Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘energy’ Category

Pray Gamble & Explode (PG&E) needs to be forced into Chapter 13 dissolution and its assets sold off to companies that are actually competent. Continuing to make rate-payers bail out this incompetent and *dangerous* company is irresponsible malpractice on the part of our state government. PG&E’s rates are double or even *triple* what rates are in most areas of the country and are the #1 reason why I don’t have an electric car — buying gasoline for a hybrid car is far cheaper than paying the disastrous rates that PG&E has extorted from the rate-payers of this state. And for those of you saying “but it’s because California is so rugged!”, average electrical rates in Nevada are *HALF* those of PG&E — even though Nevada is even more sparsely populated and rugged than most of California.

This company is incompetent, dangerous, incapable of providing electrical service for rates competitive with other electric companies, keeps blowing up or burning up parts of the state due to their incompetence, and should just die, die, die, die, die, die, die, die, DIE.

— Badtux the Irate Overcharged Penguin

Read Full Post »

It’s common to criticize biofuels with the seemingly damning statement, “it takes more energy to grow the crops than you get back as fuel.” The problem is that making such a statement misses the point entirely.

Look: we have readily available, relatively inexpensive energy sources that are renewable or will last longer than humanity: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear. The problem is that what these energy sources create is electricity. And right now, we have only two ways of transporting electricity: wires, and batteries.

The problem with wires is that they’re fine for fixed installations, but they’re lousy for anything that has to move. You end up with catenaries and third rails — fine for large vehicles like trollies and trains driving fixed routes, not so fine for small individual vehicles that need flexibility for destinations.

Batteries are a bit more portable — but barely. Batteries have extremely low energy density compared to biofuels — biodiesel contains 37.8MJ/kg, while the very best lithium-ion batteries we have today are around 0.95 MJ/kg. Furthermore, they’re *bulky*. 1kg of biodiesel is roughly a quart of biodiesel, a large jar of the stuff. The 37kg of lithium-ion batteries needed to hold the exact same amount of energy as that quart jar of biodiesel is around 17 liters of batteries with the best batteries we have today — or, to have the equivalent energy of 10 gallons of biodiesel (that’s 20 liters of biodiesel for you metric mavens), you’d need around 340 liters of batteries, or, roughly, the entire luggage compartment of a Ford Fiesta plus the space currently used for the fuel tank of a Ford Fiesta. And furthermore, it takes HOURS to charge lithium-ion batteries, as versus five minutes to refill the biodiesel tank on a biodiesel-powered Ford Fiesta (available in other countries, not, alas, available in the United States).

So neither wires nor batteries really are any competition with hydrocarbons when it comes as a method of transporting energy. If you view biodiesel as a method of transporting energy, rather than as a source of energy, then it doesn’t matter that it takes more energy to create biodiesel than you get out of it. It takes more energy to charge a battery than you get out of it too. *All* methods of transporting energy have losses. This doesn’t mean biodiesel is the answer to our energy problems — that rests in the renewable or long-term energy sources like solar and nuclear. It *does* mean that we can’t rule out biodiesel merely because it takes more energy to create biodiesel than we get out of biodiesel, because in the end, biodiesel is a method of transporting energy — not necessarily a method of gathering solar energy.

– Badtux the Energy Penguin

Read Full Post »

So: we’re in a demographic and ecological hole that’s collapsing in on us, and the only thing keeping it from collapsing in on us at the moment is technological civilization digging faster and faster with better renewable energy sources, more ecologically friendly ways of growing food, and so forth. Except that’s not happening fast enough. The globe is warming at an alarming pace and it seems like it’s irreversible at this point. Or, rather, it’s reversible, but it will take over a hundred years to reverse, just as it took over a hundred years to create in the first place.

