships to survive. The Japanese though used to pay extra to ensure good suppliers but it's changed days now. I'll bet they are feeling the Chinese bite too.

Contrast this with the Ross Perot/Al Gore encounter about NAFTA where Perot correctly predicted all jobs would go South and Al disagreed. Well besides the jobs argument, just how much of the collapse of the US car industry is down to poor quality? Customers are difficult to get and even more difficult to get back when they've been let down. Short-termist thinking needs to be rooted out of managers heads. The best way to do that is probably to put engineers in charge :) like they do in France, Germany, Japan and China. France wavered a bit with US hire-em-fire-em ideas but the law stopped them and Germany had a short-lived experiment with US management but this crash has ended all that. Now they know they were right all this time.

The car industry is my benchmark for business generally and it seems that they survive due to protectionism, national pride in engineering, good management and single-union, no-strike deals. If Japanese manufacturers can manage to build and sell quality cars in the US and UK then clearly the idea that unions or workers were to blame for a car industry closure is a total red herring: It is perforce the management at fault. And that is from making decisions on a short-term quarterly return basis rather than thinking about long-term customer satisfaction. Blindly outsourcing your product is a perfect example that will come back to haunt many. Sadly on their return, one of the French manufacturers discovered that the workforce they'd abandoned had moved on and there was a shortage of skills necessary to run the machinery.

Finally I read a lot of whining from US and UK fund managers about European work hours and regulations that stop you firing people on a whim. But when it's easy to fire people, what kind of workers do you get? Answer: ones who won't tell you when you are wrong. And if it's easy to get people to work long hours routinely then are you getting the best work done in the best way - or are you getting a horses arse of a job produced by an overtired, overstressed worker? If you've ever worked in the oil industry you'll know the latter is the case.

There should be a compromise position and I for a while thought that the UK employment laws were best in that respect; reasonable protections, no impediments to startup. However for some reason it doesn't work as well as you'd think. Why? Well I've found that the worst problem in the UK is late payment. I'm pretty sure that's what kills most businesses and I'm also sure that's the intention of the accountants who keep this practice up. It goes like this; get the job done from small supplier on credit, refuse to pay, supplier goes out of business, ergo no need to pay. Even government departments practice this. My own uncle was forced out of business when after he'd done a lot of work for the local council, the Labour party decided to abolish county councils and replace them with regional councils instead. The old council couldn't pay and the new one said it was not their bill. Many, many businesses were lost in the same way because the only redress was via expensive court proceedings. Don't tell me that the Labour party is about workers. A whole bunch of accountants should be in jail for that scam. Of course any excuse works for late payment and if you've done the job already then you are shafted.

So if you are starting a small business in the UK the lesson is clear: NO CREDIT EVER. Personally I'm quite insulted when a company sends a purchase order. It's so second nature to them that they don't seem to even realize they are actually rudely assuming that I'll give them credit rather than politely asking for it. If someone ever tries that one on then send a pro-forma invoice and explain in clear terms that you don't ever give credit, because of bad experiences with late payers. That way they might actually realize that they've been begging for credit like a street urchin while pretending to be a world class company. They'll whine about their systems not being set up for that but it's all just toss. Be firm and you'll discover they can pay up front very easily when they feel like it!

Sphere: Related Content

Good news: The planet can cope!

An update really to the previous post that mentioned the satellite data that shows that planet earth is undergoing reforestation rather than deforestation! Just to show that you can get anecdotal evidence for the greening of the planet when you actually look for it, the New York Times had ran this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html

Containing the happy quotes:


"By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster."

“Biologists were ignoring these huge population trends and acting as if only original forest has conservation value, and that’s just wrong,” said Joe Wright, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute here, who set off a firestorm two years ago by suggesting that the new forests could substantially compensate for rain forest destruction."

"Globally, one-fifth of the world’s carbon emissions come from the destruction of rain forests, scientists say. It is unknown how much of that is being canceled out by forest that is in the process of regrowth. It is a crucial but scientifically controversial question, the answer to which may depend on where and when the forests are growing."

They sure don't act like that de/reforestation is unknown do they? But hey I've an idea....why not just look at the available satellite data? Then it won't be so "unknown" any more. Too easy? Or just no juicy research money in that approach? We know - good news doesn't seem to sell papers - not unless it's "causing a firestorm".

And as if that wasn't enough good news, there's a reality check for the Malthusians (population worriers) too:

"In Latin America and Asia, birthrates have dropped drastically; most people have two or three children. New jobs tied to global industry, as well as improved transportation, are luring a rural population to fast-growing cities. Better farming techniques and access to seed and fertilizer mean that marginal lands are no longer farmed because it takes fewer farmers to feed a growing population." 

