Another one for the duh files.
I live in NRA country now and the lunch conversation turned to gun rights. Somebody suggested that guns don't kill people and claimed that murder rates are similar around the world. The data suggest the opposite.
Murder Rates:
US: 5 per 100,000 people
Australia: 1.2, but this number excludes attempted murders
UK: 1.28, but this number excludes attempted murders
New Zealand’s number includes attempted murders, so should be more comparable to US. It is 1.3
Canada: 1.81, includes attempted murders
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Total crime rates:
US: 80 per 1,000 population
Australia: not listed
UK: 85.5
NZ: 105.9
Canada: 75
From: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Guns per 100 residents:
US: 88.8
Australia: 15
UK: not listed
NZ: 22.6
Canada: 30.8
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
The US has a lower crime rate but higher murder rate compared to similar countries. Criminals and crime everywhere, but crime rates aren’t correlated with murder rates. Guns make it easier to kill people. We have more guns, so we kill more people.
If you list these countries according to gun ownership rate, the list is in the exact same order as if you list them according to their murder rate. And the proportional rates are also similar. The US has 2.88 as many guns per capita and 2.76 times as many murders per capita compared to Canada. Given very similar cultures, economics, languages, etc, the data suggests that if you double the number of guns in a country, you also double the number of murders. In English speaking countries, roughly one gun in 18,000 will be used to kill someone each year, independent of which country that gun is located in.
Keeping everything else constant, you'll eliminate one murder per year for each 18,000 guns that you randomly remove from a population. It stands to reason that if you selectively remove guns from a population (i.e. from people with criminal histories or from poor or young or people with less education), you should be able to get better results from your efforts. But that is a different discussion.
The ludicrously obvious point is: guns kill people. If you have murderous intent but only a knife at hand, you will probably hurt someone but you are far less likely to kill them.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Smart grid is not low hanging fruit.
$100 Million to install 24,000 smart meters: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_15847180
That is just over $4000 per electricity meter to enable communication.
For comparison, a 1000 sq ft of R60 attic insulation costs about $1500 before subsidies.
Replacing every light in your house with CFLs costs about (25 lights x $5) $125. Or prettier LEDs for $1250.
Adding a timer to your water heater so it only heats the water during the hours when you might use it is another $25.
The difference being that all of the things on this list save energy by wasting less energy, while the smartest grid in the world can only tell you how you are wasting energy.
On the other hand, the project will likely result in everyone else’s energy prices going up and raising energy prices does encourage conservation.
That is just over $4000 per electricity meter to enable communication.
For comparison, a 1000 sq ft of R60 attic insulation costs about $1500 before subsidies.
Replacing every light in your house with CFLs costs about (25 lights x $5) $125. Or prettier LEDs for $1250.
Adding a timer to your water heater so it only heats the water during the hours when you might use it is another $25.
The difference being that all of the things on this list save energy by wasting less energy, while the smartest grid in the world can only tell you how you are wasting energy.
On the other hand, the project will likely result in everyone else’s energy prices going up and raising energy prices does encourage conservation.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
maintenance and smart grid
I read this and was blinded by rage:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/08/09/smart.grid/index.html?hpt=C1
Apparently, the smart grid would have prevented the 2003 blackout that took out the Northeast and caused $6B in damage.
I don’t know how the magic of smart grid would have prevented the utility from slashing its tree trimming budget to boost profits or how it would have prevented the SCADA system from failing to communicate that the lines were overheating or how it would have convinced the operators to listen to the operators from the neighboring utilities or how it would have created an effective regional decision-making structure to force utilities to shed load to prevent the problem from spreading, but somehow, magically, it would have. Maybe by letting the utility know that 20,000 toasters were being used in Tulsa, smart grid would have saved the day.
Outages doubled because of one reason: lack of maintenance. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell an expensive and largely useless smart grid.
Seriously, this is a simple problem that has been badly mishandled. And the fundamental cause is weird financial arrangements. Utilities use loans to build their system. The interest rate they pay on these loans is based on their credit rating. Their credit rating is based largely on how much they owe on outstanding loans as a fraction of what their system is worth. The value of their system is based on money spent to upgrade the system. Additionally, for profit utilities have the rate they are allowed to charge their customers based on the value of their system, so money put into the system means more profits.
So, if they get loans and use the money to improve their system it improves their credit rating, making it cheaper to get loans, which makes delivering power less expensive and/or more profitable.
Money spent on maintenance isn’t treated the same way. It is a current expense – money down the drain.
From an MBA CEO perspective, this is the entire story. Money spent on system improvements makes profits while money spent on maintenance is just gone. Only an idiot would throw money away on maintenance. So nobody does. Instead, you run equipment until it fails, then replace it using a capital improvement budget. And when you can convince your regulators to let you do it, you throw more layers of expensive useless crap like the smart grid on top of your teetering system because it is another way to make more profits. Even if it doesn’t serve any useful purpose, the utility still gets to charge their customers for installing it and extract a profit.