We can’t go back to the farm. There’s too many of us, and the infrastructure for small family subsistence farms is gone in much of the world. We can’t impose a Communist-style command economy because the problems have become too complex for any command economy to solve. We can’t go to an anarcho-socialist-syndicalist type economy because they aren’t flexible enough at moving resources around. We can’t simply abandon civilization because that will be utter ecological disaster as every living thing is stripped from the face of the planet to burn as fuel or to eat, since human beings don’t willingly starve or freeze to death.

There’s those who say at this point that we must abandon technological civilization, that it’s digging the hole even deeper. But abandon it for what? One of the above solutions that won’t work? Should we go back to the old industrial age that created most of these problems to begin with? If we try going back any further than that, civilization collapses, because there’s just too many of us to support, and we have environmental disaster. For that matter, even industrial civilization would cause the environment to collapse even faster than it’s doing now. For better or for worse, technological civilization is the only civilization that has been able to stop and in some cases reverse the massive environmental damage caused by the Industrial Age. Just look at a photo of Los Angeles from the 1960’s, and look at one today. In the 1960’s all you could see was brown crud from all the smog. Now you see blue sky. That’s an example of environmental damage being reversed — we’ve quit putting all that toxic crap in the air, and now people and animals and plants can breathe.

For better or for worse, I can’t see any alternative but to double down on technological civilization — to double down on making renewable energy cheap and ubiquitous, to double down on replacing the internal combustion engine with electric-powered alternatives driven by the sun and wind and, alas, nuclear power (which as I point out is going to be necessary at least for the remainder of the century in order to provide the energy needed to reverse environmental damage), and double down on using technology and energy to remediate ecological damage, to clean toxins and break them back down to their component parts.

The problem though is that this is happening at exactly the time that our political and economic system has become dysfunctional. Economic systems don’t run themselves. Even token-trained cellular automata (“capitalism”) needs someone to set up the rules that the components operate by or the individual nodes have no way of knowing whether they are producing desired outcomes or not. This applies to all possible economic systems — there are no “natural laws” of economics (other than the most harsh ones such as, if you don’t get enough to eat, you die), all rules governing their behavior are set up by human beings for various purposes. There is no such thing as a “free market” for example, all markets have rules, otherwise there is no “free market”, there is merely rule of gun and theft.

Of course, it’s not coincidence that our political and economic system has become dysfunctional at exactly this time. What we are facing is a huge existential crisis that is going to require substantial changes in how we approach problems and in how we live our lives. Those changes will result in some people having better lives, and other people having worse lives. The people whose lives would become worse naturally don’t want that to happen. So we have stalemate.

But it’s a stalemate that cannot continue for too much longer, because if it does, civilization collapses. We can’t dig ourselves out of this collapsing hole by merely treading water. So I suppose next installment I will talk about what has to happen to our global economy to take that next step towards a sustainable future. As far as our politics are concerned… that’s going to be a harder problem, alas. Isn’t that always the case? Sigh.

– Badtux the Socioeconomics Penguin

Read Full Post »

So there’s a lot of people pining for a simpler, more agrarian lifestyle. Nevermind that we don’t have enough land or water for everybody to live a simpler, more agrarian lifestyle. The reality is that truly living that way is a hard, hard way to live.

Look. I’m old enough that I had elderly relatives growing up who lived that simpler, more agrarian lifestyle. I still remember sitting in the doublewide trailer home on 40 acres of land that was owned by one of my elderly uncles. I was talking to his elderly wife about the days when they lived on the hill behind my pasture, and she talked about how she would come down to my spring and wash the clothes by hand, whether it was hot or cold didn’t matter, and how hard it was hauling water back up that hill in buckets, and how hard they worked just to have enough to eat and to grow a small cash crop to buy what few things they couldn’t make, such as hand tools for hoeing and plowing the land, or globes for the oil lamps. They got up at dawn and worked non-stop until dusk, because otherwise they starved. In the summer they were dripping with sweat in the Louisiana heat and humidity. In the winter they were cold and often damp as cold fronts blew through with driving rain and high winds that cut through their ramshackle tar-paper shacks like the walls weren’t there, the wood stove kept them from freezing but stoking it was hard, hard work. But they still had to work, because the cow had to be fed, the pigs had to be slopped, firewood had to be cut and stacked, water hauled up the hill for cooking and washing, the honey pot had to be taken out and dumped in the outhouse (in the winter sitting on the outhouse seat simply wasn’t happening, so the house was *really* smelly in the winter)…

I said “But you were young then, and full of life. Don’t you ever wish you could go back to those days?”