Alas we had the predictable negative responses from those scientists whose income depends on alarmism. After all what's a professional earth science pessimist to do when nature seems to know how to sort things out on it's own? Well, how about becoming an entrepreneur and being a net giver to society rather than a net taker! Too scared to leave academia and face making your own living? Yes we know - that's why you stayed on for the PhD in the first place. The rest of us didn't fancy the trade-off of working 3 years for nothing for the shiny kudos of  someone calling you doctor. Sadly, too many find that their new PhD allows them to be easily rejected as "overqualified" in the real world. We need a PhD vocational re-education program. The first two items I'd put in the curriculum would be:

a) Look at all the data, not just the bits that fit your hypothesis.

b) Stop being so darn pessimistic. eg think seal cubs might be saved rather than polar bears might be lost!


And for all you people who say well it can't hurt making sure we stop deforestation then you clearly haven't seen this PBS documentary: I urge you to do so!  
http://www.pbs.org.news-channel.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/


That comment from anonymous below the film clip was from me. Ignored completely of course by the self-righteous - in complete line with the Stiglitz think tank who I'd alerted about reality not being quite the same as the models, before they went and made an arse of themselves at Copenhagen. Seems like they've dropped off the radar anyway - still using up public cash though and producing flawed reports that nobody seems to read. Oddly though they'd asked for comments on their reports and supplied an email to do so which is why I bothered. I'd even harboured a notion that they might at least acknowledge me (they didn't) though I'd known beforehand that  they wouldn't say "thanks we'll think about this". And of course when the Sunday Times gets around to investigating the deforestation fiasco then they'll say that nobody informed them. Frankly it's not up to me either - it's up to Dr Steve Running who did the fine satellite work. Funny that he hasn't received funding for it since 2003 when he reported the good news isn't it? Almost like they didn't really want to know that deforestation wasn't a problem! 


Stiglitz of course is one of the few economists who predicted the current financial fiasco - a Keynesian, he was predisposed to be skeptical of the Washington Consensus version of free-market strategies, and has written fine words in condemnation of the world Bank and IMF policies in Latin America. He really should know what it's like to be against the crowd but correct and he should realize the vital value of using real data to validate hypotheses because he was that man; resigning his position at the World Bank when they failed to listen to him.


So we have the tyranny of good intentions, the herdlike nature of humans to believe exactly what they want to believe, the failure to appreciate unintended consequences and plain old follow-the-money. Sure the planet can obviously take it but it's the poorest humans that suffer. Can't we at least learn to listen to them this time around?

Sphere: Related Content

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

I've discussed the first part of Einstein's famous phrase above in "Simple is Efficient" but the second part is just as important. If the recent meltdown of the financial markets is a guide to anything it's about how we search for ways to over-simplify something we truly don't understand, in order to make predictions that have no solid foundation. I'll use the dismal science as an example. I could have used engineering but that's too obvious: When a bridge falls down you are forced to do things better next time, but with economics they can just swap out one failed or untested theory with another.

The current economic dogmata owes much to the opposing Chicago School and Keynesian schools of thought. The Chicago school, of whom Milton Friedman is the most famous were a bunch of revisionists who reverted to a free market concept which they ascribed to the "invisible hand" metaphor of Adam Smith. Likely they hadn't even read Smith or they'd have known better. In truth Smith wasn't lecturing anyone, he was trying to understand the market and in several places he honestly admitted when he just didn't get it. The simplification made was that people are rational, markets work perfectly by themselves via the "invisible hand" and government regulation is therefore automatically bad. Of course the absurdity of the assumptions ridicule the conclusion - but only to a rational thinker. There's the rub; they thought they were rational people (rather than ivory-towered, hubristic chumps who couldn't run even a toffee shop) so their assumptions must perforce be correct.

Well the simple theory-confounding reality is that a truly free market is also free for the criminals. The only real test of the Chicago School theory was in Yeltsin's Russia, where all the economists straight from college suddenly became government advisors. Yeltsin naively assumed that what was being taught in US Universities was how America became rich. In truth America became rich thanks to staying out of the World War for long enough to sell vast amounts of arms and materiel to the combatants. No real secret there; but crucially the huge booms felt in the fifties in the West owed abolutely nothing to free market ideas either. It was Keynesianism apparently. But Keynes pretty much changed his mind all the time, so you might say it wasn't really his doctrine - it was his own savvy. Keynes of course knew how to run a business that made money and that is done by learning from mistakes, ie being adaptable, rather than sticking to ideas that have manifestly failed. Russia paid a heavy price for believing US academics by having a huge slump and being dominated by criminals. They only recovered when statism returned under Putin.

In the 70's Keynesianism, or rather the simplistic version of it invented by Samuelson, was blamed for the lack of growth and Friedman became the new guru. Thatcher then experimented with these Friedmanite free market ideas - basically changing taxation from income to consumption and removing state subsidies and regulations. Initially this lead to a massive recession in the UK but eventually - thanks to deregulation of the markets (and North Sea oil) the UK began to look lean and fit. It had certainly been shorn of much of it's manufacturing capability. But while the poorer 60% became poorer, the richer 40% became richer so it was all deemed a big success by the right-dominated newspapers. Everyone was in fact happy that the overly-powerful unions had been quietened, it was just a shame it took massive unemployment engendered* by a ruthless, bloody-minded, destructive and immoral harridan to achieve that end.

Reaganomics didn't really come from Reagan as he he didn't really bother himself much with government at all - or indeed with anything that required any thinking, or even with turning up for work. His puppeteers copied Thacherism, which in truth wasn't really like anything Friedman had advised (Thatcher had already abandoned monetarism as a proven failure) and renamed it the Washington Consensus. This doctrine was applied by the World Bank and IMF in a one-size-fits-all manner: Privatise everything, cut government spending, remove subsidies. The result - as reported by the economist Joseph Stiglitz and others - was a complete disaster for any country who asked for IMF or World Bank help. In effect these organisations who were supposed to be helping poor nations become less dependent on aid, had turned into tyrannical loan sharks, destroying economies for the profit of their friends on Wall street and various other corporate criminals based offshore.

Now Samuelson's Keynesianism is back but not in the manner Keynes would have liked. Keynes decried the idea of casino capitalism and that's almost exactly what is being tried now. There is no actual plan behind the massive spending except the vague idea that it worked before. But previously there had been the realization that to make money you have to add value to raw materials and sell the finished product at a profit. Somehow now, we have a strange mix of massive spending from that psuedo-Keynesianism combined with the sunny Chicago School optimism that markets, if left alone, will absorb this cash injection and magically produce economic growth. A double-whammy of stupidity! Only in the 3rd strand of economics; the Austrian school of Von Mises and Hayek, is there the realization that if too much debt caused the problem then more debt will make it worse. Of course the Austrian School followers have somewhat oversimplified beliefs too (stemming from Ayn Rand) but at least they were the ones who predicted this depression coming. Strangely this wasn't enough qualification to allow them to be employed by governments to fix the mess. Likely their fix - let the banks fail - was a bit too much for the revolving door mentality of politicos. After all that's their next job they'd be making disappear. Even Nouriel Roubini's softer ideas of mark-to-market mortgage reassessments were rejected. At any cost the huge mistakes made by the bankers seemingly had to be rewarded by the taxpayer. What are the chances then of this lot fixing anything? After all they are the same ones who broke it.

The point is that all strands of the original economic thought, have been over-simplified by others, removing all the important caveats and uncertainties of the originators, to the point where they do more harm than good. This is only one illustration of the process. One could mention the oversimplification of CO2 as the major climate driver, or of psychotherapists eager to blame parents for every misdeed done by their children, or indeed of  any number of other social sciences that ignore the wondrously unpredictably chaotic nature of life on Earth. Good grief they've even over-simplified natural chaos into a chaos theory. Isn't that an oxymoron? If you ever need an illustration of the real, natural chaos that confounds us then you'll see it the next time you pick up a cable that seems to have tied itself in knots all by itself after you had neatly stacked it away. Now that's an allegory worth remembering!

*It was the late Paul Foot's theory that Sir Keith Joseph and Maggie had deliberately conspired to increase unemployment so as to reduce inflation. The swingometer of high unemployment=low inflation was a trendy concept at that time so it's possible. Conservatives truthfully didn't give a rats arse about anyone who had to dirty his hands to work so it's plausible too. After all how can you not realize that if Asia and Europe subsidize their industries and you remove your subsidies then you will lose your industries. It's not a difficult concept! So it's either gross stupidity, which is also plausible, or downright evil or the blinding dogma of the free-marketeers (which to be fair also goes in the stupidity box).

Sphere: Related Content

The science is worse than we thought!

There was a link from a recent article in the Independent (about the met offices abysmal prediction record) that showed some of the arithmetic trickiness employed by the IPCC to present the case that climate change is worse than we thought.
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc

Now i'd noticed before the inability of the IPCC to properly add up error bounds, ie it is impossible for individual components to a total to have a larger error bound than the total. And I'd noticed the IPCC got the 20% deforestation number totally ass-backwards because the planet has actually been officially greening according to the peer-reviewed NASA satellite data http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/. It might very well be 20% REforestation. If that was included int he carbon sink summation then there is less missing sink to search for. The missing sink argument is that we stick roughly 7 Gt (Gigatonnes)) in the air, 1.5 Gt is added by deforestation, 3 Gt stays in the atmosphere and 2 Gt is removed by land and sea.The remainder is unaccounted for. Of course the error bars on these numbers are quite high. The numbers also vary according to who does the calculation.

Ref: IPCC + http://www.greencollar.org/employer/the-missing-carbon-sink-ads-7868.html
Values in gigatonnes:

Existing idea: 7 (fossil fuels) + 1.5 (deforestation) - 3 (remains in atmosphere) - 2 (oceans) = 3.5 Gt missing sink.

More plausible idea?: 7 (fossil fuels) - 3 (remains in atmosphere) - 2 (oceans) =  2 (reforestation).

Of course the whole sink/source argument is inexact science to say the least, as this report shows:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070621140805.htm

They really don't in fact have a clue as to what is a sink and what is a source in nature. In fact the sea should be a net source too by Henry's law, since it is warming up. The reason it is treated as a sink is because then either the sea contributes to the total that we observe in the atmosphere which is politically incorrect (in my opinion) or there is an even greater missing sink, meaning our scientists are even more clueless about the carbon cycle. There isn't really a scientific justification for a warming sea being a net sink - there are some hand-waving arguments and iffy models but no real evidential numbers so it's mostly a politically convenient decision.

And I'd of course  noticed that the 90% certainty figures in the summary was presented as scientific, ie based on evidence when in fact it was no more than a show of hands, ie 100% unscientific and misleading.

But it's even worse than I thought. Things are added after the reviews are complete. This is brought to light becuase the review comments were eventually - after much pressure - released in this "open process". And they reveal that Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones clearly thought the case wasn't strong enough so they just made things up and added them later - unreviewed.

The IPCC is always used as the yardstick to judge alarmism, eg by the UK judge who lorded it over the courtcase that identified 9 serious innaccuracies in "An inconvenient truth" and ordered schools to mention these when the film is shown. However, we no longer have that yardstick because the IPCC report was shaped by these two lead authors after everyone else had gone home. I'm reminded that several of the authors; Paul Reiter (malaria), Richard Lindzen (feedbacks), Chris Landsea (hurricanes), Roger Pielke Snr (land-changes) had of course resigned because of this post-review chicanery and had been summarily ignored by the press. In addition just about everyone has criticised the millenial reconstructions of temperature including Briffa the actual lead author of the report, who according to the "climategate" emails firmly believes that there was a medieval warm period as warm or warmer than today. Crazy! Science will recover because people have short memories but we really have to redefine peer-review procedures now that we have the chance.

Now some might think that it's all for the greater good. Wrong! Being honest is for the greater good! If you are dishonest in your summary of the science then you are more than likely dishonest in all of your science and you dishonour your profession. In engineering this type of chicanery would quite literally cost lives.

Update : some more links from a skeptic sight which you are free to peruse. The carbon cycle never really gets the discussion it deserves anywhere in the mainstream press or journals.

My argument beaten by 10 years and much more technically obtained - we get the same 30% fraction. Impressively this was 4 years before the satellite data confirmed the greening of the planet:

http://www.john-daly.com/bulletin/bull-111/bul111.htm

An alternative statistical conclusion to the IPCC:

http://www.john-daly.com/ahlbeck/ahlbeck.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/reviews.htm


An alternative bathtub model:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

Sphere: Related Content

Other peoples money

Disclaimer: I'm not socialist or conservative but I do defend both of these points of view. Obviously most systems in Europe are a strong mixture of both. But this post does deal with politics-led economics, concluding that it's all based on bad dogma.


Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Now Thatcher was sometimes right and sometimes wrong but mostly she didn't have a clue what she was doing from one moment to the next. However that was actually an essential part of her credo. She like Reagan, believed that government can't possibly ever do anything right so we need to leave the free-market to try to solve everything by using a hands-off approach. She lived up to both parts of that credo. Let's reflect on what she achieved impartially:


Good parts;
.Reduced inflation to record lows,.
.Controlled the trade unions, who had previously been totally destructive.
.Deregulated the credit process. Eventually this led to cheap credit. The engine of economic recovery must start with cheap credit surely.
.She was right that the tax regime was barmy. By reducing the top tax she actually got more overall tax revenue.


Bad parts:
.Inflation reduction was achieved by massively increasing unemployment in a very bad recession where Britain lost virtually all of it's traditional manufacturing base; ie the thing that made Britain rich in the first place. Workers were too afraid of being out of work to strike. One might ponder which situation is better; the slow stagnation effect of the left or the rapid descent and start again effect of the right.
.Actually making things and selling them was replaced by the city of London selling reams of worthless paper. Boom and busts were made worse. The cheap credit led to a housing boom because flipping a house was more profitable than working and sometimes the only alternative in a job-free marketplace.
.Homelessness rocketed upwards.

Other stuff she did was probably a net zero. She didn't control public spending but in fact increased it largely because of all the extra unemployment benefit. Much of Britain's GDP recovered largely due to North Sea Oil revenues, most of which was squandered and which is now running out. Nuclear power was stopped but replaced by natural gas power. While she reduced the income tax, she massively increased VAT and introduced a whole slew of other taxes -  a practice which Blair/Brown copied.

Blair of course used Thatcher as his role model, with no intention of moving back to an industrial Britain. The phrase "metal-bashing" came to replace the word "engineering" in governmental circles which illustrated the utter conptempt the political classes held for it. In Blair's government, most of them had never done a real job - they were politicians straight from college. John Major was a kind of stop gap middleman between these two larger personalities. So it's fair to say that what Britain has now is due to Thatcher rather than Blair - for better or worse, depending on your dogma.

But back to the original socialist put-down phrase "other peoples money". Now you might be thinking, like me, that it's capitalism that seems to rely on other peoples money rather more than socialism. And you might even notice that "eventually running out of other peoples money" is a perfect description of the current financial crisis. But it gets even odder than that. The US and the UK, the followers of Thatchers faith, grounded as it is in the utopian Chicago economics* of regulation-free markets and rational decision-makers, are the ones in deep debt and they got most of that debt from the most socialist regime on the planet who just happen to have all the money now: China. Oh irony of ironies! Another irony appears by realizing that China got all that wealth by building and selling things - just like Britain had! Lesson learned? Not yet it seems!


*You know the crowd - they used Smith's mere metaphor of an "invisible hand" as a godlike doctrine. One presumes this is a reflection of our soundbite world where a phrase has more meaning than an entire book. Clearly none of them actually even read Smiths book.

Sphere: Related Content

End qwerty domination!

A perfect example of an innocent early design mistake becoming important later:-
The qwerty keyboard was originally introduced to slow down typists because they were too fast for the first typewriter mechanisms to keep up. Yet it's still with us, even for computers used largely by two-fingered typists. This is where standardization can lead us (except for the French who, always striving to be just a little different, chose to use an azerty* keyboard instead). Yet there was a chance to change it when mobile phones were used for texting. Nobody who uses their thumbs for typing would want to use anything other than an alphabetic system. Alas now we have full keyboards on our phones though we still need to use our thumbs and --aaaargh! ---they are all qwerty. The only remaining hope now is that we get an option to change the touch screen keyboard to alphabetic. That would be really easy to do I imagine. Is there one?

*I had to change my French azerty for a Spanish qwerty. It wasn't so much the qw/az confusion (bad enough) but the numbers at the top: The French use the shift key for typing numbers while the rest of the world can type a number with just one touch. So frustrating... The Spanish keyboard bridged the Franco/Anglo divide and gives me all the funny keys I need too like ñ and Ç. So Spanish is not only easier spelt and easier pronounced but also easier typed.

Sphere: Related Content

Climate model sensitivity

Glad I am to report that at least one influential non-skeptic thinks that the accepted climate sensitvity to CO2 is very overblown. Skeptical in this case largely refers to Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other climatologists who think the IPCC is overly alarmist in it's projections. Oddly non-skeptical conventionally means that you accept the IPCC report. But a little known fact is that you can accept the IPCC report but prefer the lower projected increase in temperature of 1.1K per doubling of CO2. Yes that is allowed - it's called being a lukewarmer. And in that case to be skeptical is to reject the alarmism that appears only in the newspapers but not in the IPCC documents. A sensible position to take in other words.

Anyway, this next bit is lifted wholesale from another blog called MasterResource, run by Mssrs Bradley and Knappenberger and is here to remind me, or anyone else reading this, that mainstream users of climate models distrust them almost as much as the skeptics:

//////////////////////////////

"Jerry North (Texas A&M) Hints at the Problem

Eleven years ago, when I was director of public policy at Enron, I entered into a consulting agreement with Gerald North, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography at Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, to tell me what was going on. North was as close as I could find to a ‘middle of the roader’ between climate alarmism and (ultra) skepticism. He is alsohighly decorated.

And this has not changed. North’s own intuitive estimate of climate sensitivity is now 50% below the IPCC’s best guess, and he has been critical of a number of the climate mini-alarms that would make headlines and then fade away (more hurricanes, disruption of the thermohaline circulation, etc.).

But I noticed a Malthusian streak in North, that unstated assumption that nature is optimal, and the human influence on climate cannot be good but only bad–and maybe even catastrophic. Still, North in his emails to me–then and now–was rather blunt about the shortcomings of climate modeling.

Here is a sampling of quotations over the last decade:

“There is no doubt a small ‘sociological convergence’ effect, that tends to work here (individuals and their managers hate to be the outlier). The biggest problem is that doubling CO2 leads to a 1 deg C warming (I think even Lindzen agrees). If water vapor doubles it, we are at 2.0 (Lindzen differs here, but I do not know of anyone else). Are there any other feedbacks? It is hard to dismiss ice feedback, but it might be small. Clouds are positive in most models — I have always taken them to be neutral, but with no substantial reason (it’s just easier that way).”

“I do not think there is enough thinking going on. Just plugging in the numbers or running the simulations. Dick [Lindzen] is clearly right on this one.”

“I believe the ocean simulations are very primitive and quite variable from one group to another. The underlying reason is this: How much of the deep layers of the ocean are really participating in the warming?”

“There are pitifully few ways to test climate models.”

“[Models] sort of fake it (we call it ‘parameterization’). They do it in very crude ways such as if the temperature profile of the atmosphere is unstable, they make the whole column overturn, etc.”

“[The models’ treatment of feedbacks] could also be sociological: getting the socially acceptable answer.”

“I go back to my old position: we need more time, maybe a decade to get a better grip on aerosols, water vapor feedback, cloud feedback, ocean participation.”

“We have only a very loose grip on aerosols.”

“[The models] treat the ocean differently. Somehow, they are fudging the parameters that govern ocean coupling so that they get the right ocean delay to agree with the data in spite of their differing sensitivities.”

But before you call North a radical or tattletale on the ‘consensus’, consider what the IPCC said in the back of their latest assessement of the physical science of climate change:

“The set of available models may share fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.”

 - IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 805.

Is this a trick? Satisfy the science by stating the science–but do so on page 805 rather than in the executive summary where it belongs. It is this sort of thing that Eric Berger–and other open-minded middle-of-the-roaders–are going to find out. And they just might feel a little duped."

///////////////////////////

So OK, North leans towards 1.5K as a likely number, rather than the "official" 3K. Actually the official stance is 1.1 to 6K but everyone just takes the middle of the range as if it was a Gaussian distribution  (it isn't - all numbers higher than 1K are decreasingly scientifically plausible as North admits above - but of course the IPCC like the hoi polloi to assume it's a Gaussian). I've no problem believing that many more scientists think the same way as North but they just don't shout about it in the same way as Lindzen because it's just not politically correct to do so. Not everyones tenure is on such a sound footing as Lindzen, and Spencer actually had to resign from NASA in order to state his skeptical views.

I've noticed that Mathusian streak in a lot of the debate though - particularly on Andy Revkins blog. Overpopulation is a problem easily resolved by allowing 3rd world women some education, some independence and the right to work. All of which arrives with prosperity - which in turn is just possibly dependent on cheap, available energy. Ah...there's the rub. As they said on Spiked magazine though, Malthusians have always been wrong about the limits to growth and the real problem likely isn't too many people, it's too many Malthusians.

Sphere: Related Content

The car of the future

A while back I wrote that I didn't rate the internal combustion engine much. Ever since I did a project on gas turbines I've been wondering why the gas turbine car was stillborn. The advantages are so numerous but mainly the idea of using rotary motion rather than converting reciprocating motion is the killer. It makes everything else so much simpler. The pistons in an IC engine are actually based on a cyclists legs.Why then, I've often asked myself, do we push down at top dead centre (TDC) rather than at 10 past the hour as we do on a bike. Actually the answer is probably because it was always done that way, or because of space. I did find out that the new air car by some French inventor does push down at 10 past the hour and increases the efficiency by about 40%. ie as we've seen so often, when you are limited then you are forced to find a solution. That may be the ethos of the idea behind carbon limitations too. After all, high fuel prices in Europe forced the development of small Diesel engines.

Anyway, rather than have minor improvements to fundamentally silly technologies, why not go back to the drawing board? And somebody has:

http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=179151

Sweet looking, fast series hybrid using a Diesel microturbine to charge batteries that run an electric motor. Actually it's not so new. Jay Leno has a car with similar technology in his garage from earlier this century. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4215940.html 

"The Owen Magnetic. First seen at the auto show in New York City in 1915 ...has a gas engine and an electric generator. 

This drivetrain was the brainchild of George Westinghouse. The engine powers the generator, which creates a large magnetic force field be-tween the engine and drivewheels. There's no mechanical transmission. The driver moves a rheostat through four quadrants — a lot easier than shifting, and grinding, the straight-cut gears of the day — and the car moves ahead progressively, giving occupants that odd feeling you get when you try to push similar-pole magnets against each other. Both Enrico Caruso and John McCormack drove Owen Magnetics." 

And of course electric trains use this drive concept too. However, microturbines weren't available recently. I don't know why; the microturbine is almost an exact replica of the Rover turbine that I tested in 1982 and which was made in 1953. I presume it's the air/foil bearings that make the big difference.

Anyway, "0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, 150 mph top speed, and an unheard-of* driving range of up to 500 miles on a single tank of fuel, all with ultra-low exhaust emissions that rival any hybrid on the market today"

Somewhere I read about 500 mpg but maybe that's pushing it. A nice target though! We do know that the buses/coaches that use this technology are twice as economical as diesels - and a whole lot quieter, cleaner and smoother.

*Well it might be unheard of in the USA but the new Diesel Jaguar can achieve 1000miles on a single tank - as proven on Top Gear "Basle to Blackpool on a single tank" challenge.

Sphere: Related Content

Beware of fitness fashions; short term gain = long term pain

Oh no, not another skepticism confirmed. It's a bit depressing realising that skepticism about any fashionable idea is usually always justified. Another one I've just read about is high impact aerobics and step aerobics. The unfortunates who did it in the 80's all have arthritis now:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/27/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main3207440.shtml

I'd had an inkling of this because a friend who was a radiologist in the 80's kept saying that joggers and marathon runners were causing a huge upsurge in knee problems. Funny how many people have knee problems isn't it? My own knee pain arose largely from playing football. Though I admit it was mainly people kicking me after I'd dribbled past them but I also have a suspicion I'd screwed my knees up by those ever-odd stretching exercises and the continuous impact pounding. Now that I've largely given up all exercise (apart from walking a fair amount that is) my knee has completely healed. It took a long time mind you, but finally, no longer do I get these sudden, excruciating pains when I put pressure on it.

Isn't it also odd the number of fitness freaks who succumb to heart attacks? My cyclist neighbour has just succumbed too. The conventional wisdom was that exercise was good for the heart. But the heart is a muscle and you can strain it. Good grief, the Queen mother lived to 100 without doing apparently any exercise at all.

The secret then to good health and a long life? Eating well and walking rather than running. Ask the French!

Sphere: Related Content

Green programming

In my tradition of nabbing useful comments - largely as a diary. I've got one from "TheRegister". The original question is why do we need a full copy of Windows in every VMWare virtualization session, ie can't we just share the OS code because 40% of the server is being used up in dealing with this bloat. Well all the obvious answers were there; by using Solaris Zones or FreeBSD Jail then you can but then you don't have Windows. It goes back to the code bloat theme and someone called Captain Thyratron et al  summed it up in a rant:

"Solaris Zones/Containers are pretty good (speaking as a self confessed Solaris fan). Though last time I looked they didn't support migration of a live VM from one machine to another. So pluses/minuses both ways.

Of course, the best thing is to have a self-clustering app that doesn't need something like VMWare to give it resiliance, etc. et. You could run such an app natively on a series of hosts in their nice multitasking operating systems. Now where would I get one of those...

I'm pretty sure that virtualisation is just an excuse for lazy developers to not think about their app design properly. I see developers at my employer doing all sorts of crazy things - e.g. a whole Windows VM just to serve up a 10 page website! Whatever happened to efficiency?

Dear Reg, please can you start a Campaign for Real Computing. Once upon a time programmers were skilled at developing efficient code that ran quick in small amounts of RAM. Now that resources are 'plentiful' the programming community has generally got lazy:

1. VMs where a native app would do.

2. Languages with bloated runtime environments that take forever to load just so you don't have to worry about errant pointers.

3. Apps running as crappy interpreted code in junk scripting languages in browsers just to save the effort of compiling the bloody thing.

4. New thin client technologies that consume vast amounts of bandwidth and give poor results instead of updating perfectly good things like X11.

5. An ever expanding array of app hosting environments (Silverlight, AIR, etc.) that are all 'indispensible' that make machines slow to boot and don't do anything that a carefully written native app couldn't do.

6. Data stored in man readable text when computers learnt to store things as binary a long time ago (come on, who EVER reads XML as the prime means of accessing the data within?).

I wonder how long it will be before data centre managers realise that lazy developers and vendors are costing them huge amounts in electricity, hardware and bandwidth costs?"

So there you have it - and it's true. Bloaty programming has a hardware and energy consumption cost. Ending code bloat is green. Do we really need items 1 to 6? I don't think so. This is why I'm anti code bloat and why someone telling me that throwing hardware at it is cheaper than doing the app right in the first place is plain crazy. It may be cheaper (debatable) but it's wasteful and short sighted.

Sphere: Related Content

Peak Oil Baloney

Well there is a peak oil cult currently exemplified by the worriers at theoildrum.com and their latest post, relying pretty much on a correlation between dollar price and US GDP. Hence to them a high oil price equals low GDP. Hence it's basically yet another "doomsday from resource-limits" cult. Well my comment to that is below:

You may be mixing up cause and effect and oversimplifying. Yes GDP is correlated with oil price but that's partly because in a boom more oil is used and in a recession there is a cutback. While I'd accept that a price spike causes a cutback too, the short-term price spikes of 2007 were really caused by over-buying of futures contracts which then corrected the same year. But the reason everyone was buying into oil was because the debt level became unsustainable, the recession was coming, the stock market was diving and the pension fund managers stupidly thought that commodities were a safe haven. Inevitably the speculation corrected and the oil price dropped. The initial price rise from 2001 had of course been caused by the Iraq war and fears of supply.

Of course, we also have the reality that cheap oil allowed globalization by reducing shipping costs which then caused a slump in Western manufacture, so the Western GDP was then propped up only by rising house prices which were in turn based on cheap debt. And of course an economy that depends on house prices to continually rise is doomed to collapse, which is what happened. So it's all a bit more complex than your simple analysis allows for. In other words, correlation is not causation.

Indeed a higher price may actually be better for western economies because:
a) It makes cheap imports more expensive and allows local economies to redevelop their own manufacturing base, which gives real GDP growth from added value, rather than artificial growth from debt.
b) It encourages investments in extraction or gasification of shale oil and extraction of heavy oil, which are both hugely abundant, as even M. King Hubbert [the originator of the peak oil movement] noted, and which in turn ensures a future supply of oil.

Also perhaps a more important correlation is between the price of gold and the number of barrels it buys, which has hovered around 14 barrels per ounce for a century. So it's likely the variance in the price is more indicative of the value of the dollar than anything else.

Lastly, oil is largely used for transportation and plastics so a reduction in oil would not reduce electrical energy output hence it's not quite as drastic as you suggest. There is plenty of coal and gas to keep the lights on and there are also alternatives to plastics which could be used if plastics became expensive. So it's not all doom and gloom! It really depends on how you want to view things!

But there's yet one more aspect that I forgot to mention there. The fact that world oil is bought in dollars means that every country in the world has to keep a supply, so they buy more dollars as the oil price rises. This allows the US to print more dollars without incurring inflation. It's the petrodollar economy that has propped up the USA since the end of the Bretton-Woods agreement and it basically amounts to the rest of the world giving free money to the USA. This willingness for the rest of the world to soak up dollars is why the USA GDP looked so good and why the debt burden didn't seem to matter to all US administrations since Reagan. In their own words, the growing debt was a sign of confidence in the USA and indeed it was. However that confidence is lost if the dollar tanks. That of course would cause all these foreign dollars to be worthless. Hence the rest of the world are partly forced to keep propping up the dollar or lose the value of their reserves. What a dilemma! China, who hold the largest dollar stash, are coping with this dilemma by buying up all the commodities; metals, oil, uranium that they can get their hands on. Basically they will then not have to worry about any dollar crash and may even be the new hegemony in the world - ousting the USA. The Eastern politicians it seems are a lot more clever than their Western counterparts.

Its much more fascinating when you do real analysis rather than just plotting two curves, noting a correlation and dumbly assuming that A causes B or B causes A, rather than C causing both A and B. More false ideas are spread, and even wars happen, because of this fundamental error than by anything else.

Sphere: Related Content

UK Energy Policy

I'm pretty sure that the UK energy policy is based on faith, hope and charity and very little real action. However, in some senses you can argue that a government with a total lack of engineering knowledge should just keep their nose out. Certainly Thatcher's dreams of a nuclear future were confounded by the reality of commissioning and decommissioning costs and it was largely good luck that natural gas came along at the right time. The gas plants though were not only better than coal and nuclear - simpler, more efficient, cheaper - they were pulled from industry rather than pushed by government. That's an important thing to note as it sort of vindicates the "free-market knows best" idea which has been knocked quite a bit. However the real problem with the free market is that it's too free for the criminals and they then gradually take control and ensure that it becomes less free for everyone else. That's where the regulation is needed. If the regulators are criminals too then there's no hope.

I'm convinced that the UK just doesn't have the money for the nuclear expansion they propose - they are massively in debt. Whatever the government says now they'll have to face that reality sooner or later. Sooner I hope.

So what is the real energy direction going to be? Well I'm increasingly finding that it's a lot easier recycling someone else's words when they agree with you. I thought I was such a contrarian that couldn't happen but apparently I'm not so alone. So I dug this out of the comments section of the oil drum. Again I assume it's public domain. I could have reworded it but that would have been pointless and dishonest. It's by the OMGbyWTF anonymous bot:

"The recession is keeping the lights on at the moment. There are a couple of unusual things happening in the UK electricity market at the moment.

The low price of natural gas and large number of CCGT's seem to to be undercutting the price of coal generated electricity, also there are net electricity exports to France as they seem to have a lot of nukes out of service for various reasons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/utilitiesSector/idUSLU26856720091030

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

The UK has wasted its North Sea reserves making cheap electricity with no long term investment in alternatives or storage. LNG import capacity has been built fairly quickly and it I don't see the 'gas glut' lasting for very long. I think the UK needs to get its act sorted on several key areas.

Build more natural gas storage facilities.

Improve thermal efficiency in buildings: insulation and move towards heat pumps starting with those on electric and oil fired heating. External insulation and solar water heating should also be considered.

Adopt the Danish model of multifuel CHP systems burning coal, rubbish, biomass and gas whilst providing district heating. Distributed generation running of gassified waste / coal / natural gas / biogas should provide good security and flexibility. Dump the CO2 and waste heat into greenhouses.

Accelerate construction of replacement nuclear reactors and grid upgrades to add more interconnectors with Europe and accomodate more wind power.

Expand and electrify existing railway services.

Look at potential for coal bed methane / gasification of the coal reserves under the North Sea, from a CO2 perspective this may not seem a good idea by this time there should be plenty of empty oil / gas fields to pump the CO2 into.

Build the Severn Barrage, and uprate and expand if possible existing pumped storage sites.

Roll out electric vehicles as they become available."

The only things I don't agree about are a) the nuclear expansion - on mainly cost grounds, and b) worrying about warming from CO2, which in my view is a very overblown hypothesis, though I accept it's politically correct. Using the CO2 for greenhouses or scavenging is however eminently sensible. However all this is cost but no sign of where the money might come from. Stopping the pointless wars would help. Perhaps a Tobin tax? Or just getting entrepreneurs to fund it rather than government. I'm not too happy about that because energy companies are natural monopolies - they really need strict overseers.

Sphere: Related Content