The solution is to let utilities treat maintenance costs the same way capital improvements costs are treated and to increase the cost of blackouts through a fine of some variety. Maybe something like a free week of service for every hour of an outage not caused by unusual weather would do the trick.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/08/09/smart.grid/index.html?hpt=C1
Apparently, the smart grid would have prevented the 2003 blackout that took out the Northeast and caused $6B in damage.
I don’t know how the magic of smart grid would have prevented the utility from slashing its tree trimming budget to boost profits or how it would have prevented the SCADA system from failing to communicate that the lines were overheating or how it would have convinced the operators to listen to the operators from the neighboring utilities or how it would have created an effective regional decision-making structure to force utilities to shed load to prevent the problem from spreading, but somehow, magically, it would have. Maybe by letting the utility know that 20,000 toasters were being used in Tulsa, smart grid would have saved the day.
Outages doubled because of one reason: lack of maintenance. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell an expensive and largely useless smart grid.
Seriously, this is a simple problem that has been badly mishandled. And the fundamental cause is weird financial arrangements. Utilities use loans to build their system. The interest rate they pay on these loans is based on their credit rating. Their credit rating is based largely on how much they owe on outstanding loans as a fraction of what their system is worth. The value of their system is based on money spent to upgrade the system. Additionally, for profit utilities have the rate they are allowed to charge their customers based on the value of their system, so money put into the system means more profits.
So, if they get loans and use the money to improve their system it improves their credit rating, making it cheaper to get loans, which makes delivering power less expensive and/or more profitable.
Money spent on maintenance isn’t treated the same way. It is a current expense – money down the drain.
From an MBA CEO perspective, this is the entire story. Money spent on system improvements makes profits while money spent on maintenance is just gone. Only an idiot would throw money away on maintenance. So nobody does. Instead, you run equipment until it fails, then replace it using a capital improvement budget. And when you can convince your regulators to let you do it, you throw more layers of expensive useless crap like the smart grid on top of your teetering system because it is another way to make more profits. Even if it doesn’t serve any useful purpose, the utility still gets to charge their customers for installing it and extract a profit.
The solution is to let utilities treat maintenance costs the same way capital improvements costs are treated and to increase the cost of blackouts through a fine of some variety. Maybe something like a free week of service for every hour of an outage not caused by unusual weather would do the trick.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
thesis idea: geographic diversity of renewable energy
One of the common claims about renewable energy is that geographic diversity is the saving grace. The wind will always be blowing and the sun shining somewhere. And this is true - to a point.
Earlier this winter, the UK had an uncommonly strong snow storm that was accompanied by several days of cold with little wind. Their nationwide wind energy output went to virtually zero. I don't know of any statistics about their solar power, but it seems reasonable to assume that a few inches of snow would pretty effectively reduce solar energy output to near zero as well. Meanwhile, the cold weather lead to peak load conditions. If the UK relied on wind or solar power to meet any portion of the nationwide peak load, they would have had to take extraordinary measures (like brownouts or rolling blackouts) to keep the lights on. And do this at a time when doing so would cause the greatest harm to the population.
So, geographic diversity of renewable energy production has to be greater than can be found in the UK if we are going to make the power system rely on it. Barring the invention of very large scale energy storage, no amount of wind and solar energy (or smart grid or conservation) will ever be sufficient to meet basic power system reliability criteria in the UK. They will always have to have a non-intermittent power system in place that can serve 100% of the peak load independent of the weather.
The thesis paper's goal would be to determine roughly how much geographic diversity is necessary and possibly to use this as a way to question the wisdom of renewable energy development zones (like the wind energy development zones in West Texas).
It is a very important question for the future of wind and solar power. If the UK wanted to meet the goal of reducing their CO2 emissions by 80% by way of building wind and solar energy, a significant fraction of the 20% of emissions left would have to be consumed by the back-up power system that needs to be kept in place and running on standby ready for severe weather events that only happen once every 50 years.
The solution, of course, is to use excess energy production to fix CO2 into methane (or some other easily stored fuel) and to use it in natural gas peaking plants, but that is the subject for an entirely different type of thesis paper.
Earlier this winter, the UK had an uncommonly strong snow storm that was accompanied by several days of cold with little wind. Their nationwide wind energy output went to virtually zero. I don't know of any statistics about their solar power, but it seems reasonable to assume that a few inches of snow would pretty effectively reduce solar energy output to near zero as well. Meanwhile, the cold weather lead to peak load conditions. If the UK relied on wind or solar power to meet any portion of the nationwide peak load, they would have had to take extraordinary measures (like brownouts or rolling blackouts) to keep the lights on. And do this at a time when doing so would cause the greatest harm to the population.
So, geographic diversity of renewable energy production has to be greater than can be found in the UK if we are going to make the power system rely on it. Barring the invention of very large scale energy storage, no amount of wind and solar energy (or smart grid or conservation) will ever be sufficient to meet basic power system reliability criteria in the UK. They will always have to have a non-intermittent power system in place that can serve 100% of the peak load independent of the weather.
The thesis paper's goal would be to determine roughly how much geographic diversity is necessary and possibly to use this as a way to question the wisdom of renewable energy development zones (like the wind energy development zones in West Texas).
It is a very important question for the future of wind and solar power. If the UK wanted to meet the goal of reducing their CO2 emissions by 80% by way of building wind and solar energy, a significant fraction of the 20% of emissions left would have to be consumed by the back-up power system that needs to be kept in place and running on standby ready for severe weather events that only happen once every 50 years.
The solution, of course, is to use excess energy production to fix CO2 into methane (or some other easily stored fuel) and to use it in natural gas peaking plants, but that is the subject for an entirely different type of thesis paper.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
sociology of climate science
A quick thought experiment: If climate scientists were infinitely intelligent, would their results be any more useful for policy?
My claim is "no."
And the reason is because of a selection bias for people who enter the field and sociological influences.
If scientists where infinity intelligent, they’d still be herd animals like the rest of us. If the herd is going in one direction, only a small portion of the population will choose to go the other way. This theoretical herd of infinitely intelligent scientists will apply their intelligence to mock them.
To my mind, the best scientists are borderline autistic (a la big bang’s Sheldon). These people can abandon their own ideas with no thought to social consequences.
And herein lies the problem with the "save the world" sciences (social work, environmental science, climate science, etc). They inadvertently select for people who want to save the world: people who are both highly socially aware and who have chosen their field because they see it as a way to bring positive change.
Being socially aware is a hindrance in science because it makes it harder to bear the scorn of the herd when you disagree with them.
Choosing a science as one's path in life based on the hope to be able to help humanity is a hindrance because it means that if it turns out that there actually isn't anything wrong (that there is no danger to save humanity from) is a form of failure to achieve one's hopes. Additionally, it'd likely mean the eventual loss of one's funding, since climate science without anthropogenic global warming is pretty boring.
So, no I don't think greater intelligence or capability would be remotely useful, but a little bit of impartiality would go a long ways.
My claim is "no."
And the reason is because of a selection bias for people who enter the field and sociological influences.
If scientists where infinity intelligent, they’d still be herd animals like the rest of us. If the herd is going in one direction, only a small portion of the population will choose to go the other way. This theoretical herd of infinitely intelligent scientists will apply their intelligence to mock them.
To my mind, the best scientists are borderline autistic (a la big bang’s Sheldon). These people can abandon their own ideas with no thought to social consequences.
And herein lies the problem with the "save the world" sciences (social work, environmental science, climate science, etc). They inadvertently select for people who want to save the world: people who are both highly socially aware and who have chosen their field because they see it as a way to bring positive change.
Being socially aware is a hindrance in science because it makes it harder to bear the scorn of the herd when you disagree with them.
Choosing a science as one's path in life based on the hope to be able to help humanity is a hindrance because it means that if it turns out that there actually isn't anything wrong (that there is no danger to save humanity from) is a form of failure to achieve one's hopes. Additionally, it'd likely mean the eventual loss of one's funding, since climate science without anthropogenic global warming is pretty boring.
So, no I don't think greater intelligence or capability would be remotely useful, but a little bit of impartiality would go a long ways.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Anthropogenic Climate Change Proof map
I'd like to see a logic map for the need to address anthropogenic climate change.
It'd show the complete logical and scientific analysis from how we know atmospheric CO2 reflects heat to how confident we can be that a given international policy will be effective at preventing changes in our habitat.
I understand that a lot thorough science has taken place approaching each step in the proof from several directions. I think a graphical representation would be the best way to communicate how thorough and robust this process has been and whether there really are any data or analysis choke points (any single crux of the issue that could be false).
It'd show the complete logical and scientific analysis from how we know atmospheric CO2 reflects heat to how confident we can be that a given international policy will be effective at preventing changes in our habitat.
I understand that a lot thorough science has taken place approaching each step in the proof from several directions. I think a graphical representation would be the best way to communicate how thorough and robust this process has been and whether there really are any data or analysis choke points (any single crux of the issue that could be false).
Monday, November 23, 2009
Climate Scientology
I haven’t posted for a long time because I’ve had nothing interesting to say.
But a comment about the hacked climate emails from last week seems to be in order, since I have yet to see traditional media coverage that seems to give a damn about the actual implications of the communications.
The people involved said a lot of dickish things – that is irrelevant and uninteresting. And also seems to be the only thing anyone is talking about.
The only thing that matters is that they confirmed that they were intentionally withholding critical climate data from people who disagree with them – for years. And that they were so dedicated to not sharing their data that they actually said that they would prefer to destroy the data than let people who disagree with them see it. (You can read some of the emails here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html#more )
Take a moment to think about that.
And another.
If you are not disgusted, enraged, and outraged, there is something wrong with you.
There is never an excuse for scientists to hide data on any matter that impacts humanity and is being used to guide international public policy– ever. Never. Not one. Ever. None.
The whole point of science is to disagree and try to prove each other wrong while constantly moving closer to the most correct interpretation of the data. That is the scientific method. If scientists only talked to people that agreed with them, we never would have made it out of the dark ages.
If you don’t share your data, it can only be because you think your theory is too weak to withstand criticism, because you have no understanding of what it means to be a scientist, or because you have embraced your theory religiously and cannot accept criticism of it because it could slow the spread of your cause. I think the last is the most likely.
I take both science and the environment very seriously. I think human induced climate change is a plausible theory. Unfortunately, the key historical temperature study that has been used to demonstrate that current times are a-historically warm – is the same study that is based on data that hasn’t been shared.
The crux of the climate change argument has never been verified because of the religious anti-scientific actions of a small group of people (I can’t bring myself to call them scientists) that control the critical infrastructure of climate science. These people are Climate Scientologists and they deserve to be ostracized by the community of real scientists. Real Climate Scientists need to lead the charge against them if they want their field to have any credibility.
To any trolls: please disagree with me in a coherent manner. I would love to be wrong about all of this. It has been a traumatic revelation for me. I’ll just delete any of the incoherent name-calling that pops up when you question Climate Scientology.
But a comment about the hacked climate emails from last week seems to be in order, since I have yet to see traditional media coverage that seems to give a damn about the actual implications of the communications.
The people involved said a lot of dickish things – that is irrelevant and uninteresting. And also seems to be the only thing anyone is talking about.
The only thing that matters is that they confirmed that they were intentionally withholding critical climate data from people who disagree with them – for years. And that they were so dedicated to not sharing their data that they actually said that they would prefer to destroy the data than let people who disagree with them see it. (You can read some of the emails here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html#more )
Take a moment to think about that.
And another.
If you are not disgusted, enraged, and outraged, there is something wrong with you.
There is never an excuse for scientists to hide data on any matter that impacts humanity and is being used to guide international public policy– ever. Never. Not one. Ever. None.
The whole point of science is to disagree and try to prove each other wrong while constantly moving closer to the most correct interpretation of the data. That is the scientific method. If scientists only talked to people that agreed with them, we never would have made it out of the dark ages.
If you don’t share your data, it can only be because you think your theory is too weak to withstand criticism, because you have no understanding of what it means to be a scientist, or because you have embraced your theory religiously and cannot accept criticism of it because it could slow the spread of your cause. I think the last is the most likely.
I take both science and the environment very seriously. I think human induced climate change is a plausible theory. Unfortunately, the key historical temperature study that has been used to demonstrate that current times are a-historically warm – is the same study that is based on data that hasn’t been shared.
The crux of the climate change argument has never been verified because of the religious anti-scientific actions of a small group of people (I can’t bring myself to call them scientists) that control the critical infrastructure of climate science. These people are Climate Scientologists and they deserve to be ostracized by the community of real scientists. Real Climate Scientists need to lead the charge against them if they want their field to have any credibility.
To any trolls: please disagree with me in a coherent manner. I would love to be wrong about all of this. It has been a traumatic revelation for me. I’ll just delete any of the incoherent name-calling that pops up when you question Climate Scientology.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Dubai, Dubai, Dubai
What were they thinking? I really have no idea. I posted a few times about how Dubai was by all appearances, a parade of crazy.
I guess they thought they would follow the example of Las Vegas, building a city in the middle of a wasteland. But it was on the coast, so it had hints of Miami to it as well.
The only problem of course being that Las Vegas and Miami are cities that serve a purpose, that have a source of income. Whereas Dubai was just a way for too rich oil oligarchies to dispose of wealth.
They led the way up with a list of the most preposterous ideas (indoor skiing in the 120 degree desert, underwater hotel rooms, man made islands in custom shapes, world's largest F1 theme park, the world's 55* tallest buildings, why not?).
And now they lead the way down with the world's largest number of ultra-luxury cars abandoned at the airport by debtors hoping to keep their heads and with the world's most rapidly declining real estate values. Their prices have fallen almost as much this year as the worste bubble markets have fallen since their peak. In 7 months they accomplished the same kind of damage that took Las Vegas almost three years to achieve.
Astonishing. Simply astonishing.
Not that it is happening, but that it took so long.
When a city is built primarily from money made by building and selling real estate in that city, how does one determine the underlying value of properties in that city? It is kind of like Detroit, but instead of not designing and building cars any more, they're not designing and building buildings any more. Will the world's 55* tallest buildings stand empty and worthless?
* I made this number up. Nobody knows exactly how many of the world's tallest buildings are in Dubai, because they use the Shariah Law system of measurement based on the distance a donkey can walk in an hour and donkeys can't walk up vertical surfaces. Also, many of these tallest buildings in Dubai are unfinished, so it is questionable as to whether they count as buildings or just as structures.
I guess they thought they would follow the example of Las Vegas, building a city in the middle of a wasteland. But it was on the coast, so it had hints of Miami to it as well.
The only problem of course being that Las Vegas and Miami are cities that serve a purpose, that have a source of income. Whereas Dubai was just a way for too rich oil oligarchies to dispose of wealth.
They led the way up with a list of the most preposterous ideas (indoor skiing in the 120 degree desert, underwater hotel rooms, man made islands in custom shapes, world's largest F1 theme park, the world's 55* tallest buildings, why not?).
And now they lead the way down with the world's largest number of ultra-luxury cars abandoned at the airport by debtors hoping to keep their heads and with the world's most rapidly declining real estate values. Their prices have fallen almost as much this year as the worste bubble markets have fallen since their peak. In 7 months they accomplished the same kind of damage that took Las Vegas almost three years to achieve.
Astonishing. Simply astonishing.
Not that it is happening, but that it took so long.
When a city is built primarily from money made by building and selling real estate in that city, how does one determine the underlying value of properties in that city? It is kind of like Detroit, but instead of not designing and building cars any more, they're not designing and building buildings any more. Will the world's 55* tallest buildings stand empty and worthless?
* I made this number up. Nobody knows exactly how many of the world's tallest buildings are in Dubai, because they use the Shariah Law system of measurement based on the distance a donkey can walk in an hour and donkeys can't walk up vertical surfaces. Also, many of these tallest buildings in Dubai are unfinished, so it is questionable as to whether they count as buildings or just as structures.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
hydrogen powerplant?
I'm tempted to start a "why, oh why" file just for this thing.
The details are sparse, but the general idea is that it takes electricity, uses it to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water via electrolysis, then burns the hydrogen to create electricity.
This is a notoriously wrong idea.
Electrolysis is notoriously inefficient, hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store, burning hydrogen is notoriously a waste of an expensive commodity.
I would be very surprised if they have a round trip efficiency of greater that 15%.
The good news is that they claim all of the funding is private, so at least their money isn't coming from taxes.
My favorite quote from the article:
"We're the first company that had the foresight to jump on creating a combinatory system and putting the pieces together to make it viable for the public and for electrical generation"
I'm not sure if "foresight" is quite the word I would have chosen. The "excess of money and dearth of sense" is closer.
The details are sparse, but the general idea is that it takes electricity, uses it to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water via electrolysis, then burns the hydrogen to create electricity.
This is a notoriously wrong idea.
Electrolysis is notoriously inefficient, hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store, burning hydrogen is notoriously a waste of an expensive commodity.
I would be very surprised if they have a round trip efficiency of greater that 15%.
The good news is that they claim all of the funding is private, so at least their money isn't coming from taxes.
My favorite quote from the article:
"We're the first company that had the foresight to jump on creating a combinatory system and putting the pieces together to make it viable for the public and for electrical generation"
I'm not sure if "foresight" is quite the word I would have chosen. The "excess of money and dearth of sense" is closer.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
wasted waste heat
Nearly every device that uses energy produces waste heat. In your house, most of this waste heat gets just ends up heating your rooms.
In warm climates where air conditioners are common, this is ridiculous. You're paying to pump the heat out of your refrigerator twice. First to pump the heat out of the fridge and into the kitchen, then to pump it out of your house and into the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, you're putting energy into another device to heat cold water.
So, why not combine the two systems? Why not use the waste heat from major household appliances to preheat the cold incoming city water before it gets to your water heater?
Between your refrigerator, air conditioner and clothes dryer there is a fair amount of waste heat just going, well, to waste.
In warm climates where air conditioners are common, this is ridiculous. You're paying to pump the heat out of your refrigerator twice. First to pump the heat out of the fridge and into the kitchen, then to pump it out of your house and into the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, you're putting energy into another device to heat cold water.
So, why not combine the two systems? Why not use the waste heat from major household appliances to preheat the cold incoming city water before it gets to your water heater?
Between your refrigerator, air conditioner and clothes dryer there is a fair amount of waste heat just going, well, to waste.
Friday, July 17, 2009
disruptive power tech?
I was thinking about what it'd take to put me out of a job and am not too worried.
The electric utility industry exists to take advantage of the efficiencies of large scale energy production. Small scale household or neighborhood based production could certainly have a future, but a fairly disruptive technology would have to be invented to make it worthwhile.
No domestic option today is remotely competitive on a cost basis, even with all of the state and federal tax credits. With enough unrealistically optimistic assumptions (like zero maintenance, rapidly escalating utility energy costs, and a 30 year service life), cost inefficient technologies like household solar panels can be sold. But even the vast majority of these systems require being connected to the power system in order to work.
I expect that one day some kind of combined cycle natural gas fuel cell plus solar panel plus batteries system could approach cost parity with the power system, but so what? Most people don't go to the trouble of having that kind of thing installed in order to achieve zero savings.
And I can't think of a system that would require less than two disruptive technologies in order to completely obviate a connection to the power system. The one I think of requires 1) virtually free truly maintenance-free solar panels and 2) ideal energy storage and conversion system(no fumes, no maintenance, no acids, no fire risk, minimal noise, 30 year lifetime, predictable failure).
The other possible source of job loss for me is if some clever exec decides to move my work overseas. The best reason why this is unlikely to happen is that the cost of engineering staff is minuscule compared to the cost of a mistake. I do projects where my time is 5-7% of the project cost. If the project were outsourced, the total project cost might be reduced by 2-3%. But if any mistakes are made and the project construction gets held up by a day or a piece of equipment fails prematurely because it was incorrectly specced or designed, any savings on engineering time would be greatly overcome by construction and maintenance cost overruns.
The electric utility industry exists to take advantage of the efficiencies of large scale energy production. Small scale household or neighborhood based production could certainly have a future, but a fairly disruptive technology would have to be invented to make it worthwhile.
No domestic option today is remotely competitive on a cost basis, even with all of the state and federal tax credits. With enough unrealistically optimistic assumptions (like zero maintenance, rapidly escalating utility energy costs, and a 30 year service life), cost inefficient technologies like household solar panels can be sold. But even the vast majority of these systems require being connected to the power system in order to work.
I expect that one day some kind of combined cycle natural gas fuel cell plus solar panel plus batteries system could approach cost parity with the power system, but so what? Most people don't go to the trouble of having that kind of thing installed in order to achieve zero savings.
And I can't think of a system that would require less than two disruptive technologies in order to completely obviate a connection to the power system. The one I think of requires 1) virtually free truly maintenance-free solar panels and 2) ideal energy storage and conversion system(no fumes, no maintenance, no acids, no fire risk, minimal noise, 30 year lifetime, predictable failure).
The other possible source of job loss for me is if some clever exec decides to move my work overseas. The best reason why this is unlikely to happen is that the cost of engineering staff is minuscule compared to the cost of a mistake. I do projects where my time is 5-7% of the project cost. If the project were outsourced, the total project cost might be reduced by 2-3%. But if any mistakes are made and the project construction gets held up by a day or a piece of equipment fails prematurely because it was incorrectly specced or designed, any savings on engineering time would be greatly overcome by construction and maintenance cost overruns.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
when bad news is good news (for me)
I find myself cheering for global financial panic these days because I'm trying to buy a house and because I have acquired some Australian dollar debt.
Every time a bad economic report comes out, people run to the relative security of the USD and US gov't treasuries. This moves exchange rates in my favor. And mortgage rates are strongly correlated with treasury returns.
The only bad news that is bad for me right now is talk of excessive inflation, because inflation expectations also impact mortgage rates. At the moment, there is a lot of talk about USD inflation, but there is also a lot of talk about USD deflation. And that is fine by me. I expect deflation for the next several quarters followed by inflation above 5% for several years, but what do I know.
So, I say bring on the US stock market crash and let the freedom fighters in China prevail. Better yet, let another smallish currency turn into confetti like the Icelandic Kronor did. Imagine what that would do to exchange rates and treasuries.
And it would put an end to all this diversified reserve currency BS that some G8 leaders have been rambling about.
Every time a bad economic report comes out, people run to the relative security of the USD and US gov't treasuries. This moves exchange rates in my favor. And mortgage rates are strongly correlated with treasury returns.
The only bad news that is bad for me right now is talk of excessive inflation, because inflation expectations also impact mortgage rates. At the moment, there is a lot of talk about USD inflation, but there is also a lot of talk about USD deflation. And that is fine by me. I expect deflation for the next several quarters followed by inflation above 5% for several years, but what do I know.
So, I say bring on the US stock market crash and let the freedom fighters in China prevail. Better yet, let another smallish currency turn into confetti like the Icelandic Kronor did. Imagine what that would do to exchange rates and treasuries.
And it would put an end to all this diversified reserve currency BS that some G8 leaders have been rambling about.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
re:one for the duh files
I was wrong about the recent climate change bill that barely passed through the House.
At the last minute, on the morning of the day the bill was passed, a provision much like what I discussed two posts ago was added.
I still think China's sulfur and arsenic outputs are bigger worries than CO2.
And, so long as we are passing tariffs based on the regulations imposed in other countries, maybe we should have a child labor tariff, a sweat shop tariff, a minimum wage tariff, and so on.
These are all things that impact our humanity at least as much as CO2 impacts our climate.
At the last minute, on the morning of the day the bill was passed, a provision much like what I discussed two posts ago was added.
I still think China's sulfur and arsenic outputs are bigger worries than CO2.
And, so long as we are passing tariffs based on the regulations imposed in other countries, maybe we should have a child labor tariff, a sweat shop tariff, a minimum wage tariff, and so on.
These are all things that impact our humanity at least as much as CO2 impacts our climate.
Friday, July 3, 2009
business idea
This may be an obvious one, but I think there should be a full line baby stuff rental company.
Baby doesn't use any stuff for more than about a month, so what is the sense in buying it?
Considering how ridiculously expensive some of the gear can be (like the $1200 Gap Stokke Xplory), it'd be a good way for people to exceed their means.
Plus you'd be able to assure people that you'd take the stuff back after the month or so useful life, so they wouldn't have to worry about where they're going to store it until it is old and moldy enough to throw away.
Baby doesn't use any stuff for more than about a month, so what is the sense in buying it?
Considering how ridiculously expensive some of the gear can be (like the $1200 Gap Stokke Xplory), it'd be a good way for people to exceed their means.
Plus you'd be able to assure people that you'd take the stuff back after the month or so useful life, so they wouldn't have to worry about where they're going to store it until it is old and moldy enough to throw away.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
one for the duh files
The energy bill recently passed in the House puts limits on CO2 emitted in the US with a goal of reducing our CO2 output by 85% by 2050, but makes no effort whatsoever to address the CO2 output (or other pollution) from goods produced outside of the US.
Good thing the US doesn't share an atmosphere with any other countries.
Or a jobs market. (Making energy expensive in the US will push energy-intensive production overseas, taking factory jobs with it.)
How hard would it be to include an imported goods section? Something like:
All imported goods from countries that do not have equivalent CO2 capping programs must pay a CO2 tax equal to what a domestic competitor would pay.
Personally, I care a lot more about the arsenic and sulfur clouds floating over from China, but forcing them to participate in a CO2 program or come up with their own would be a good first step.
Good thing the US doesn't share an atmosphere with any other countries.
Or a jobs market. (Making energy expensive in the US will push energy-intensive production overseas, taking factory jobs with it.)
How hard would it be to include an imported goods section? Something like:
All imported goods from countries that do not have equivalent CO2 capping programs must pay a CO2 tax equal to what a domestic competitor would pay.
Personally, I care a lot more about the arsenic and sulfur clouds floating over from China, but forcing them to participate in a CO2 program or come up with their own would be a good first step.
Monday, June 29, 2009
why motorcycles basically shouldn't be legal, except for Harleys
There are two types of riders:
1) Idiots who are willing to accept risk in exchange for performance.
2) People who prefer safety and comfort and are willing to wait their line in traffic.
The first type of people want bikes because they are the fastest machine you can get for the money. These people will love their bikes for all of the several weeks of their remaining lives. There is no way for these people to ever be safe riders, no matter how skilled. As their skill increases, so do the risks they are willing to take.
The second type of people could be good, safe riders, but never will be because they don't see the point in motorcycles. There is an exception within this group, of course: the fashionista Harley riders. They have no interest in performance (if they did, they'd be on a real bike), so they are likely to be perfectly safe. Their enjoyment from the ride has nothing to do with speed or performance, so they can rumble along perfectly contentedly and don't need to take risks or push limits to enjoy themselves.
If anyone cares, I'm the first type. Virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike is. Also just like virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike, I hope to own a ridiculous car someday. Maybe an S2000 or an Elise.
1) Idiots who are willing to accept risk in exchange for performance.
2) People who prefer safety and comfort and are willing to wait their line in traffic.
The first type of people want bikes because they are the fastest machine you can get for the money. These people will love their bikes for all of the several weeks of their remaining lives. There is no way for these people to ever be safe riders, no matter how skilled. As their skill increases, so do the risks they are willing to take.
The second type of people could be good, safe riders, but never will be because they don't see the point in motorcycles. There is an exception within this group, of course: the fashionista Harley riders. They have no interest in performance (if they did, they'd be on a real bike), so they are likely to be perfectly safe. Their enjoyment from the ride has nothing to do with speed or performance, so they can rumble along perfectly contentedly and don't need to take risks or push limits to enjoy themselves.
If anyone cares, I'm the first type. Virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike is. Also just like virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike, I hope to own a ridiculous car someday. Maybe an S2000 or an Elise.
Friday, June 26, 2009
climate change is dead, long live the energy crisis
I have no specific opinion about human caused climate change.
I think the science is too complicated (and politically charged) to come to any kind of reliable conclusions and I see little point in artbitrarily choosing to believe one way or the other. Think about the number of factors involved between atmospheric composition, solar radiance fluctuation, surface reflectivity, cloud formation catalysts, and so on. It is a difficult question.
The WSJ thinks that we are seeing an international move away from belief that we're responsible.
I just hope gov'ts won't throw baby out with the bathwater. Other types of pollution and environmental degradation are undeniably real: deforestation, fish stock depletion, China's dirty coal addiction (the US and Europe use coal too, but we scrub our smokestacks to take the carcinogens out instead of fogging our cities with it), Europe's diesel particulate issues, soil erosion, worldwide groundwater depletion. These are all obvious and comparatively easily solved problems that have been pushed aside by the carbon debate.
And, of course, there is always the other side of the CO2 problem. The nasty, scary, possibly irresolvable part: that we are depleting the world's cheap energy reserves.
I think the science is too complicated (and politically charged) to come to any kind of reliable conclusions and I see little point in artbitrarily choosing to believe one way or the other. Think about the number of factors involved between atmospheric composition, solar radiance fluctuation, surface reflectivity, cloud formation catalysts, and so on. It is a difficult question.
The WSJ thinks that we are seeing an international move away from belief that we're responsible.
I just hope gov'ts won't throw baby out with the bathwater. Other types of pollution and environmental degradation are undeniably real: deforestation, fish stock depletion, China's dirty coal addiction (the US and Europe use coal too, but we scrub our smokestacks to take the carcinogens out instead of fogging our cities with it), Europe's diesel particulate issues, soil erosion, worldwide groundwater depletion. These are all obvious and comparatively easily solved problems that have been pushed aside by the carbon debate.
And, of course, there is always the other side of the CO2 problem. The nasty, scary, possibly irresolvable part: that we are depleting the world's cheap energy reserves.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
falling prices are annoying
I'm looking to buy a place in a north Denver suburb.
I don't expect to make money on it, but I don't expect to lose a lot of money on it, either. I figure it'll be a good inflation hedge if things go that way, but mostly it is a lifestyle decision.
The only problem is that prices in the area have been nearly flat for a decade now. This sounds like it would be good news for a buyer, but it isn't. What it means is that there are three types of places on the market: distressed sales of run down houses, grossly overpriced HGTV-inspired amateur flips, and owners with unrealistic price expectations because they need to sell for at least 10% more than they bought for just to break even.
For a buyer, all of these options are bad. It means the only way to buy a place that hasn't been trashed by an angry debtor or abused by the HGTV-addled crowd is to pay significantly above market values. Nowadays, even that is not so simple, since appraisals have become so much more strict.
I don't expect to make money on it, but I don't expect to lose a lot of money on it, either. I figure it'll be a good inflation hedge if things go that way, but mostly it is a lifestyle decision.
The only problem is that prices in the area have been nearly flat for a decade now. This sounds like it would be good news for a buyer, but it isn't. What it means is that there are three types of places on the market: distressed sales of run down houses, grossly overpriced HGTV-inspired amateur flips, and owners with unrealistic price expectations because they need to sell for at least 10% more than they bought for just to break even.
For a buyer, all of these options are bad. It means the only way to buy a place that hasn't been trashed by an angry debtor or abused by the HGTV-addled crowd is to pay significantly above market values. Nowadays, even that is not so simple, since appraisals have become so much more strict.
Friday, June 19, 2009
since when?
Nobody has been this tired of hearing about economic indicators at their worst since the Great Depression since (you guessed it) the Great Depression.
Why not mix it up a bit? Maybe say things haven't been this bad since before WWII, since Hoover was president, since Hitler graduated High School, since the Empire State building was completed.
Anything.
Why not mix it up a bit? Maybe say things haven't been this bad since before WWII, since Hoover was president, since Hitler graduated High School, since the Empire State building was completed.
Anything.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
the way RE pricing should work
Part 2 of my continuing series on what is wrong with real estate.
Listing prices often have absolutely no relation to reality and make the whole system inefficient. Between short sales listed at ridiculously low prices that the actual property owner will never accept and ludicrously high prices that no new lender will ever give a loan for, badly priced properties just waste everyone's time.
The obvious solution that has probably been suggested a million times before:
A proper appraisal by an actually neutral third party should step #1 in any sale process.
Not a realtor opinion. Not a zillow zestimate. Not a silly homowner guesstimate. An appraisal arranged through a lender. Or, better yet, an incorruptible third party.
You have to get an appraisal to get a loan anyway, few people are willing to buy a place too far above appraisal, and few people are willing to sell a place too far below appraisal.
So, what is the sense in listing a place without getting an appraisal first?
Listing prices often have absolutely no relation to reality and make the whole system inefficient. Between short sales listed at ridiculously low prices that the actual property owner will never accept and ludicrously high prices that no new lender will ever give a loan for, badly priced properties just waste everyone's time.
The obvious solution that has probably been suggested a million times before:
A proper appraisal by an actually neutral third party should step #1 in any sale process.
Not a realtor opinion. Not a zillow zestimate. Not a silly homowner guesstimate. An appraisal arranged through a lender. Or, better yet, an incorruptible third party.
You have to get an appraisal to get a loan anyway, few people are willing to buy a place too far above appraisal, and few people are willing to sell a place too far below appraisal.
So, what is the sense in listing a place without getting an appraisal first?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)