“Nuh-uhn. That was a hard life.” That’s all she said, while looking at me like I was crazy.

At which point the “back to the land” types say, “well, y’know, we can go back to the land but keep high technology.” Uhm. Look. That computer you’re reading this blog post on? That computer required approximately 400,000,000 people on four continents and in two dozen nations to create it. Iron ore and silica sands had to be mined. Oil had to be pumped. Tantalum for capacitors had to be mined. Lithium for batteries had to be mined. All those industries employ millions of people to create the machinery used, build the extraction facilities, haul the ore, and so forth. Then comes the processing facilities, the smelters and refineries and plastics factories, which are millions more people to produce steel and plastic and pure silica capable of being used for semiconductor wafers and all the various doping chemicals needed and so forth. Then there’s the thousands of individual components in your computer, all the little springs and semiconductor chips and such and the hard disk drives and the platters inside them and the magnetic material on those platters and the little flying diamond disk heads that fly above those platters, all again requiring millions of people to create them. And then there’s the energy, gigawatts of energy. All of this requires concentration of resources, requires hundreds of thousands of factories all over the world each employing tens of thousands of people. All to put that one $600 computer in front of you.

The reality is that you can’t have a modern society without cities and factories and research facilities. Even Jeffersonian America wasn’t in reality the sort of rugged individualism that these people imagine. Thomas Jefferson’s plantation was a small town with hundreds of people doing all the tasks needed to keep it going, from blacksmithing horse shoes to making their own bricks to hoeing the cotton. Without all those people making his life far more pleasant, his life would have been unending toil. The only reason he fancied himself a gentleman farmer living a life of yeoman self-sufficiency was because most of those people were slaves. Without those slaves he would have been living like my elderly relatives back when they were young, a mean and hard life with little time for anything other than endless toil for meager rations.

Meaning that the reality is that these people are wanting folks like me — the people who create these computers and technology that they use to make their lives better than my elderly aunts and uncles’ lives were — to be their slaves. They want us to produce all this technology for them, while they produce little that we want in return. Because the reality is that small yeoman farmers eat most of what they grow. It takes factory farming to feed cities, and it takes cities to create technology. The Ottoman Empire tried to create a world-class nation out of an agrarian nation of small farmers, and found that all that they could tax out of the farmers was food, and not much of that because small farmers simply aren’t very efficient, and it just wasn’t enough when exported to buy the technology they needed to stay competitive in the modern world. The Ottoman Empire failed. Like every other nation that has attempted to become a nation of small yeoman farmers.

But that reality, alas, just doesn’t penetrate those who say that the way to a better America is to return to that Jeffersonian ideal of small yeoman farmers. They continue to pursue that impossible idea — impossible because the concentration of energy and humanity needed to create modern technological society precludes it — and ignore what we could do to make real progress. Such as livable cities with ubiquitous rapid transit systems. Factories and offices that are safe and humane places to work rather than being horrors out of Dickens. A system of commerce that is based on mutual courtesy and service rather than on dog-eat-dog attempts to rip each other off. A fairer distribution of the profits of creating all this technology so that those of us who create get paid according to what we produce, instead of fat cats taking our inventions and becoming millionaires while we make pennies on the dollar. Lots of other things that could be done to make this country a better place to live. But the back-to-earth morons aren’t interested in any of that. They’re interested in their Jeffersonian dream. Their Jeffersonian dream where people like me, the people who create the technology that lets them live a decent life on their small yeoman farms, are their slaves. They are, in the end, no different from the 1% who are doing their best to make the rest of us their slaves. The only difference is that they have less money.

– Badtux the Maker Penguin

Read Full Post »

… is that the majority rules. But what’s the alternative? Letting a minority rule has a name, and that name is called tyranny.

Recently an oil landman approached me about running an oil pipeline across my land. This is a story being repeated all across the United States right now, where landmen are approaching people and requesting drilling rights, or fracking rights, or oil pipeline right-of-ways. It did not make me happy about where he was proposing to run the pipeline — right through a seasonal spring, which they got past environmental review because it’s dry in the summer — but a bit of investigation showed that it would be virtually impossible for me to stop him. Under state law, if I refused to sign over rights, I would be sued in a state court and the land simply expropriated under various federal and state laws. I would get a per-acre amount of money that represented sales of comparable properties in the area, which I ascertained was $5,000 per acre by looking at recent sales and listings.

And again this is a story being repeated across the United States. People are refusing to sell their property rights, then acting all shocked when the oil company simply expropriates the land for market value. Except that wasn’t me. Armed with knowledge about how much it would cost the landman and the oil company behind him to sue me in state court, I instead negotiated a price that was four times what the land was worth, with conditions on the right-of-way that basically allow me to continue to use the land for farming and ranching as long as I don’t build something over the pipeline or otherwise interfere with its operation.

So here’s the question: Should I, a lone person, be allowed to veto an oil pipeline that the majority of local landowners and indeed the vast majority of Americans want just because I don’t like the fact that it will cross through a seasonal spring? Remember, most Americans are drill, baby, drill. They want cheap oil, and they view my seasonal spring as just collateral damage. The average American would say that I got paid for the damage, remember, I got paid four times the price of the land, what’s my complaint?

Which is why I’m sort of baffled by all the lefty blogs and news sites that are shocked, shocked I say, that a single lone American can’t block a pipeline or can’t block drilling or fracking that the vast majority of Americans want to have happen. But in the end, we have a name for what happens when one person can tell the majority what’s going to happen. And that name isn’t “democracy”.

– Badtux the Contrarian Penguin

Read Full Post »

Okay, let’s say you work for a big corporation that did something incompetent and stupid and caused a whole lot of damage. You were using your phone to text to various places asking questions and giving information. So a few months later after the company has been sued, someone high up in the company, *really* high up in the company, comes to you.

“Those texts are a problem,” he says.

“What do you mean?”

“They prove we made dumb and negligent mistakes. They need to go away.”

“But I got a written notice from corporate council to keep them as evidence!”

“Don’t worry about it. No texts, no problem. We’ll take care of you.”

“But… I’ll go to jail!”

“No you won’t. We’ll provide council, and in the unlikely event you *do* go to jail, we’ll pay you handsomely. Whereas if you don’t delete them… well, you’re just not a team player, and you will never work in the oil industry again.”

“Well…”

“Good man!”

So now it’s a bit over a year later, and the court wants to see the texts.

“Oh. I musta deleted them!”

And the corporate counsel says, “We told him not to delete it?”

And the high muckety muck who ordered him to either delete them or walk the unemployment line says, “I did meet with him, but only to tell him not to delete those texts!”

And the poor schmuck is hung out to dry.

Lesson: Any high executive of any major corporation is, by and large, a lying sociopath. If he says the corporation is going to take care of you if you break the law for them, he is lying. And if you actually believe him… you’re an idiot, like that idiot BP engineer who’s now going to jail for obstruction of justice for deleting those texts about the oil spill.

‘Nuff said.

— Badtux the Law Penguin

Read Full Post »

The sad reality of life is that not all good ideas end up easily implemented, and sometimes ideas you thought were good turn out to be not so good once they reach the light of day. The sad reality is that over 90% of companies started to produce something innovative here in the Silicon Valley fail. That’s just how it works, not every idea works out. Even when ideas do work out, it may not be possible to sell the result for enough money to keep you in business — I have, alas, worked for several companies that had great products but couldn’t figure out how to make enough money from them to cover costs thus went out of business.

In the case of Solyndra, they thought they had an innovative way to increase the amount of energy obtained from solar panels. They found a bunch of backers, created product, and sold thousands of their solar modules. Unfortunately two things happened that utterly destroyed their business model: 1) New silicon wafer foundries came online, making flat solar panels ridiculously cheap even when built in America (and most solar panels sold here in America *are* built here in America, for the same reason that most cars sold here in America are built here — because they’re bulky and fragile and breakage on the long overseas voyage would kill you thus it’s not cost-effective to ship them from overseas), and 2) scientists figured out ways to make silicon solar panels produce almost as much power as Solyndra’s more expensive copper-gallium panels, thus eliminating most of their power advantage. Solyndra tried making their product cheaper and couldn’t, the technology they used is inherently labor intensive to produce (unlike silicon wafers, the production of which is largely automated). So in the end, they had a good idea, but it didn’t work out in practice, like so many other ideas, and they went out of business.

Just a normal business failure, in other words. Well, except for the fact that the loans they used to build their factory and buy their equipment were government-guaranteed loans, just like the mortgages of many millions of Americans. Solyndra applied for these “green energy” loans during the Bush Administration, and they were awarded early in the Obama administration, long before Obama had any of his appointees in place at the Department of Energy. Which means, of course, that it’s all Obama’s fault, and the government shouldn’t be in the business of encouraging renewable energy anyhow, even though the vast majority of these “green energy” loans have performed well and Obama didn’t have anything to do with the “green energy” program, that was a Bush-era program.

All of which is just utter nonsense. This nation’s government has been involved in fostering critical industries since its beginning, when the Federalist government of George Washington imposed tariffs on British cloth in order to encourage the development of an American textile industry. And given that we have reached peak oil and will be transitioning to a mostly-electric infrastructure in the future, we need all the energy sources we can get — and solar is one of the more cost-effective ones in the southern half of the country where solar panel output corresponds with daytime peak usage of electricity. So not every potential technology we look at turns out to be viable. So what. Thomas Edison made dozens of tries at a viable light bulb before he got one that worked, and the “green energy” program has a much better track record than that, indeed, has a much better track record than any private venture fund in the Silicon Valley. Using it as a political football is just playing chicken with the future of the nation, and regardless of your political affiliation should be viewed as utter nonsense.

— Badtux the Technology Penguin

Read Full Post »

Politically incorrect

So a roaring fire is bad for the environment, and doesn’t really warm up your house much if any. So what. On a cold and rainy day, tossing on some scrap wood (pieces of wooden pallet from work) and then sitting in front of it just feels right.

— Badtux the Warm Penguin

Read Full Post »

Naw, it must be just a coincidence that independent researchers are being blocked from evaluating the effects of the Gulf blowout. Because the Obama administration is an eeeevil soshalist government thingy that hates big business, which is why they’re making sure that nobody can independently refute BP and the U.S. government’s claims about how peachy-keen everything in the Gulf is now that the well is capped…

— Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Read Full Post »

BP burning sea turtles

And in other news, apparently BP employees have been spotted stealing lollipops from toddlers.

Well, not yet. Just waitin’ for it.

BTW, yes, a) the top hat is back, for whatever good it’s going to do — the blowout preventer is now leaning significantly, and if it breaks off the casing entirely, we have an oil volcano at the bottom of the sea, and b) the relief well is within 1,000 feet of being where it needs to be to shut down the gusher. Let’s hope that the casing of the gusher is intact enough that it’ll hold the mud and not let the mud ooze out into the surrounding rock formations, otherwise the only thing that’ll stop the gusher is the final bleedout of the reservoir — which BP at one time estimated to hold 2 billion barrels of oil.

– Badtux the Oily Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »