Solve Fix Build

Endocrine Disruptors

2012-01-18T10:48:00.000-05:00

A little more than a year ago I read Plastic: A Toxic Love Story by Susan Freinkel. My desire to read the book stemmed from three disturbing things that are symptoms of our dependency on plastics: the Pacific Ocean Gyre, dependence on hydrocarbons for plastics, and disturbing data about endocrine disruptors.

Freinkel’s journalistic coverage of the endocrine disruptors is perfectly adequate to inform the general public about this quietly ignored issue. Bisphenol A (or BPA) and phthalates are slowly becoming bad words, but they should become taboo much faster. BPA is a known endocrine disruptor and is primarily found in polycarbonates. Think sports water bottles, eyeglasses, baby bottles, and plastic water pitchers that are wonderfully clear and seem to resist water spots. BPA binds to receptor sites in the human body and blocks the reception of natural hormones, particularly those related to sexual development. Worse yet, because BPA disrupts the function of the endocrine system, it is altering our genetic history because pregnant women exposed to BPA can disrupt the sexual development and genetic makeup of their unborn children. Therefore, BPA isn’t just an acute danger – it can cause problems for extended generations.

This issue of generational alteration due to modifications to our environment illuminates a particularly insidious kind of societal dysfunction. The other problems that we’ve identified and fixed were certainly more acute. The ozone layer problem was addressed by getting rid of CFC’s, with noticeable results. Acid rain was addressed by putting scrubbers on flue stacks and it helped. Waste water dumping was stopped in areas where it was hurting communities, and the water table repaired itself. But now we’re talking about genetic mutations that are altering the future makeup of humans. In this case, science fiction meets reality as we witness the accidental modification of our biology as a consequence of our desire for convenience.

Getting away from plastic will certainly be a challenge. Few materials can be so easily molded into complex shapes for such low cost. The creation of plastics is an easy byproduct of hydrocarbon refining, and it has spawned megalithic industrial growth. It was only in the late 1950s that we still relied on primarily metals, wood, and fibers for consumer products. Today, we make everything from plastics.

In perhaps a bit of subtle protest, I tend to fill my recycling bin with even the plastics that I know the recycling facility cannot process. Plastics with dyes are almost a guaranteed contaminant for recycling facilities. Several years ago I visited the local recycling facility and took a tour, and I was frankly a bit disappointed to learn that their business function is very limited. They simply collect, sort, and redistribute recycling materials. That’s it. Therefore, anything that doesn’t fit their customer base is redirected to the landfill. This means that even well-intentioned people who are trying to recycle cannot guarantee that the materials they put in the bin will survive in a second life. Nevertheless, my philosophy is that if the recycling facility reaches a critical threshold where they are spending a lot of man hours diverting unused materials to the landfill, they will seek opportunities to put those junk materials to use and therefore turn their waste into profit. Therefore, I encourage people to clutter up the recycling facilities with materials that are not conventionally recycled… but could be. If it becomes a hassle for the recycling facility, they will adapt and find ways to make money from those materials.

This is particularly true for polyethylene bags. Those plastic bags at the grocery store are flighty little suckers that can sail from the recycling truck with the slightest breeze, and then find their way to storm drains, and eventually the river, and eventually the sea, where they may take months or years to finally collect in a calm portion of the sea that is called a gyre, or a dead zone with very little wind or current. Thousands of square miles of plastic debris clog the Pacific Ocean Gyre, and there isn’t much that people can do about it. It certainly isn’t cost effective to troll the gyre and scoop up these materials for reuse, so nobody is doing it. Most recycling facilities or Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) use a trommel system to sort lightweight materials from heavier materials. Polyethylene grocery bags tend to flutter and clog up the trommel, and therefore MRFs try to reject them before they enter the trommel. The bag collection spots at the grocery stores consolidate the bags and bypass this sorting nightmare, and can therefore divert PE bags to an appropriate recycling process. However, the batch-like processes of recycling bags at grocery stores isn’t as seamless as it would be if we could just throw our junk into the trash and have confidence that it will be appropriately sorted for reuse elsewhere.

In the meantime, finding products that eliminate contact of plastic with food and ingested liquids is a challenge on its own, but there are products out there. For example, we threw out our plastic coffee maker and replaced it with a stainless steel percolator. We replaced our plastic Rubbermaid lunch containers with glass containers. When we buy juice, we look for glass bottles.

But many plastics are simply unavoidable. Even the organic, free range chicken breasts you buy at the grocery store are wrapped in vacuum sealed plastic. Soup cans are lined with a plastic coating to prevent corrosion of the metal, and those coatings are unregulated and many contain BPA as a plasticizing agent. Those little plastic tripods they put in the pizza to prevent contact with the pizza box are made from who-knows-what. Even the thermal paper used to print receipts uses a plasticizer that gets on your hands after you touch it, and then you use your hands to eat. BPA is most common in the #7 plastic category that isn’t really a category at all, but a catch-all label for “everything else”. Ingredients in those plastics vary wildly. According to this article and others, plastics 2, 4, and 5 appear to be the safest with the lowest occurrence of BPA and phthalates.

What is the tipping point price for solar?

2011-12-30T09:17:00.001-05:00

I was wandering through Lowes the other day gathering supplies for a closet remodel I'm working on, when I rediscovered their renewable energy and efficiency aisle. About a year ago they opened this aisle and stocked it with solar panels, home automation kits, LED lighting, and other things. I considered this to be a win for the industry; when a Lowes in Ohio sees a need for it, it must be mainstream. At the time, they had 175 watt photovoltaic panels for about $750 each, which corresponds to $4.28/W. A year prior to that I was writing a research paper on mechanisms of efficiency degradation in solar panels, and I had priced them around $5/W. Yesterday, Lowes had the panels on clearance for $550 each, or $3.14/W.

I looked on a few solar websites this morning and found prices far better than this. Sharp 240W panels for $430, or about $1.80/W. Thin film panels have already proven to be produced for $1/W. There were a lot of predictions that this kind of pricing would lead to widespread adoption. So where is it?

I try looking at it another way. Consider appliances that come with a house when it is purchased. These items include a furnace, water heater, refrigerators, microwaves, ovens, and dishwashers. The cost of these items ranges from $300 for a microwave to several thousand dollars for a furnace or refrigerator. If $3,000 is the average tolerable cost of a home appliance, then perhaps one might consider this the upper end of what a homeowner would be willing to pay for a solar installation that stays with the house.

Today, $3,000 would buy about 1.6 kW if the online prices I found are reliable, not including any labor for installation if the home owner isn't a DIY type. This isn't enough to completely replace the electricity demand of the average US house. The EIA indicates that electricity consumption is about 39 kWh per capita (including all sectors). Residential usage is about 1/3 of that, so we can use 13 kWh per person as a metric. A family of four would then require 52 kWh per day per house. If we assume 6 hours of full sunlight, this means we need a capacity of 8.6 kW at a cost of approximately $15,500. Obviously this is far above the $3,000 price tag of a home appliance.

So how do we get to $3,000 from $15,500? It indicates that we would have to cut the cost by 5, which means solar should get to $0.30-$0.40/W.

Now, recall what I mentioned in the first paragraph. Two years ago solar PV appeared to be selling for $5/W. Today it is selling for $1.80/W (these are off the shelf prices not including subsidy). That means we have a slope of about $1.50/W per year. If you would believe we could drop it to $0.30/W next year, the price slope would prove true. But costs don't drop linearly... they drop exponentially. The question is where we are on the curve. Have we already started to bottom out, or can we go further?

At any rate, we can also approach this problem from the efficiency side. Consider, for example, a newly built, well insulated home that would cut the energy demand of each person by 1/3. The same family of four in the new house would then only require 34 kWh per day, and therefore only require 5.7 kW to be self sufficient. For 5.7 kW to cost $3,000, the price of solar need only drop to $0.52/W.

Therefore the power of efficiency is revealed, and hence the large investment in efficiency programs in the US DOE. We can reduce our demand, and therefore reduce the burden on technology and economy to support energy innovation. The tipping price of solar - based on the assumptions outlined here - appears to be $0.30-$0.50 per watt.

High Octane Fuel Alternatives

2011-12-15T14:25:00.000-05:00

Just a short post on this topic:

I was intrigued to read Robert Zubrin's testatment to high fuel economy for methanol. He found that he achieved 24 mpg with methanol (M100) compared to 36 mpg with gasoline (E10 blended, 10% ethanol as it is in most pumps). While that doesn't sound very good, consider that methanol has an energy density of ~19 MJ/kg vs. ~47 MJ/kg in gasoline, which means that a gallon of methanol contains 40% as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. Therefore, if you were to estimate fuel economy by energy content alone, you would expect the 36 mpg gas Cobalt to achieve about 14 mpg on methanol. Instead Zubrin reports 24 mpg and attributes the improved fuel economy to higher octane and therefore cleaner combustion, i.e., the Cobalt's little engine eeks out higher fractions of energy from methanol than gasoline.

Ethanol has shown similar octane benefits - enough that some drag racers with boosted engines prefer it. Higher octane fuels resist detonation and reduce the probability of the engine grenading under boost. Detonation is more commonly referred to as "engine knock" and it occurs when fuel combusts before the spark plug sparks, which is usually before the piston reaches top dead center (TDC). My parents used to have a mid 1980s Plymouth Voyager with a 2.6L Mitsubishi four cyclinder engine that knocked terribly. Usually when the engine was cold, we would pull out of the driveway and start moving up the hill and we'd hear the clatter-clatter-clatter of detonation until the engine warmed up. I can still pick out that engine by ear based on its clatter, as it was put in most of the Chrysler K-cars pre-1986 (thumbs up to Iacocca). Like a Honda starter, that engine has a distinctive whine to it that is distinct from any other engine. The Voyager lasted a long time without issues, but boosted engines have a higher compression ratio and engine knock at high RPMs can spell disaster for engine parts. This is why ethanol and methanol are great fuels for boosted engines.

Tiny turbo motors like GM's 1.4L Ecotec in the Cruze are optimized for high octane fuels. A smaller engine that generates similar power for less fuel is the solution to many of our fuel demand issues. Supplementation of gasoline (and perhaps its eventual replacement) with sustainably derived methanol or ethanol can provide substantial energy independence benefits given the octane advantage.

Of course, all of this depends on where we get the methanol. I'm not as jazzed as Zubrin about sourcing methanol from other fossil hydrocarbons, but there are other ways to make it.

How to determine where the water came from in the foot well of your Volkswagen

2011-12-10T16:23:00.003-05:00

I am often a detective in a mystery where there perpetrator of the crime is myself. More on that in a moment...

I’ve had water dripping into the passenger footwell of my mk3 Volkswagen Jetta for a little more than a year, but only in the last few months has it become severe enough that I can see the water with my eyes after it rains.

Last time I touched it, I spent significant effort removing the windshield to remove rust, repaint, and reseal it. It stopped a leak there but shortly afterward my wife and I were going for a drive when it started to rain, and she informed me that it was raining on her feet.

After searching numerous VW forums I found that this problem is common across multiple models including the Phaeton. How disappointing it must have been for Phaeton owners to discover such a stupid problem in such an expensive car. Phaeton buyers thought they were buying a car to compete with the big boys, only to find that VW uses the same arcane drainage systems from Seat and Skoda in its upscale flagship. How embarrassing.

The leak in the passenger footwell is often attributed to the following culprits:

- blocked drainage in the cowl at the bottom of the windshield (sometimes called the “rain tray” or “windshield cowl”, located at the top of the firewall, bridging the space between the struts where the windshield meets the fenders). Drainage holes are located at either side of the rain tray near the strut towers, and can become blocked with leaves, dirt, and pine needles, thus making the rain tray a bathtub. Water fills and then spills via numerous pathways to the passenger footwell
- An improper seal around the cabin air filter, also located in the rain tray. Once the blocked or slowed drainage of the rain tray occurs, water leaks through the cabin intake… into the passenger footwell.
- Improper sunroof drainage from multiple flexible plastic tube channels meant to direct water from the sunroof area to various drainage points in the A and B pillars. If these tubes are blocked (or somehow disconnected), they often end up leaking water… into the passenger footwell
- Blocked drainage holes inside the passenger door which cause water to collect in the bottom of the door and promptly spill over the interior seals… into the passenger footwell
- The condenser for the air conditioner evidently disposes of water via a drip channel in the firewall (also near the passenger footwell). This drip channel can become blocked and then the water – with nowhere else to go – spills into the cabin and the passenger footwell
- The coolant system can develop a leak. Since the heater core is located behind the dash and relies on coolant from the engine to build heat (which is why many VWs have a “sweet” smell when the heat is on, attributed to the radiator fluid), the core can go bad which will then spill coolant into the interior of the car. Again, it tends to collect in the passenger footwell

I was astounded that so many different sources of water or fluid could end up in the passenger footwell. This seems like a major oversight since it occurs in generation after generation of VWs, up to and including the poor Phaeton - a car that is perhaps undeserving of its dismal sales.

I was also astounded that since the causes are so varied, the solutions to the problem are also wildly varied. Forum members who have experienced the heater core problem will instantly advise someone that the heater core is the problem, which it could very well be the sunroof drains or any of the other problems. Prescription after improper diagnosis runs as rampant in the car domain as it does in the medical professions.

I’ve been trying to track the source of the leak down for the past few days. It doesn’t smell like coolant so it isn’t the heater core. It only gets wet when it rains so it likely isn’t the AC condenser issue either.

It is therefore either the sunroof drain tubes or the cabin air filter.

Buried in the A pillar is a tube which runs from the sunroof to the pillar and connects to a drainage port near the passenger door hinge. The purpose is to direct captured water from the sunroof to the low points of the car where it can safely be spilled outside the vehicle and away from the passengers. However, it has been said that this tube can disconnect from the final fitting in the pillar at the door jamb, and therefore it can spill inside the car at will. This evidently occurs often. Since I just put in a new headliner, I’m in no mood to take it out again and investigate the sunroof. I recall no blockage and I’ll check the hose connection in the A-pillar first. Exploring this potential cause would be my last resort and since the rain tray is more accessible, I decided to start there.

I removed parts of the rain tray which requires removal of the windshield wipers and several plastic grommets that inevitably broke during the process. Underneath I revealed the cabin air intake which is often the source of the leak. However the seal around the bottom of the intake did not appear to be damaged or worn out. The possible water entry points are shown in the figure below with green arrows. Any water that enters the rain tray will drain at the drainage points near the strut towers (white arrows).

The first order to source the leak is to clear away any debris that might be blocking any possible water exits in the rain tray or the sunroof drains. I did not have any blockage but I cleaned a few leaves out of the rain tray. It appeared that the plastic cowl which covers my rain tray is doing a poor job of deflecting water from the windshield, and perhaps I am getting a direct drip into my cabin intake, which would certainly cause a leak. However, I can’t tell if that is the main cause, so I need to do some trial and error.

This is the procedure I eventually ended up following:

Logic:
- Pour water on the windshield. If leak, proceed to step 2. If no leak, proceed to END (Result = leak detected, so I proceeded to step 2)
- Pour water to right of cabin intake (closer to ECU). If leak, reseal around rain tray. If no leak, proceed to step 3. (Result = no leak)
- Pour water to left of cabin intake. If leak, check for unseen blockage in drainage. If no leak, proceed to step 4. (Result = no leak)
- Trickle water into the air cabin intake. If leak, address rain tray cover. If this cannot fix problem, address sunroof drainage.

I found something funny after going back to the raintray. While it had cracks in some spots, they were not near the cabin air intake. So I started to reinsert the raintray to reassemble it and look for any defects. Installing the passenger side of the rain tray is cumbersome as it has a tight fit and requires some jiggling to find its proper position. As I wrestled with it I noticed it was hung up on something that I couldn’t see, located near the passenger fender. When I craned my neck to look…Lo and behold, I discovered that my previous installation of the rain tray had an error. There is a vertical barrier that isolates the cabin air intake port from the weather, yet allows air into the rain tray compartment for air intake. This vertical section is part of the driver’s side rain tray cover, and I had bent it upon installing it previously. As a result, it was bent and directed to the top of my cabin intake, acting as a perfect capillary pathway for dripping water. I had found my problem.

I reinstalled the rain tray correctly, bending the baffle back so that it hung alongside my cabin air intake instead of being bent over the top of it. I also purchased new plastic fasteners off eBay (which were a poor fit) and replaced my broken connectors. I then sat in the car while pouring a tall glass of water on the windshield. No leak!

So, the typical forum responses would have been unhelpful to me here, because no one could possibly know that I installed the rain tray cover incorrectly and that was the cause of my water problem. For now, the leak issue is solved.

One of my next car posts will be a story about how I solved a vibration problem in my Silverado. Until next time…

What you need to know about Air Compressors

2011-11-15T09:35:00.006-05:00

I've owned an Ingersoll Rand SS3L3 air compressor for the last 7 years or so and I've been through a lot with it. It has taught me a lot to know about air compressors. The main lessons are that there is a significant price leap from 3 HP to 5 HP, from high RPM cheaper systems to low RPM more expensive systems.

What most people want to know about air compressors is air flow (in cubic feet per minute or CFM) and pressure (pounds per square inch or psi). Those are certainly good metrics, but really it comes down to what you want to use it for.

I've essentially learned that a small pancake-style compressor is great for nail guns and impact wrenches, and that's about it. Maybe air brushing. An air compressor like my SS3L3 here is okay for die grinding and orbital sanding, but I'd limit my usage of sand blasting. To get sand blasting capability, you're likely looking at $1,000+ with a 5 hp or more motor. Even in that category, you will see a price gap between high RPM compressors and low RPM compressors, the latter being the more expensive (and more robust) product.

Your biggest limitation is the compressor itself - how much air it flows, how long it can run without getting too hot, and its durability. Pancake compressors are designed to be low cost with short duty cycles. They run at high RPM on 110V. Medium duty compressors like this SS3L3 also run at high RPM but are 230V systems for higher power and more CFM. Heavy duty compressors Use greater power at lower RPM and can sustain almost continuous duty, i.e., if you are sandblasting.

I purchased my Ingersoll Rand SS3L3 compressor from Northern Tool in the early summer of 2005. It was priced lower than present day prices. This is the first air compressor that I have ever owned, so it was a learning experience from the start. It's been a good tool for me and I've probably gotten my money's worth, and I'll likely recoup significant cost if I ever sell it.

It is recommended that you purchase the IR SS3L3 startup kit as the compressor is delivered to you without any oil in it. In some cases the warranty is not valid unless you have purchased the startup kit. I didn't do that - more on that later.

One thing I immediately noticed was that the pressure switch was flimsy. When I plugged in the compressor to test it out, I found that the motor continued to run even as the gauge on the tank passed 130 psi. As it creeped closer to 135 psi (the limit printed on the tank), I pulled the plug. I ordered a new switch from Ingersoll Rand for ~ $35 and this fixed the problem. Perhaps I could have made a warranty claim, but it was easier to order the switch as there is an authorized IR dealer nearby and I had the switch within 2 days.

In the remaining time I've owned the compressor, I've replaced this switch 2 additional times. Total cost of switches: ~$105

I ran the compressor off and on for several months without any major issues. I used it for several things, but it's heaviest use has been blowing sawdust out of my garage and using a right angle die grinder for doing some body work on my car around the windshield. It has held up OK, but here are some things I have learned about the compressor since its purchase:

1. This unit uses a 3 HP "split phase" motor, which can be run on a standard 30A 230V household outlet - it draws about 15A during continuous duty. This is pretty normal for motors in this power and RPM range - typically 3-4 HP motors run somewhere around 3400 RPM, which is screamin'. The motor does not output a true 3 HP at all times. At startup the motor may approach its 3 peak horsepower, but during normal operation it may only be outputting half that power, so in truth it is essentially a 1.5 HP motor. This borderline false advertising is similar to peak and RMS power ratings in audio amplifiers, though it is fairly standard operating procedure to rate motors in this fashion. It is not a question of efficiency - it is an intended feature built into the windings of the motor.

2. The motor runs at 3450 RPM. Though it is quieter than a direct drive unit like the 30 gallon compressors sold at most hardware stores, 3450 RPM is still quite fast. With the pulley ratios, the compressor crank spins at 1200 RPM. Heavier duty systems might have the AC motor running at 1200-1750 RPM with the compressor running at ~700 RPM or less, resulting in a much quieter setup. Onomatopoeia description: The difference between them is "waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!" (3450/1200) and "glug glug glug" (1750/700). If I could do it over, I would consider a slower, beefier unit with a true power rating that runs at a slower, more quiet speed.

3. There is apparently no available rebuild kit for the compressor itself, according to the local IR dealer, though they do sell gaskets and the oiling kit. This may also be common, but this model is really the bottom of IR's product line, as they have units that are massive 3 phase monsters for industrial use. So the SS3L3 is an acceptable compromise for the DIY homeowner like you or I. It is a very simple design, consisting of essentially three parts; a cylinder head, cylinder block, and crankcase. It is a two cylinder, single stage compressor. The "valves" in the head are "reed valves", which are simply spring loaded "fingers" that cover holes in the cylinder head, and they move with the blowing/sucking of air as the pistons move in the cylinders (no mechanical actuation of the valves). The pistons are aluminum, and though I measured, I don't remember the diameter... something on the order of 60 mm. The rods are also aluminum, and there are no rod bearings. The crankshaft is cast iron machined at the journals, and the aluminum rods rotate on the crank without any rod bearings. The crankcase does not have a removeable oil pan, and the cylinder block bolts to the crankcase. I was somewhat disappointed to discover the absence of rod bearings and the use of aluminum rods.*

*(How do I know this? Recall that I didn't get the oiling kit. I ran it the first time without oil in it like a dummy, and upon discovering my accident I promptly turned it off. Then I disassembled it to assess the damage. Luckily, nothing was seriously damaged, but I learned a lot about the inner workings of my compressor)

4. The compressor can run fairly hot, especially when pressurizing the tank from zero pressure. I build a copper coil from the compressor outlet to the tank which nearly brings the air to room temperature by the time it enters the tank. It was also my hope that the sideways-mounted coil would capture condenstation and oil residue. It seems to have lessened the oil in the tank bottom - more on that in a minute. Total Cost: ~$50 Intercoolers on larger compressors are more common, as are oil-removal and air drying systems. My poor-man's intercooler functions adequately. I haven't added an oil-removal or dryer yet, as I haven't painted any cars (yet).

5. There is a flimsy petcock drain valve in the bottom of the tank that is difficult to access. It is irritatingly small and difficult to reach. I added a Swagelok right angle 1/4" male NPT to 1/4" tube adaptor to this drain orifice, then plumbed 1/4" tubing out from under the tank and connected this to a ball valve. The valve is now accessible from the front of the tank. I also made some feet for the tank out of 2x4 lumber and some carriage bolts so that it sits higher and I have better access underneath. I angled the tubing downward so that condensation is sprayed in pretty patterns on the floor. On any given day I release about 1/4 cup of oily, rusty, watery residue. Since I added the cooling coil, it is a bit less. I found the Swagelok parts on eBay by buying assorted lots of parts. Total Cost: ~$30

6. I have made several trips to the hardware store to find the correct fittings to get the unit running properly, though most fittings were readily available. It seems to me that a lot of the fittings on the system are kind of cheap, though I am used to the Swagelok fittings that I use at work, which are expensive and well worth the price. Again, this is how they can keep this compressor under $1000 for you or I.
7. The oil reservoir drain plug is on the bottom of the crank case, however this is no practical way to drain the oil without spilling it all over the top of the tank. One could remove the compressor to change the oil, but a better soultion would be to insert a ball valve in the oil drain plug for easy draining. I suspect that the threading on the oil plug is standard NPT like all of the other fittings on the tank - possible 1/4" or 3/8" but I have continued to use the existing plug. I have since adapted a plastic tray from one of my toolboxes to sit under the oil drain to catch the oil. Oil changes: ~$30

8. Beware of a failing head gasket. One of the wierdest things I experienced was inexplicable long run times for the compressor. I was in the garage one day blowing sawdust off the benches and cleaning up a bit, when the compressor kicked on as it normally would. It proceeded to run for several minutes which was a bit longer than usual. Suddenly it became much louder and it startled me, and I ran over to it to discover that the air filter (inlet) had fallen off. I shut off the compressor and felt the top - it was hot! Hot enough to melt the plastic air filter housing. It took me awhile to figure out that the head gasket was bad and it wasn't building pressure. So it overheated itself. This is an indication of the design limits - obviously it couldn't sustain continual running due to inadequate cooling. It is designed to refill the tank and then cool. I purchased a new gasket and air filter from the IR dealer and the air compressor is now back in action. Head Gasket Kit (and another oil change while I'm at it): ~$70

And that's the weakness of compressors with less than 5 HP. They run hot and too fast for any kind of sustained operation. An overbuilt compressor could supply plenty of CFM for sandblasting or painting without any overheating problems. However, I could only afford this SS3L3 at the time so that's what I got.

I've probably put another $285 worth of parts into this thing over the years. But I've used it to fix a lot of things. I've rotated countless tires, done a few brake and suspension jobs, did some body work, and I've used it quite a bit for woodworking, sanding, and blowing dust around. It's saved me at least what I've put into it, no doubt. Maybe I would have been better off getting something a bit more heavy duty. I've had my eye on Eaton Compressor for some time, such as this little beauty:

IR sells the SS5L5, which uses the same 60 gallon tank, but a 5 HP split phase 3450 RPM motor running a different two piston single stage compressor. For someone considering more power, this unit is still quite affordable, but it will still have some of the drawbacks of this system. It turns out that 5 HP is about the most one can get out of a 30A single phase 230V household circuit without flipping breakers.

My biggest complaints for the SS3L3 are the use of the split phase motor, the relatively cheap design of the compressor (aluminum rods and lack of rod bearings), the flimsy pressure switch, and the cheap fittings used all over the machine. Really the other complaints aren't relevant - most of the money I've spent has been in pressure switches, air filter housings, and gaskets. But this compressor has taken most of what I've thrown at it which is all I can expect.

I will continue to use this unit for some time, but I am already considering either building my own low RPM, true 4-5 HP air compressor from various parts suppliers, or just purchasing a new one from a company like Eaton Compressor. Ingersoll Rand makes the Type 30 series which is a step above the SS series, and I have considered these units as well, but I would almost feel safer building the unit on my own so that I know exactly what is going into it.

The bottom line is that if you want a low RPM compressor that won't overheat, you'll be lucky to get it for less than $1,000. If you want to sand blast and die grind every day, spend the extra cash for a low RPM, 5 hp compressor.

Liquid Fuels for Sight Seeing

2011-11-09T15:30:00.001-05:00

I was looking into the hydrolysis of methyl formate for various reasons when I stumbled upon a number of articles detailing the composition of interstellar gas clouds. My search query “methyl formate kJ/mol” landed me in the middle of this paper detailing the kinetics of formation of methyl formate in interstellar space gas clouds during the early formation of stars and/or planets.

So I was up for the distraction and tried to muddle through the context and chemistry to see what these folks were getting at. No practical information came up from the read, but it did make me wonder if there was any possibility that an interstellar spaceship could harvest some of this methyl formate to make fuel (such as methanol) or perhaps even water.

To make the methanol, water and heat would be required to sustain hydrolysis of methyl formate to methanol and formic acid. But in doing so, the inhabitants of said spaceship would be using valuable drinking water to make a fuel and an acid. And what would they do with a bunch of formic acid? Along those same lines… the methanol would really have no purpose inside the spaceship, either. Its combustion would make CO2 and water and might strain the O2 regeneration systems. Presumably, if we’re talking about an interstellar spaceship, it likely has a significant power source for either motivation and power or just power. So it might have a little fission reactor (like our aircraft carriers) or perhaps even a Mr. Fusion in the back.

So as long as it has fusion, who cares about methanol? But then I started wondering what would happen once the ship arrived at the planet. Assuming it doesn’t hover up in space or it has a fusion-powered dropship that goes with the colonists, the lander would be the powerplant they need. Once on the ground, they could roll out trucks and tractors and start building homes and laboratories. The fusion-powered dropship would be the generator and could recharge electric systems on their working vehicles.

But what about further exploration of the planet? If an orbiter remains above, it could scan the planet below and map the surface, and identify interesting places to visit. Perhaps the dropship could take explorers out on sight seeing trips, but if that were the case they would be without their valuable power plant. So instead they should have exploration vehicles. And those vehicles would need long range, and to obtain long range, they should run on liquid fuels.

(This of course assumes batteries and ultracapacitors still have not yet matched the energy density of fuels. I suppose if we’ve invented fusion and interstellar travel, we should have that stuff figured out too, right? But let’s assume we haven’t.)

So perhaps they could use the methyl formate they picked up in gas clouds along the way to make methanol on the planet surface, and use it to power their transcontinental jet planes for exploration purposes.

That seems overly complicated. My guess would be that if we could sustain a number of colonists on an interstellar ship with fusion, recycled water, and self-sustaining food, we could certainly figure out a way to make fuels on the planet surface with whatever water, CO2 , or biosources are available. After all, it's been done.

Anyway, back to my search on the energy required for hydrolysis of methyl formate…

The New C1 Chemistry

2011-09-13T14:51:00.004-04:00

Unless you are a chemical engineer or have an in depth familiarity with organic chemistry, you are likely unfamiliar with the term “C1 Chemistry” and its relevance to our modern petrochemical infrastructure. I wasn’t either, until recently.

As a rule of thumb, all you need to know about organic chemistry is that plastic, rubber, vinyl, or other “plastics” were made possible by only three elements in the periodic table: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Refineries obtain these ingredients from sources that are easy to break up, such as natural gas. Most non-fuel related petrochemical processes use natural gas as a feedstock because of its readiness to give up hydrogen and contribute its carbon atom to the next product. Most processes start with natural gas to create “synthesis gas” (syngas) which is a building block ingredient. This is called steam methane reforming (SMR). Syngas is formed in the following way:

CH4 + H2O --> CO + 3H2

Energy is input to this reaction to sustain temperatures of 850 degrees Celsius and about 40 atmospheres of pressure (~580 psi). You can see in this reaction that a single carbon feedstock produces syngas; hence “C1 Chemistry”. This reaction requires a metal catalyst (such as nickel) which is partially consumed in the process.

From syngas any number of products can be created with water and more energy input. Methanol, for example, is formed from syngas by the following reaction:

CO + 2H2 --> CH3OH

That reaction only consumes part of the hydrogen from the initial syngas reaction, but if the first reaction and the second reaction are performed in series, the energy density of methane is neatly packaged into a transportable room temperature liquid. Room temperature liquids are much easier to contain and transport than gases, hence the importance of methanol in petrochemicals production processes. Methanol is so consistently linked with the remaining family of petrochemicals that is has been proposed as a solution to our hydrocarbon problem (see The Methanol Economy).

Surprisingly, the concept of C1 Chemistry is relatively new, as a paper from 1986 implies (Keim. “C1 Chemisty: Potential and Developments.” Pure and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 58, No. 6, 825-832, 1986). The motivation for C1 chemistry at that time was the price of crude oil, which has been an acceptable feedstock for other petrochemicals in the past. Refining of petrochemicals requires an energy input for each reaction step, and this energy is often obtained via combustion of natural gas because of its high energy content. Combustion of natural gas produces water, carbon dioxide, and about 1 million BTU for every 1000 cubic feet of natural gas burned.

These stable molecules - water and carbon dioxide - contain the three magic elements as well: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Unfortunately, H2O and CO2 are quite stable, and their separation into constituents requires more energy than less stable molecules such as methane or the hydrocarbon chains in crude oil. But a vision for sustainable petrochemicals would include H2O and CO2 as the feedstock.

There are pathways to obtain the hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon needed for petrochemicals from the stable feedstock of water and carbon dioxide. Water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis as well as photocatalytic pathways. Carbon dioxide can also be converted into useful chemicals (I must disclose that this has been some of my work in the past few years). An energy intensive, purely electrochemical pathway would be to produce hydrogen from water via electrolysis, and CO from CO2 via a nickel catalyst, thus creating syngas. However, more cost effective pathways bypass syngas altogether in order to produce useful intermediates such as methanol. The methanol pathway would open up the possibility for building many chemicals and fuels. In my own work with my colleagues, however, I have found that these pathways are not only energy intensive, but they are also intensive in consumables. The petrochemical industry is closely tied with the chlor-akali industry, as sodium hydroxide, sodium chloride, and chlorine gas are needed in the production of many chemicals and solvents. In addition to our three magic elements H, C, and O, we may also add Cl which we derive from salts. Electrolysis of water with dissolved NaCl will evolve hydroxide ions (OH-) and chlorine ions (Cl-) which combine to make chlorine gas (Cl2). Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium chloride (NaCl) provide needed conductivity in electrochemical processes, and their constituent ions OH- and Cl- can participate in reactions as well. Consider the family of polyvinylchlorides (PVCs) that make up much of our modern plumbing in houses and buildings. These materials require chlorine as part of their composition.

Therefore the modern industrial complex runs on hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, as well as salt, lye, and lots of water. Any alternative to the hydrocarbon route must consider the consumption of these elements and materials.

Electrochemical reduction of CO2 into other products requires a hydrogen source. This source can be water itself, but it can also be sodium hydroxide. Other substitutes for acids and bases are potassium hydroxide (KOH) or potassium chloride (KCl), and sulfuric acid (H2SO4). However, to produce fuels on the scale that we produce them now would require inordinate amounts of consumable if this pathway were chosen. The only consumable with enough abundance to support that demand is water itself, which unfortunately means that more energy is required for the electrochemical process.

Due to the affordability of methanol and the energy required to produce it electrochemically from CO2, it is very difficult to make methanol from CO2 in a cost effective manner. It is easier to produce higher value chemicals such as CO and formic acid (HCO2H). I am not saying it is impossible to make methanol from CO2 affordably – I am saying it is challenging. A lot of the research in this area fails to quantify the needed cost metrics or to propose solutions to overcome cost. The main cost stems from the energy consumed. A second major cost is consumables. And a third cost (often overlooked) is the catalyst for these processes. One possible electrochemical catalyst for the conversion of CO2 to methanol is Ruthenium. Anodes are often platinum, palladium, or titanium metal oxides. If these costs are properly accounted for, the problem is then reduced to a manageable problem: financing the construction of the plant on the projected revenues.

I have published papers in my own work exposing the energy requirements and I’ve shown how the overlap of the petrochemical and electrical infrastructures can provide cost effective avenues to produce chemicals from CO2 (“Energy Storage via Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 into Specialty Chemicals” Hill, et al. ESFuelCell2011-54048. Aug 7, 2011 Washington, DC). However, this requires us to examine our entire chemical and electrical supply chain differently. Instead of requiring that energy and chemical production be performed in a consolidated, high capacity factor, 24 hour operation, we should instead consider opportunistic and distributed production. We should produce fuels from electrical energy when electrical energy is temporarily cheap, and use electrical energy fluctuations as opportunities to store energy in chemicals and fuels. Besides off peak energy, there are minute-by-minute low prices of electrical energy which instantly reflect the need to balance grid voltage. This can be done not only on an hourly basis but on a minute to minute basis, as the ancillary services market in the electric transmission sector has already shown. Marrying electrochemical processes with ancillary services would enable the adoption of renewable energy into our complete grid, ensure the production of low-carbon fuels, and maximize the utilization rate of renewable energy. The energy density of most chemicals and fuels would be greater than our best batteries of today, as we have shown previously.

These are much more dynamic business models but they are not much different than what the financial sector has already discovered. Whenever there is a dynamic and changing value, there is an opportunity to seize growth from that value. Our fuel infrastructure has been slow to realize this, though even the dinosaur-like electrical grid is beginning to see it. Like money, energy is a commodity that is in high demand and trades on a rapid basis. Restructuring of our treatment of energy is the ultimate solution to producing sustainable fuels and chemicals from CO2 and H2O.

*These views are my personal views only.

The Partial Hydrogen Injection Story: How Context Makes or Breaks a Technology

2011-07-14T10:22:00.003-04:00

It was the early 1980s, and Tom Ryan and Gail Hogan of Action6 News in Columbus, OH, reported a story on Stan Meyer, an inventor who claimed he could run a car on water. The news story had a duration less than 2 minutes but was filled with footage of the Meyer tube frame dune buggy, powered by a VW flat four engine. Meyer had painted the scant body panels with bold lettering that advertised "Water Powered Car". Meyer's motivation for bringing the technology to the news was so that he could protect the US from oil embargos.

Fast forward to July, 2007. The US is again in the midst of yet another energy crisis and energy topics are in the news. The Columbus Dispatch runs a story on Stan Meyer and follows up on what happened in the 2-3 decades since his debut on Action6. The story goes that Stan Meyer and his brother met with two Belgian investors at a Cracker Barrel in Grove City on March 20, 1998. Allegedly, after he took a sip from his cranberry juice, he choked, ran out of the restaurant, vomited, and died. His last words were that he was poisoned.

Meyer was the feature of many small news stories and like many backyard inventors, his bold claims and overarching praise for his technology cloaked his invention in mystery and skepticism. His approach was to communicate his discovery via the local news stations which goes against the convention of peer review. But perhaps Meyer didn’t want to submit to overeducated arrogance and skepticism and instead felt that his technology should be delivered directly to the masses. Or perhaps there wasn't any merit to his technology and he just wanted to be famous. In either case, he built something that appeared to work and he wanted everyone to see it. Meyer isn’t the first inventor to take this approach.

Consider Denny Klein. Like the Ohio story, Fox 26 news of Clearwater Beach, FL reported a story in 2006 on Klein’s water-fueled welder which can heat and weld metals and even ceramics. Klein then demonstrated the same core technology could be adapted to vehicles to supplement their fuel consumption, as he did with his own Ford Escort wagon. Klein is a similar personality to Meyer – working class roots, creative intent, and a desire to push his technology to the people via news attention.

Search the web for Brown’s Gas, HHO Gas, Hyzor, Aquygen, oxyhydrogen, Water4Fuel, Hydrogen Booster, Rhodes Gas, and thousands of web pages will be produced extolling the virtues water electrolysis for fuel. Many of these websites are filled with endless pages of exclamations in large, bold, italic, capital letters that provide little additional information about how the technology works or even how to buy it. Most of the websites are selling plans to build the hydrogen generator rather than selling the generator itself. One of these websites is Eagle Research, which sells plans and actual welders based on the same principles that Klein has demonstrated. Eagle Research also sells information and tools related to other “free energy” concepts, including recreated projects supposedly from the notes of Nikola Tesla. Their mission is to spread this information without patenting any of it.

Early on in my exposure to this water-hydrogen idea, I was conflicted because this whole thing appears to be a crock of shit. Yet at the same time, I couldn’t help but wonder how so many people could stumble upon this technology, recreate it, and then become so excited that they would dedicate their lives to it. This appears to be pseudoscience at its finest, and wreaks of the same stench that emanated from Pons and Fleischmann when they tried to convince the world that they had discovered cold fusion. Yet it keeps coming up again and again, so perhaps there is some smaller truth behind all the exaggeration.

I was a bit guilty of becoming excited about my own early theories of how this works. For some time I was convinced this was an artifact of water injection, a fueling technique used in aircraft for addition power during takeoff or at high altitudes. Then I wondered if it was just a hoax using methanol or other alcohols to supplement the fuel. But finally after digging deeper, I found that “partial hydrogen injection” as it is called can be traced back to work performed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion laboratory in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

"Partial Hydrogen Injection into Internal Combustion Engines" Robert Breshears, JPL. 19, circa 1972

In that paper, the Breshears group mounted a tank of compressed hydrogen gas in a Chevrolet Impala and leaked the gas into the carbeurator to observe significant increases in fuel economy. Their conclusion was that partial hydrogen injection (or PIH) does wonders to improve fuel economy with very little hydrogen input, but the storage and transport of hydrogen was impractical at the time. There has been a lot of work in this area centered around ways to generate hydrogen on board the vehicle. Arvin Meritor investigated a technique to partially gasify a slipstream of gasoline prior to combustion in order to supplement the engine with hydrogen.

The basis of PIH is that hydrogen increases flame speed and extends the lean limit of spark-ignition engine operation. The combination of enhanced flame speed and wider flammability limits of hydrogen can thus stabilize combustion during lean operation. The phrase "extends the lean limit" is the key to all of this. Similar work using syngas as the fuel supplement has found similar conclusions:

“The considered engine, fuelled with syngas and gasoline, has shown a much higher efficiency than the engine fuelled with pure gasoline, according to CFD analysis.
("Performance of a Spark Ignition Engine Fuelled with Reformate Gas Produced On Board Vehicle" GALLONI Enzo, MINUTILLO Mariagiovanna 2007, vol. 32 International Journal of Hydrogen Energy)

Not only does PIH improve fuel economy, but it also reduces pollutants in the exhaust as combustion is cleaner and more efficient. Small increases in engine power have also been observed:

“It has been found that 4% of hydrogen and 30% of ethyl alcohol blending causes a 49% reduction in CO, 39% reduction in NOx, 40% reduction in fuel consumption, increases thermal efficiency and output power by 5 and 4%, respectively. ("Improvement of Performance and Reduction of Pollutant Emission of a Four Stroke Spark Ignition Engine Fueled with Hydrogen Gasoline Fuel Mixture" AL-BAGHDADI M. A-R S. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part D, Journal of automobile engineering. 2004, vol. 218)

Double check that previous quote... 40% improvement in fuel economy. The extension of the lean limit of conventional fuels is key because it means that less fuel is needed to produce the same power. The cleaning of the exhaust is similarly significant as particulates are not only a sign of engine inefficiency, but are also a health risk.

“Specific fuel consumption decreases while the engine thermal efficiency and the air ratio increase. Hydrogen may be used to extend the lean limit of conventional fuels in order to achieve a higher efficiency and lower pollutant emission. The concept of hydrogen injection was first proposed by Breshears et al. at JPL to allow lean operation of the engine to produce low NOx.” ("Thermal Balance of a Four Stroke SI Engine Operating on Hydrogen as a Supplementary Fuel" F. Yüksel and M. A. Ceviz. Energy
Volume 28, Issue 11, September 2003, Pages 1069-1080)

Skeptics would still cite that conservation of energy cannot be violated here and that any system which generates hydrogen onboard will be consuming more electrical energy than the energy it adds to combustion. Evidently, this isn’t the case, as this technology is already commercialized. The company that has commercialized the on-board electrolyzer was once called Hy-Drive. They are now called "Blutip Power Technologies" and are a publicly traded Canadian company. They are marketing their product toward trucking, mining, and power generation.

Make no mistake, energy is certainly being conserved. However, PIH is another way to eek out a few more percent of efficiency by harvesting waste energy that would otherwise go unused. This is in principle no different than a supercharger or turbocharger, which are both mechanical energy harvesting systems which increase parasitic losses on an engine yet produce a greater power benefit. The typical combustion engine only converts 30% of the fuel energy to power, so there is a lot of waste energy to capture. In addition, most vehicle alternators are oversized to compensate for electrical accessories that are rarely used together. Certainly there are intelligent ways to capture this unused electrical energy and feed it back to the engine, and PIH is one such way to do that.

So why don’t we all have PIH on our cars? Wouldn’t we all enjoy 15-40% greater efficiency and push the peak oil catastrophe a few more decades into the future? Some of the kooky folks who dabble in this technology would tell you it is a big conspiracy keeping us from this technology. Others will tell you that it costs too much. It isn't cost because a simple electrolyzer can be built from hardware store parts for less than $100. The cause to blame is the lowest common denominator.
Implementation of OEM water electrolyzers on cars is prevented by the increasing trend toward the sealed engine compartment in the modern vehicle. Once upon a time, a fill up at the gas station included a mandatory check of the radiator and oil levels, and perhaps even a check of brake fluid. This is certainly not the case now. The advent of lights on the dash of most vehicles has evolved a culture of ignorance when it comes to car operation. The light comes on and the driver takes it to the dealer without asking questions. Sooner or later there will be no awareness of mechanical functions of the car because the lowest common denominator of drivers wants it that way. With this in mind, imagine the difficulty of explaining to the simplest of drivers that water should be added to the hydrogen generator every 1500 miles.

Last I read, Denny Klein was talking to OEMs about his technology, and I’m sure this conversation came up. Denny is obviously a handy guy, but the minivan driver down the street isn’t. How would you sell the Aquygen technology to a mother of four whose primary concern is safe transportation to school? When she fills up at the gas pump, the last thing she is likely to do is pop the hood to check fluids. Gasoline is expensive, but it isn’t expensive enough to make everyday folks relearn vehicle maintenance.

Context is terribly important when trying to convey the significance of new technology. Unfortunately, the greatest champions of PIH are the very people who dishonor it by an inability to communicate its virtues in a clear and coherent manner. Whether Stanley Meyer was actually poisoned or if Denny Klein really has the solution to the petroleum problem doesn’t matter –this is one simple technological solution to the energy problem that can be included in a portfolio of many, and should be considered for its merits and drawbacks. The papers published on the topic have proven to me that there is merit here and that it warrants further work. It also proves to me that anything less than 20 mpg in a non-commercial vehicle is just engineering laziness when we have PIH, microhybrids, lightweight materials, displacement on demand, direct injection, variable valve timing, homogeneous charge compression ignition, and ceramic engine components that are off the shelf and ready to run without significantly inflating the cost of production.

Further Reading:

Breshears, R., Cotrill, H., "Partial Hydrogen Injection into Internal Combustion Engines," Proceedings. EPS 1st Symposium On Low Pollution Power Systems Development, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

“Experimental Evaluation of SI Engine Operation Supplemented by Hydrogen Rich Gas from a Compact Plasma Boosted Reformer”
J. B. Green, Jr., N. Domingo, J. M. E. Storey, R. M. Wagner and J. S. Armfield Oak Ridge National Lab.
L. Bromberg, D. R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich and N. Alexeev MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center

The Effectiveness of Conservation

2011-06-30T09:11:00.011-04:00

This July I will present a paper at the ASME Energy Sustainability conference in Washington DC on the impact of a more efficient fleet of vehicles. (Using the Energy Intensity Ratio as an Assessment Tool for Near Term US Energy Strategy in Transportation and Petrochemicals, Hill, King. ASME ES 2011. Paper No. 54349 -- here).

In writing this paper, I found myself biting my finger nails on occasion as I contemplated the magnitude of our oil consumption problem. Two things the reader might investigate for further information: 1) Click here and imagine a sucking sound after you hit "play" 2) If you can bear the technical jargon, read "A Cubic Mile of Oil" by Crane, et al.

That being said, let me get back to the conclusions of the paper I'll be presenting:
- More fuel efficient cars are a far better solution than displacing petrochemical production to coal or natural gas feedstock
- The oil price affects our economy directly and undeniably - and regardless of whether you think the 2008 oil prices caused our economic failure or you want to blame it on mortgage backed securities - the oil price is undoubtedly linked to our economic stability in this country
- If we go back to sucking oil like we were in 2005 up to 2008, we'll see consumption at similar levels within 3 years -- we are already on the upward trend again approaching about 40 Quad (quadrillion BTU) per year
- There is a positive linear correlation between interest rates and the oil price, with the exception of now where oil prices are "high" but rates can't go any lower

These conclusions were reached with the aid of Carey King's "EIR" (Energy Intensity Ratio) metric, defined as the following:

Carey's metric is a way of looking at how much we are paying for energy that we use to generate economic output. The denominator is what is known as Energy Intensity (EI) which is the amount of energy it takes to create Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Historically, EI has been decreasing in the US, i.e. we can produce more GDP now with less energy than we did in the past. Part of this is due to less reliance on manufacturing and more reliance on higher value services, which now contribute over 70% of our GDP annually. The numerator is a measurement of the value of petroleum, or how much energy we are getting from petroleum for our dollar. If you prefer barrels as your units, a barrel of petroleum generally always contains the same BTU, but the price varies. So when the price is high, the numerator is small and you aren't getting much BTU for your dollar. When the price is low, you're getting a lot of BTU for your dollar. Carey defined this concept in another paper, and when we met at last year's ASME conference we agreed to combine forces to work on this problem in more depth.

Therefore EIR is the ratio of energy bought to the energy it takes to make a dollar. When EIR is low, you are paying a lot for energy and you are consuming a lot of energy to be productive. When EIR is high, you are paying little for energy and you are using little energy to be productive. Carey has defined EIR in his first paper on the topic: King, C.W., Energy intensity ratios as net energy measures of United States energy production and expenditures. Environmental Research Letters, 2010. 5: 044006 (available here).

If you doubt that economic conditions are linked to high oil prices, see the data yourself:

That figure shows that when the EIR of petroleum is less than 20 and oil expenditures are greater than 8% of GDP, the economy is not doing well. This is supported by well known events in US history when oil prices were high and the economy was in the gutter. See both 1970s oil crises and the 2005-2008 oil crisis in the red box above. Also note the booming 90's, with high EIR and low energy costs. That is the power of cheap oil.

Below, you'll see that when interest rates were creeping up, we slipped into low EIR. The 1972-1975 scare pushed our rates up and EIR plummeted. Again in 1979-1983 we were caught with our pants down with high interest rates, and a jump in oil prices pushed EIR downward until the fed could control the rates again. Yet in the period from 1997-1999, rates were low and energy was cheap. We had a booming economy thanks to the dot-com bubble, and we were producing fantastic GDP numbers will little energy investment. It was a perfect storm of a bubble, cheap energy, and cheap money. Yet now you can see we are in unfamiliar territory. EIR is low, and rates are low. We are adverse to bubbles at the moment thanks to the housing bubble, and we can't lower interest rates any further to stimulate the economy. We have nowhere to go here. As long as oil prices remain high and we remain dependent on oil, I would venture to conclude that the only thing that will get us out of this rut is extraordinary economic output, and unfortunately we aren't quite prepared for that.

To see what it would take to keep EIR in a good place, I did some calculations on the fuel consumption of our fleet of cars and trucks. I ran the following numbers indicating a range of percentage changes in the fuel economy of our vehicles on the road:

The chart above examines the scenarios if we either decrease our truck fuel economy by 7% or increase it by 9%, decrease our automobile fuel economy by 2% or increase it by 10%, decrease our mileage traveled per year by 2% or increase it by 7 %, and so on. If you think those numbers are unrealisitic, they are real.. they are taken from vehicle data collected since the 1970s and represent the minimum and maximum values we have seen historically in one year. In the 1980s, our fleet fuel economy increased by 10% several times during that decade. We've done it before.

From this data, I projected the Quads of petroleum consumption between now and 2015. I found that if we hit all the bad numbers (decreases in fuel economy, more driving, and more trucks on the road), we'll surpass 40 Quad of petroleum consumption per year and we'll be sucking more oil than ever before by 2015. If we hit all the good numbers (fewer trucks and more with good fuel economy, less miles traveled, fuel efficient cars, and so on), we'll not only stay at present levels, but we'll actually send our oil consumption on a declining trend, simply with efficiency improvements. That is quite a feat, considering this calculation also includes increases in vehicle population.

What is the most sensitive variable in this case? Truck fuel economy.

Since the 1990s trucks have come to occupy 50% of the vehicles on the road. Trucks today are 2x more fuel efficient than they were when they all contained carburetors atop 350 ci small blocks in the engine compartment, but we have a lot more of them and we are driving them more than ever. The second most sensitive variable is miles driven per year. We're all driving trucks now and we're driving them a lot.

Why more trucks? First, this started in the 1990s when oil was cheap and the term "SUV" became a household word. Ever since, new car buyers are buying more trucks as their daily-driven vehicles and they using them for vacations, errands, soccer practice, and trips to the hardware store. Second, we can still afford the gas. Despite fuel economy in the teens, many people still drive their Tahoe, Expedition, Excursion, or Durango to run daily errands and wince at the pump, but pump anyway. Third, trucks are extremely handy! Small businesses are buying quad cab pickups because they send two lackeys to the hardware store to get a couple sheets of drywall, and also have them pick up cleaning supplies and a roll of wax paper to throw in the back seat. I use my own truck for everything from drywall to topsoil, and I too am guilty of driving it daily. Trucks have infinite utility, which is why Americans love them. With our growing wealth, we drive more and consume more, and this is what EIR is measuring.

For this reason, while I think the Volt and the new plug in Prius are marvelous, we need plug-in trucks, like these: http://green.autoblog.com/2011/01/31/plug-in-hybrid-ram-truck-fleet-deliveries/. Check out those stats (more here). The trucks can travel 20 miles on a charge, with a total depleted range fuel economy around 25 mpg. That's a 25% improvement over my own truck and supposedly 65% over the standard Hemi Ram (originally 15 mpg).

Truck buyers are less adverse to a high price tag for their vehicle. It is hard to compete in the small car market. Trucks, on the other hand, can hide an electric drivetrain in their $50,000 price tag. It is hard to buy a new truck for less than $30,000, and fully loaded trucks will approach $50,000 quickly. By comparison, the Chevy Volt costs $40,000 and is in the same car class as Chevrolet Cruz, which can be had for a starting price of about $17,000. The Nissan Leaf is $30,000 and is in the same segment. People who buy small cars are much more sensitive to a high price tag, and they aren't looking for a $30,000 vehicle. That's entry level Mercedes and BMW territory, or a nicely loaded Camry. Those who have already purchased a Volt and the PHEV Prius can afford more expensive vehicles like those Mercs and Bimmers, but they are buying the hybrids and electrics by choice. While there is a need for these early adopters, they aren't going to save us on their own. We need a mass market fuel efficient vehicle that will take over a significant portion of new vehicle sales, and we need it within 1-2 years. A hybrid truck (that MUST have better numbers than the unimpressive Yukon/Tahoe/Silverado hybrid) can do that.

Just do the math: A plug in truck can achieve a depleted gas tank range near 400 miles and can average ~30 mpg over that range, including a ~20 mile electric only range. A truck that gets 30 mpg is almost a 2x increase in fuel economy over existing trucks. The next best thing is a diesel that can get 21 mpg on the highway. That same diesel truck would likely sell for $55,000 on a dealer lot. C'mon guys, we can do that. Because electric motors have excellent torque, we can tow the same (if not more) than present trucks. PHEV or EREV trucks will have the same performance with half the fuel consumption. Extended range electric trucks are the next best thing since the first Honda Insight. Unfortunately, we're relying on some slow giants to build them for us - Chrysler, GM, and Ford have to move faster.

My enthusiasm for these hybrids comes with the news that Chrysler will remove the present hybrid Rams from the market due to lack of sales. GM has also reported lackluster sales for their Silverado and Sierra two-mode hybrids. Does this mean hybrid trucks don't have a market? I would argue this is not the case. In the GM example, here's a quick eBay search:

Chevy Tahoe Hybrid with 67k miles $28,000

GMC Yukon Hybrid 4x4 with 33k miles $37,000

Tahoe non-hybrid with 64k miles $23,000

Yukon non hybrid with 34k miles $31,000

Tahoe/Yukon Hybrid Fuel Economy 20/20 (city/hwy)

Tahoe/Yukon Non-hybrid Fuel Economy 12/16

I think people look at those numbers and determine that they won't pay a 20% premium for 20 mpg. I should point out that the Ecoboost V6 in the new Ford F150 can beat that 20mpg hwy without loss of performance or any complicated drivetrains. My 10 year old truck can accomplish 20 mpg by simply employing a smaller engine.

The technology is here to give us 25-30 mpg. Now that's real fuel economy, and perhaps worth the cost. So instead of giving us an attempt at improved fuel economy in trucks, perhaps the Big Three should commit to it and give us something worth talking about. Then they might see better sales.

-------------------
Full disclosure: I write this to you today while I await the delivery of my Grandfather's 1961 Chevrolet Impala which I bought from his estate with the intention of restoring it. This act of restoration is dedicated to my grandfather and the Hill family history as I have fond memories of that car from every childhood trip to visit my grandparents. I hope that by preserving history this way, we can remember the past generations of Hills that gave us our future today. The Impala, as it is now, is a gas guzzling car if there ever was one. Some day I intend to examine the energy balance of restoring old cars with modern parts, or buying a new car and throwing away the old ones. Something like a "Carbon and Energy Balance of Cash for Clunkers and Similar Scrap Programs" paper or something. My concern about our energy future is in direct conflict with my love for cars. Next weekend I will attend the Good Guys Hot Rod and Custom show as I do every year, and I will cheer when people do burnouts, I will smile at the sound of lumpy cams in big block V8s, and I will relish the smell of rich exhaust and new tires. We can't have any of that without oil or its liquid hydrocarbon alternatives. I like to think that there can be a electric Hot Rod culture some day, and perhaps then we'll like the whine of 3 phase motors and the smell of ozone emanating from the cables on exposed high voltage battery packs and super capacitors, but you just can't beat the sound of the internal combustion engine when it comes to admiration of engineering complexity.

Other books on the facets of our resource challenge and the issues we face with our dependence on hydrocarbons:

Plastic: A Toxic Love Story by Susan Freinkel
Unquenchable by Robert Glennon
Beyond Oil by Ken Deffeyes
Lives Per Gallon by Terry Tamminen
Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice by Paul T. Anastas

The Economics of Technical Things

2011-06-01T09:55:00.001-04:00

As a physicist, I get to pretend I am all kinds of things. In the past 2 years or so I pretend I am an economist as well as a chemical engineer. Prior to that I pretended to be a materials scientist. Prior to that, I suppose I pretended to be a physicist.

I have found more recently that in my endeavors as an economist, putting technical risk into the context of net present value is confounding for the pure management types. From their perspective, an investment risk should be presented as a net present value projection at a fixed year in the future, and no further explanation is required.

In probabilistic calculations of complex processes, there are numerous factors that will affect the soundness of an investment. The return on investment in structural health monitoring systems for wind turbine blades, for example, is highly sensitive to the capital cost of the system as well as its detection sensitivity. The detection sensitivity is highly dependent on the method being used. Therefore, in doing the ROI analysis, there may be a “detection limit” parameter linked to the type of sensor being used, and when the regression coefficients of the investment are calculated, I can point to that factor and inform the potential investor that they should insure that whatever system they buy has an excellent detection limit, or they put their investment at risk. For electrochemical processes, I can point to electrode replacements and consumable electrolytes as major operational costs that limit the ROI of the process. That information gives the technology developer enough information to review the process and look at long life catalysts and alternative electrolytes. My job is to bridge the gap between the economist and the techs.

When discount factor is added to this analysis, it always ranks high in the sensitivity analysis and obscures these technical factors which are arguably more important. Since most of the cost-benefit analyses I’ve done are for new, recently developed technologies, they are often expensive because they are not yet mass produced. These one-off technologies are being examined specifically because they address an important problem but require an up front investment. So, when I do my first analysis of the technology, I don’t include a discount factor because the first questions I want to answer are “can this at least break-even and what technical flaws exist to prevent it from doing so?” Adding the discount factor will simply tell me that the cost of money is expensive. Duh. So I leave it out to start.

This irks the economics purists. I have been told that this approach is fundamentally wrong followed by a matter of fact statement that “…future dollars are simply not worth as much as they are today.” Only after I’ve done the first, non-discounted analysis will I put in discount factor and (if required) an inflation adjustment factor. Inevitably, these two factors show up in the top 3-4 regression coefficients. Then people look at it and say “oh, this is just too expensive.” My response is “everything new is expensive.” It is extremely difficult to communicate to people that “expensive” doesn’t mean “impossible”. Instead, it helps to understand what is driving the costs upward, and then see if there are alternative ways of doing things to bring the cost down. There is always room for efficiency.

Dollars are trivial fragments of emotion used to quantify feelings of risk, danger, and caution, but they lack context. They don’t tell us what we’re measuring because dollars are specifically designed to be applicable to everything, regardless of context. So for every analysis, it is up to the engineers and the economists to provide context for those dollars to make them relevant. The tricky part of doing a net present value calculation is explaining why all the numbers at the end of a long term investment are so small. If you discount things long enough, nothing is worth anything in the end. So it doesn’t matter, because this is simply an artifact of assigning an arbitrary discount factor that shrinks money over time. Instead, determine if the technology can make money on its own, then determine what can be done to make it better, then see how long it takes to pay for itself, and then discount it to see if you should invest in something else instead.

Nuclear: The “Bad” Carbon Free Energy

2011-05-19T15:04:00.001-04:00

This sudden flurry of posts is inspired by a recent revisit of my physics roots. After the Fukushima reactor disaster in March of this year (nearly 1 year after the BP disaster in the Gulf), friends and family asked me what I thought about it, given my background in physics. I was disappointed in myself that I didn’t feel that I was educated enough about the event to offer a helpful point of view.

I went back to some old reference materials and reminded myself how nuclear reactors work, quickly realizing that my recollection of a reactor was based on the older Chernobyl-type designs and that the Fukushima boiling water reactor (BWR) is more advanced yet still antiquated in some ways. What surprised me and others was that the failure of backup generators would lead to such a critical failure with significant risk, and discussions with friends made us all wonder why the design didn’t have an inherent shut down mechanism that would activate automatically if any critical system (such as cooling water flow) were to shut down. After reviewing reports on the failure, I learned that the reactor was indeed already shut down but the inevitable decay products of the reaction continued to produce heat which required cooling. The primary reaction (below) was halted, but the subsequent decays persisted.

U235 + n -> Rb93 + Cs141 + 2n

This reaction says that Uranium 235 is encouraged to split by the addition of a single neutron, and the split products are Rubidium 93 and Cesium 141 with the production of 2 additional neutrons which will go onward to facilitate more U235 fission. These “prompt neutrons” are produced immediately and each one can induce another reaction chain. This is how fission is self sustaining until the primary fuel (U235) is consumed. The neutrons are like oxygen feeding a fire, as Leo Szilard theorized several years before the first fission bomb was demonstrated. The decay products are produced by the remaining Rubidium and Cesium by the following reactions:

Rb -> (6 s) Sr -> (7 min) Y -> (10 h) Zr -> (1 million y) Nb

Sr -> (3 h) Y -> (4h) Zr

Cs -> (25 s) Ba -> (18 min) La -> (4 h) Ce -> (33 days) Pr

Ba -> (13 d) La -> (40 h) Ce

That jumble of letters says that Rubidium immediately decays to Strontium within 6 seconds, which after seven minutes decays to Yttrium which after 10 hours decays to Zirconium which for all intents and purposes lasts forever (it decays to Niobium after a million years). The Strontium undergoes a 3 hour decay to Yttrium, which then decays to Zirconium in about 4 hours. Cesium has similar decay from seconds to minutes to hours to days, producing Barium which also has a multi-day decay period. These secondary decay products produce “delayed” neutrons which also feed the fission reaction. The positioning of control rods in the core of a nuclear reactor (manufactured from graphite or boron because of their ability to absorb or slow neutrons) is like a needle in a carburetor, regulating the neutron exchange so as to maintain a 1:1 neutron-to-reaction ratio including both prompt and delayed neutrons. When the control rods are fully inserted into the core the ratio of neutrons to reaction is less than one, the reaction slows and eventually ceases such that the production of prompt neutrons is zero. However, the residence time of those decay products still presents a cooling problem which is what is happening in Japan. Even after shutdown, it continues to produce heat until those reactions cease.

These half life balances indicate that even after the reactor is shut off, these decays will be enduring for hours and days, peaking until the majority of the mass is consumed. The production of neutrons and heat in these decay reactions requires cooling water. Hence, backup generators at Fukushima were needed to control the pumps that cooled the reactor. A lot was done at Fukushima to ensure that the reactors were cooled, including backup generators, backup batteries for the generators, and new generators brought in when those other systems failed. Venting of steam pressure through filters designed to capture radioactive particles was done in as controlled a manner as possible. Even the hydrogen explosions were expected (though every measure was taken to avoid them by brave and noble people). Presently, low-level radioactive cooling water is being released to the ocean hopefully with no long term effect. Even this action has been executed with calculated reluctance.

It is important to remember that the dramatic misinformation created around nuclear energy is likely producing inaccurate images in the reader’s mind right about now. This reactor is not glowing fluorescent green, and these materials are not somehow magic and impossibly violent when taunted. No superheroes have ever been created from radiation exposure. Nonetheless, a nuclear reactor is something that must be regarded with great respect for safety. Like the induction melter I once used with a colleague to melt aluminum, we maintained “solemn respect for tamed violence” when using that machine. Understanding the risk, having confidence in knowledge, and proceeding with safety in mind are keys to harnessing nuclear energy.

With this knowledge, it can be seen that Fukushima has become a heat management problem as well as a dispersed hazardous waste problem. This is a tragic event, but the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have led to some preparedness for this event. I sincerely hope that two things will be learned from this: 1) intrinsically safe reactor designs are imperative, and 2) we can do better. Most importantly, this does not have to be the end of nuclear power, regardless of the fear mongering that would try to convince us otherwise.

The intrinsically safe designs proposed by Hyperion Power are small modular nuclear reactors based on the reliable nuclear systems employed in US Navy ships with contingent mechanical systems that are designed against the exact conditions encountered in Fukushima. Sized as small as 25 MW, the Hyperion Power Module is designed to be delivered in a stand alone sealed unit. No water or steam comes in contact with the reactor core. The HPM is a portable nuclear steam generator designed for rapid and distributed power deployment. Like the HPM, new generations of nuclear power designs will rely on intrinsically safe and passive safety systems to prevent overheating events like what has been witnessed at Fukushima. Gravitationally fed and recondensing cooling water for the core is one concept. Automatically suppressing control rods in the event of an emergency, alternative core containment materials, cooling water loops that are separate and independent of the reactor core, hermetically sealed and explosion resistant containment walls, and separate spent fuel containment vessels are all new generation nuclear technologies that can be readily adopted. Unfortunately, the approval of these new designs takes so many years that we won’t see these technologies immediately, and in the meantime we are stuck with these older designs that will be undergoing life extension approvals.

The goal we should all be working for is nuclear fusion rather than fission. Research at the National Ignition Faciltiy in LLNL is designed specifically for that goal. Fusion is the holy grail of nuclear power, and the ignition events at the NIF have come the closest to proving a surplus energy release after the ignition of deuterium. The NIF uses coincident lasers to compress and fuse deuterium pellets. The startup energy is in the lasers, but the heat released can be in quantities greater than what was put into the lasers. Harnessing this heat and using it to generate energy is the engineering challenge that NIF hopes to enable. Within 20 years, demonstration reactors are possible. Within 40 years, commercial fusion could be a real possibility.

The NIF was created with just over $4 billion. Imagine the payoff of nuclear fusion – it is nearly infinite. Recall my previous post about the shuttle program, which cost approximately $1.5 billion per launch. Juxtaposed: the US spent more than $40 billion importing oil for the month of April, 2011. Fusion is so critically important to the future of mankind, it seems absurd to me that 0.03% of 1 year of US GDP was spent to build this facility when we spend 10x that amount per month on oil (4% of GDP). We should have 3 NIFs, and they should employ 30,000 people doing everything from the experiments to modeling to researching energy efficient ways to harness deuterium from sea water. With funding on the same level of what we’ve spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’d have fusion solved already. We would also have technology to dipose of nuclear waste, we’d have a technology to replace baseload coal and gas, and we would have real and significant energy independence relying on the cleanest power imaginable. We could shut down and replace coal, gas, and old nuclear fission plants with fusion plants. The wouldn’t generate nuclear waste, and they wouldn’t run without deuterium, so turning them off in an earthquake would be as simple as stopping the flow of deuterium pellets. We would also be the first nation to demonstrate the future energy source that mankind will need in all future enormous endeavors.

Obtaining fusion should be a national need. In fact, I think it should be a national priority to spend just 0.5% of GDP on big problems, and they should be called Big Ass Research Programs (BARP). Competitive groups submit proposals to convince the US (everyone) why their technology should be awarded enormous funding ($60,000,000,000 annually), why it would help the US and the world, and how it will impact the economy. $120 billion is no big deal – we spent that in Iraq in less than the first year with no immediate financial payoff. Fusion certainly deserves such attention. The goal of the Fusion BARP: deliver us a working fusion reactor by 2021.

Even without BARP I sincerely hope to see harnessed fusion power in my lifetime. It is a real possibility. Pursuit of fusion is fertile research because of the spinoff technologies it would inevitably produce. In the same way that space research could help us solve our most critical civilization problems, fusion research solves them too. The materials knowledge, high energy physics knowledge, energy knowledge, economics knowledge and engineering knowledge we will obtain by harnessing fusion will be an investment that will pay off for every generation of humankind to follow this one. We can afford to invest more than what we put into the NIF, and we’d likely have real results within 1-2 decades. Let’s do it.

Knowledge Investment: Penny Wise Pound Foolish

2011-05-16T10:13:00.002-04:00

I just watched a live streaming video from NASA’s website as Endeavor jumped spaceward for her final time. Fuel burning at 11,000 lbs per second roared in a widening orange violent plume as she accelerated toward escape velocity at 11 km/s.

My wife and I visited Kennedy Space Center several years ago and perhaps I was just tired that day, but when we left the simulated mission control room and exited into the bright sunlight of the massive atrium housing the Saturn V rocket, I literally had tears in my eyes. Each thruster is the size of a house and since the rocket is lying on its side, they are suspended above the heads of tourists in a perilous and shocking display. As I exited the mission control dramatization the sudden sunlight, the unexpected sight of the thrusters, and the surprising scale of everything seized me like a giant hand which invisibly penetrated my chest, clenched my heart, and squeezed awe through my tear ducts. My wife looked at me with initial confusion and then sudden understanding. I didn’t expect any of that to happen, and what really confused me was an underlying set of emotions supporting my reverence of past human innovation: grief and loss.

It took me some time to understand why. After a lot of introspection, I realized it is because the Saturn program is a magnificent symbol of a time when we were too young and naïve as a civilization to talk ourselves out of doing something so impossibly huge, and this sudden realization hit me right in the gut: I was born too late. I have carried with me a list of “Things to Do Before I Die” for years, and one of the things on that list is to go to space. That day, I realized that my chances of doing that are pretty low.

We motivated ourselves through fear of enemies who might control the space above us, and so we built these massive structures to put us in space and on the moon, and launch satellites and probes to explore our solar system. We never questioned why or why not, and we didn’t come up with silly reasons to not do it. We just did it. A modern analogy of the Saturn V rocket would have to be something that is theoretically feasible but immensely challenging, physically huge and pushing the limits of known resources, and designed to achieve a payoff of unknown magnitude, except that it could be infinitely large. Imagine trying to sell that idea to Congress today - if you could catch their attention, that is.

Asimov, Sagan, and others have tried to communicate to the dull minded masses the importance of space exploration without much success. In terms of size and mass, our little planet is a tiny afterthought compared to the immensity of the remaining idea that is our universe. There is so much out there that we must understand, yet we’d rather sit at home and squabble over geopolitics and oil. Wake up call, folks: when the day comes that humans finally realize that leaving the planet is inevitable, oil won’t do it for us. North Korea, the growing Chinese economy, and Osama bin Laden have no relevance to all of the neat things we could be doing if we were exploring space like we meant it.

A recent article (http://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html) states that the cost of the shuttle program is about $1.5 billion per flight ($1.2 billion inflation adjusted) and $200 billion overall. Then it states “…despite all of its accomplishments, [the shuttle program] never came close to meeting its expectations.”

We spent $80 billion in a heartbeat to send the initial flow of troops to Iraq in 2003, and quickly followed it up with more requisitions. We spent $200 billion on that war in less than a year. The shuttle program had $200 billion spent on it over 40 years. I don’t understand how articles like this can paint $200 billion to be such a large number – and then admonish its expenditure - when we are talking about a $12 trillion GDP and several hundred billion dollars spent poking at smaller countries with no transparent explanation of the payback. Also note that we have twenty B2 stealth bombers in the USAF fleet right now, and their total cost is about $2.8 billion each, and we spent that in about 20 years. That’s $2.8 billion a year, about half the rate we spent on the Shuttle Program. There are plenty of high cost items like this to cite.

Because of the Saturn and Shuttle programs, we’ve learned a lot and we’ve transferred that knowledge to unforeseen applications. Laser range finders, helium sensors, and crack detection tools for amorphous materials are just a few of the inventions developed during the shuttle program. Weather satellites and weather prediction technology developed for NASA are now used by weather stations, the National Weather Service, and even wind farms hoping to prepare for the next big gust. Cancer screening tools, communications satellites, new breakthroughs in understanding diseases and cell growth… all of these innovations started with or are linked to NASA’s programs.

The benefits of military research are also extraordinary and immeasurable on the same scale as the NASA programs. Spin off technologies and new innovation are the inevitable offspring of this kind of spending. These “crash programs” are criticized by economists as inefficient spending, but it is difficult to quantify the value of having freedom to be creative when the limitations of money are temporarily removed.

But in futility I must ask: do we really have to remind ourselves the benefits of research in space? Seriously, aren’t Tang and Velcro fantastic? Isn’t that enough to remind the world that space research has immediate benefits? We could afford to put 2x the amount in NASA programs than we do (Hell, make it 10x) with accelerated benefits. Going spaceward requires that we solve all of the problems that are relevant to us today on our own planet. How do you provide water for inhabitants in space? The answer to this question will help us give water to inhabitants of arid regions of China, South Africa, and the US states battling over the Colorado River. How can you deploy long lasting, stable, and cost effective energy to a remote outpost on the Moon? The answers to these questions would help us develop cheaper renewable energy and energy storage. How can you sustain a garden in an enclosed Mars outpost without constant soil replenishment? The answer to this question would help us overcome the fertilizer supply problem that is tied to our petrochemical problem. How do you manage human waste in a space station? The answer to this question would help us devise better waste treatment plants and avoid the contamination of our drinking water streams. How would you power an interstellar star ship? The answer to this question would give us cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable power than anything we have today. How do you form economic partnerships to fund such an endeavor? The answer to this question would form economically beneficial partnerships to get us out of our economic rut today, and also help us sustain peaceful cooperative relationships among countries. How do you achieve self sufficient life in space? The answer to that question is an imperative need for all of civilization on this planet, as we can't rely on our limited resources forever.

The Space Shuttle Program was to be succeeded by the Orion spacecraft launched by Ares rockets, which was funded under the Constellation Program. The Constellation Program is now cancelled, and unless former X prize winners Scaled Composites come up with a shuttle replacement, that’s that. The Orion craft will now be launched by the “Space Launch System” which is very similar to the present shuttle external tank and boosters. The funding for Constellation was a mere $6.6 billion over 5 years. No wonder why nothing got done. People think those numbers are big, but that kind of funding is a weak attempt at putting new vehicles in space. Kind of like assuming putting $50/month into savings bonds will pay for your kid’s college.

We can put big funding into one of two areas to solve our big problems: self sufficient living on Earth or self sufficient living in Space. Breakthroughs in both will get us where we need to be, but investments in space will open us up to bigger and better ideas then we'll find here at home.

The Value of Energy

2011-05-09T17:06:00.000-04:00

I have discussed previously that for the purpose of productive discussion on the topic of energy, it is best to be quantified in the metric of dollars per kilowatt-hour (if USD is your currency).

I have been working lately on the value of energy in varying contexts and I have found something interesting as I intentionally or unintentionally blurred the lines between energy generation, transmission, and storage. What I found is that the value of portable energy is considerably higher than most forms of energy. Let me provide some numbers.

Portable energy is often purchased on a small scale (single watt-hours) though its price is considerably high. An alkaline battery (AA cell) rated at 1.5V and 2000-3000 milliamp-hours (mAh) may cost $0.40-$0.50. With these specs the battery delivers 2-3 Wh, corresponding to a cost of energy of ~$0.16/Wh or $166/kWh delivered. This is approximately 1600 times greater than what you pay for electricity from your outlet.

Portable energy is valuable because it is opportunistic. It permits use of energy at will. This kind of freedom is very valuable indeed, as electric car makers struggle to bring multi-kWh battery packs into the cost, weight, and energy density ranges of portable liquid fuels. I’ve used the Tesla Roadster as an example before, and its specs are impressive: 53 kWh of energy capacity in a battery pack capable of ~3000 charge cycles providing up to 250 miles of range on a single charge, all in a car with handling characteristics of a Lotus. At $0.10/kWh from the outlet, it costs $5.30 to fill up the Tesla. The nominal current price of Li-ion batteries amounts to approximately $1000/kWh for a one-time purchase price, so the Tesla battery pack may cost ~$53,000. Over its 3000 cycles, it will discharge a total of 159,000 kWh, and ~ $15,900 will be spent to charge it. Total investment into the Tesla battery is $68,900, and therefore the cost of energy from that battery is $0.43/kWh, or about 4x what you pay for electricity from your outlet.

From the above example, suppose the cost of the battery is brought to ¼ of that capital cost. It just so happens these are the approximate specs for the new Tesla S. The cost of energy for that pack would be $0.18/kWh. At that price, the Tesla S is in appliance territory, which is just where electric vehicles need to be.

The previous analyses are on batteries, but it isn’t the battery that is valuable, it is the opportunistic use of energy that is valuable. This is also witnessed by the frequency and voltage regulation markets on the transmission grid – typically referred to as ancillary services – where minute-by-minute variations in load and demand on the power grid cause fluctuations in voltage and variations in frequency. The regulation market pays a premium to services that can stabilize these variations, sometimes peaking momentarily in dollars (rather than cents) per kilowatt-hour. Loads that can ramp up or down earn revenues by responding to pricing signals as needed. It is again evidence that the opportunistic value of energy is high.

Therefore we pay not for energy by the kWh, but energy by the opportunistic kWh.

One of the main criticisms of renewable energy is that it cares little for the demand curve and instead produces energy as weather permits. Renewable energy does not enable opportunistic use. Until now, great effort and resources have been spent to shoehorn renewable energy into our present understanding of energy availability anytime, anywhere. Weather forecasting systems have adapted well to this need, as Texas and the northwestern US have integrated variable wind loads into the cross section of available generation, carefully blending all sources into a homologated electrical current sourced from both renewable and fossil power. This tactic is proving to be reasonably successful in regions with as much as 20% of their energy generated from wind power. In these regions, coal or hydro provide baseload, the wind blows as it may, and natural gas peaker plants level the remainder. For the rest of the US, coal and gas provide the majority of electrical generation. This continuous adjustment of power generation to meet demand is efficient in the eyes of the electric power industry because of its adaptability, but this value judgment is a skewed perspective of cheap energy. Energy is lost in “spinning reserves” – the energy required to be instantly available just in case. In addition to spinning reserves and similar energy expenditures, the amount of energy lost in pushing electricity through wires across great distances is significant. It is not uncommon to have coal-to-plug efficiencies < 20% once heat of combustion, steam, mechanical conversion, and transmission losses are factored into the energy chain. To put it another way, up to 80% of the fossil energy we use for electrical generation doesn’t make it to the plug. Therefore we inflate our actual energy requirements 4-5x to ensure opportunistic use.

Our electrical grid is a hub and spoke system with centralized generation nodes feeding spokes of transmission lines to nodes of consumption. This is an outdated view of a network, as I have discussed previously when describing the Metcalfe Economy. The Metcalfe network is instead an interconnected web of self sufficient nodes that are capable of generating, storing, and consuming data. Extend this analogy to the grid, and you have nodes that are capable of generating, storing, and consuming energy. It shouldn’t be any wonder that communications companies are feeding the growth of the Smart Grid – they have a modern perception of a network and the integration of data, and they are extending this knowledge to energy, bringing new life to an industry stifled by old ways of thinking. In this kind of network, the value of energy no longer fits the traditional industry standards for energy economics. Rather than viewing energy as a total cost of fixed and variable O&M, CAPEX, and labor, energy can now be valued (and priced) according to its use or purpose. In this paradigm, the value of energy becomes what you are willing to pay for it, which may be more than its cost to produce.

Consider your smart phone. If you pay $40 for a 3.6 V battery with 5000 mAh of capacity and a 2 year life, you may discharge the battery a total of 400 times over that 2 year life span. With these parameters, you will pay $40 for 7.2 kWh of energy, or about $5/kWh. Consider what you pay to cool your food. You invest $3,000 into a new refrigerator and pour 5 kWh/day into it for 10 years at $0.06/kWh, that is $1,095 on top of the $3,000 you invested in the fridge. Total cost: $0.22/kWh. Your computer is likely 1-2 times as energy intensive as your refrigerator. It gives you access to information instantly, and you’ll pay for that. You invest $1,000 into the computer, and approximately 10 kWh/day for 4 years to acquire that information. Your total cost: $0.50/kWh. This doesn’t include your web connection and your router.

If your home came equipped with solar panels and enough batteries to give you 2 days of energy without the sun, what would you pay for it? The conventional view of energy would tell you that you shouldn’t pay much more than a few cents/kWh of the total life cycle cost of the energy. If your baseline cost for energy is $0.06/kWh, what premium would you pay to claim that the energy is yours whenever you want it, made by you? In this context this is energy for your energy freedom. What is that worth? It isn’t $0.06/kWh to obtain energy. It is instead a $0.06/kWh entry fee. Assuming I do not adopt any more measures to reduce the energy intensity of my own home, I would require about 4 kW of solar panels to meet my energy demands for my worst days of the year. This would correspond to roughly ~30 kWh of energy storage for one day of use – doubled if I intend to have 2 days of use. At $5/W, my solar panels would cost $20,000 and my batteries would cost $12,000. In addition I’d probably need $4,000-$6,000 in inverter equipment. Total investment for 20 years of energy self sufficiency: $36,000-$38,000. If I use on average 28-30 kWh per day over 20 years, this is 211,700 kWh of electricity. Total cost: $0.17/kWh. Compared to what you are paying for your other appliances, this isn’t so bad, is it? In order to ensure that I only have to pay what I use, the solar panel system could be depreciated and the residual value could be recaptured when I sell the home to the next owner.

Now suppose I grid-tied my system and so did my neighbor. My neighbor might use a low RPM wind generator on his roof that generates energy sporadically day and night. What if we connected our houses so that when he needs energy, I sell it to him, and when I need energy, I buy it from him? In this deal, we would create the first two nodes of a Metcalfe network. If we then broker a deal with the neighbor across the street who has his own solar panels, we begin to see a homologation of our energy demands. The smarter members of our group would then find ways to capitalize on their energy use. The generator located somewhere far away would only need to supply us a trickle to keep our batteries charged, and we would take care of the rest. That generator would need to invest in rapid response technologies and energy storage, and since the energy supplied by the generator would be critical, it could be sold at a premium. In that paradigm, energy storage might begin to appear cost effective.

To me, it seems that the quickest way to energy independence is to cluster together in this fashion and share our energy demand amongst ourselves. At that point in time, no longer would we require large, consolidated generators to give us our energy. By being networked with decentralized energy storage scattered throughout the network, we would create our own energy economy, become much more conscious of our energy usage patterns, and value our energy for what it is actually worth.

The Tiny Mortgage Project

2011-01-23T09:35:00.007-05:00

I want to dedicate this blog entry to a high quality brand of people who are reminding us that the modern world was built with hand tools.

There are two home-building projects that I am following with great interest. The first is that of Thomas Massie, and those who know me have heard me gush about his blog and his project. The wood and stone in his timber frame home was harvested from his own land. The second home project that fascinates me is Cedar Ridge Farm, which is in Kentucky like the Massie house. Seems that the land is still plentiful and cheap in Kentucky. I'm hoping to someday build my home in the rural outskirts of central Ohio.

I've run many scenarios to try to determine how my wife and I (and hopefully our future children) will be able to leave our present house (which we like very much), and spill its equity into a homestead (which we would like even more). The challenge is to use our present equity and plenty of hard work establish our next home in a way that reduces our expenses considerably. That is why I titled this blog entry "The Tiny Mortgage Project".

In order to achieve the Tiny Mortgage (or zero mortgage) I know I will need a lot of tools. I have most of them, which I used to build my garage.

The Tiny Mortgage Project doesn't have a timeline, but it does have a single deliverable: zero mortgage when I'm 40. This goal is to be accomplished in parallel with other goals such as raising a family, building a hot rod or two, building lots of furniture, and - oh yeah - my career too.

That gives me some time to use whatever physical ability I have left in this body, and enough time for my wife and I to enjoy the fruits of our labor while we are still relatively young. Without a mortgage, it will also make it easier for us to assist future children with education and put us on a path toward quicker (and early?) retirement.

But the art of raising a timber frame home requires another set of tools that I don't have. These may include a mobile saw mill and a stout tractor. My present truck will likely suffice for most tasks, but I might find myself in need of towing lumber and pulling logs from my as-yet-hypothetical woods. Nailing dimensional lumber together is an entirely different (and less skilled) process than building a timber frame. The added challenge of moving structural insulated panels (SIPs) to high places requires hydraulic equipment. The alternative is to build a "gin pole" to not only help me raise the bents, but also raise the heavy SIPs. This equipment might seem excessive, but considering that the cost of labor is 50% to 65% of the cost of building, the purchase of equipment to save labor costs becomes obvious. The garage proved this to me when we refinanced our house - the money I put into it added about 3 times that to our house according to the estimate.

I've got my Stihl MS460 chainsaw, which when equipped with a 24" blade might be able to suffice as a lumber milling machine, as long as I have plenty of mix.

My truck will help me tremendously, though I'm always on the lookout for an incredible deal on a used 4x4 Chevy or GMC Duramax truck that will help me pull stumps - literally. And the tractor I'm looking for would ideally be a 3 cylinder diesel Kubota with a shovel, backhoe, and attachment for digging post holes (or pier footings). I once spent two years landscaping, digging trenches and excavating hundreds of square feet by hand on a daily basis. That may have been fine when I was 23 years old and I could deadlift 425 lbs, but after building our two new retaining walls last summer, I will not be digging the foundation of our new house by hand.

So throughout The Tiny Mortgage Project I will walk in the footsteps of a few other people and put my shovel in the ground in honor of family solidity, financial stability, and accountability for the way we live in this modern world. My goal is to earn it. As Dave Ramsey says: "live like no one else today so you can live like no one else tomorrow."
Books you might like:

Phase 0: The Tiny Mortgage Project Concept

Greenwashing the Pickup: Fuel Pig or Planet Saver?

2010-12-26T12:45:00.001-05:00

The following paragraphs will deign to argue that a pickup truck can be greener than a fuel efficient sedan, provided that certain conditions are met. Before you click away from this post, read on. The moral of the story is that if a truck is used as an investment (financially and environmentally), it has a payback.

In 2008, I found a pickup truck for a steal of a deal in Arizona. Gas prices were climbing into the $4/gallon range and suddenly the roads were populated with tiny vehicles such as the Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, and motorcycles. Nobody wanted to buy a truck or SUV, and a car dealer in Arizona was clearing out his truck inventory. In order to get this steal of a deal, my wife and I flew in on a one way ticket and made a vacation out of driving home across the Rockies. The allure of this truck was its ultra-rare combination of options, which may seem of little importance to most drivers, but were of significant importance to me. I looked for a year to find a decent Chevrolet truck newer than 1999 with a V6, manual transmission, and extended cab. These options in this combination are difficult to find. I think this one was a custom order, because I haven’t seen any like it since and I had to travel to Arizona to get it. The manual and the V6 give me as much control over fuel economy as I could ask for in a full size, and the extended cab lets me haul more than two people in the truck. I can take 5 people to lunch at work or haul myself and two buddies on a ski trip with a bunch of gear in the bed while achieving 20 mpg. Most V6 manual Silverados are regular cab short bed trucks.

To make a car, manufacturers report about 0.6 metric tons of CO2 emitted per car during manufacturing. (http://www.ae-plus.com/key%20topics/kt-emissions-news4.htm). Trucks may require a bit more, and economy cars a bit less, but 0.6 metric tons is the average. Given this carbon investment into the creation of a pickup truck, what must the truck accomplish over its life cycle to pay back the investment? Let’s have a look at the two years I’ve owned my truck to find out. The truck is built to haul stuff bigger and heavier than just me. I tend to commute to work in the truck, but occasionally I bring something heavy home. For a lot of these activities, I combined a pickup or delivery with a trip to or from work, which offset a leg of a round trip from a would-be delivery truck.

- Bought the truck and assumed responsibility for its CO₂ emissions invested in its manufacture: 1320 lbs.

- Hauled 8 truckloads of topsoil, saved $150 in delivery costs, consumed 2.6 gallons more than a delivery truck would have in a single load

- Hauled 1 truck load of sod, saved $50 in delivery costs, saved 1.3 gallons of fuel

- Unloaded 2 truckloads of gravel to level the parking space next to my garage, saved $75 in delivery fees and avoided 0.1 gallons of gasoline

- Picked up the last load of stones for my retaining wall, saved $50 in delivery fees and saved 0.6 gallons of fuel (also, since I used the truck for much of the backfill, gravel, and hauling away of debris, I saved about $2,000 in labor). I also saved the pallets for stone and gravel and harvested them for about ½ cord of firewood, assuming 6400 BTU/lb of firewood, 2400 lb of firewood per cord, and 102,000 BTU per CCF of natural gas. This saved me about 74.5 CCF of gas.

- I hauled 6 truckloads of firewood last winter, saving $940 in heating costs and an additional ~$400 in purchases and delivery fees for firewood, but a single delivery would have probably consumed 4 gallons less than I did. I also offset about 324 CCF of natural gas, which is about 3800 lbs.

- I donated 3 truckloads of furniture to Mid Ohio Furniture Bank. I avoided about 0.3 gallons of gasoline if I would have had it picked up, and I’m assuming that this donation avoided the manufacture of new furniture which might avoid about 200 lbs of CO2 emissions. These 3 truckloads could have furnished a small house as it included a couch, loveseat, desk, office chair, and two beds. This is probably $500-$700 in a tax writeoff as well.

- One truckload of stuff went to Habitat for Humanity included a lot of left over materials from when I built the garage. I likely saved 0.7 gal in fuel from delivery, and was likely able to write off $500 for taxes.

- Delivered 3 truckloads of recycling materials beyond our weekly recycling, hopefully avoided about 1000 lbs of emissions going by the EPA estimation of recycling data (see “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008)

- Picked up a truckload of drywall to finish the garage ceiling, saving $50 in delivery fees and avoiding 1.5 gal of fuel for delivery.

- Delivered a full truck of insulation to a good friend and helped him install it in the attic. Avoided $50 in delivery fees, and since we installed it ourselves, avoided the installation labor as well. I’m guessing this will avoid ~200 CCF of natural gas heating per year for 10 years, amounting to 2000 CCF. Since we used the truck and did the labor ourselves, I count this is in the life cycle offset for the truck – couldn’t have done it without the trusty pickup.

- Picked up my wood stove and brought it to the house. Rented a stairclimbing hand truck to bring it into the house ($75). However, I avoided a $250 installation fee and a $250 delivery fee while avoiding approximately 1.7 gallons of fuel using my more fuel efficient truck.

- Brought a new bed home – saved $35 in delivery costs.

- Brought home a truckload of hardwood lumber, saving $50 in delivery costs, avoiding 1.1 gallons of fuel from the delivery truck, and saving another $300 because I used this hardwood to build two new pieces of furniture.

- Picked up a wood splitter in Indiana and saved $350 in delivery fees and avoided about 10 gallons of fuel for delivery, though I spent probably $64 in fuel getting it.

On a spreadsheet I’ve been using to track these costs, my truck has enabled me to save over $5800 in direct and indirect costs associated with delivery fees and home improvement projects. This nearly pays for the truck. Of the approximately 15,000 miles I’ve put on the truck in the last 2 years, only 821 of them have been devoted to these projects. I estimate that I’ve avoided the consumption of 13 gallons of fuel by diverting deliveries from heavier, less efficiency delivery trucks, and avoided an associated 250 lbs of CO2 emissions from these fuel savings. I’ve spent $132 in fuel costs for these projects. The natural gas savings I have directly or indirectly offset due to firewood and insulation projects has accounted and will account for approximately 2400 CCF of natural gas avoided. Including the 1320 lbs invested into the creation of the truck, approximately 28,900 lb (13.2 ton) of CO2 has been and will be avoided.

However, consider a 200,000 mile life of the truck getting an average of 17 mpg. It will consume approximately 11,764 gallons of fuel accounting for 228,235 lbs (103 tons) of CO₂ emissions. If a sedan were traveling these same 200,000 miles getting an average of 28 mpg, it would consume 7,142 gallons of fuel and account for 138,554 lbs (63 tons) of CO2 emissions. This means that this truck has the responsibility to enable the avoidance of at least 103-63 = 40 tons of CO2 emissions in its lifetime. I think I might be able to do that, since in the 15,000 miles that I’ve owned it I’ve already contributed to 13 tons of savings. I don’t know what the previous owner did, but even if he or she did nothing at all, I can make up for it. This just goes to show that it’s not the fact that a truck is a truck that makes it an enemy of the environment; it is the function of the truck that can make it an enemy or a friend of the environment, if anyone would dare call it the latter.

I love my truck. I added Hellwig helper springs to the leafs to give me more load capacity, which has been amazing. When I got the gravel, I took a load of 1800 lbs without excessive sag. Not bad for a ½ ton pickup. I can do a lot with my truck and even though I’ll likely get a more fuel efficient vehicle for my daily commute, I’ll keep my truck. It would seem to me that through this demonstration the criticism and stereotype of the American in the Big Truck is partially unfair, provided that the truck enables real work to be done (unlike the Hummer H2 I pass on the road to work everyday with 22” chrome wheels and a catalog of bolt-on plastic chrome pieces slathered over its exterior). My truck will pay me back financially (it nearly has already) just as it likely did for the previous owner. Therefore a truck can pay for itself several times over in its lifetime. Can a truck pay itself back in carbon? As long as it is used for carbon-offsetting activities, it is possible.

There are technologies available, such as the Raser Technologies series hybrid truck architecture, that can enable trucks to achieve 33 mpg in daily driving conditions. If my truck attained that gas mileage, I wouldn’t feel the least bit concerned about driving it daily. However, in the meantime, the truck is best used as a tool and not just as a daily driver.

What's your time worth?

2010-11-14T14:31:00.002-05:00

For the past few years I have been obsessed with the value of time. This is motivated by several things - one of which is my profession which is measured almost entirely in dollars per man hour - but mostly by the daunting rapidity of the passage of time and my desire to convert time into something tangible. The lost Easter Island inhabitants, for example, were experts at converting time into tangible results. The most obvious result is the eerie stone head figures scattered all over their former island lands. The second result is the conspicuous absence of thick forest on that island landscape. The evidence of how they used their time still persists.

I've been keeping track of how I spend my time. My primary reason for this is because I'm tired of wasting time on things that don't provide any useful return, such as arguing with store clerks. My second reason is to try to attach value to my skills in some tangible way. There is a piece of advice I've heard entrepreneurs give to anyone who is listening: don't buy yourself another job. Franchising and some real estate investments that were originally intended as a pathway for financial freedom sometimes become a job with longer hours and not much increase in pay. At some point in my life I wish to obtain some level of stability that would allow me to spend my time leisurely doing things that don't necessarily produce much monetary value but produce vast amounts of intellectual and personal value. So the challenge is to find a way to have financial value without needing to spend your time earning it. How does one manage to do this?

Here are some of the things I recently tallied. These assessments include the amount of time I spent, the amount of money I spent, the amount of money I saved, and the equivalent value of that saved money converted to a $/hour rate.

Things of high value:

Doing the brakes on my wife's car: $80/hr

Refinishing the brick and installing our wood stove: $37/hour

Building my garage: $30/hour

Doing the suspension on my wife's car (including the parts I broke and bought twice): $30/hour

Obtaining wood for our heat: $21/hour

Things of lower value than I expected:

Installing glass block windows in my basement: $15/hour (not including the energy savings)

Buying an unfinished wood platform bed and staining it ourselves: $10/hour

Doing my own oil changes: $6.00/hour

Building end tables: $5.00/hour

I was sad to see the rate of return on the furniture projects. I enjoy building furniture, but evidently I didn't save much money. But I redid some calculations and found that I paid about twice what I should have for the wood, and I haven't accounted for what I can build from the scraps. But I don't build furniture for monetary reasons. I build it for fun.

I don't do my own oil changes for fun. I like working on cars, but I don't like doing routine maintenance on cars. Finishing a brake job is somewhat satisfying but there is nothing glorious about it. It's nice to know that medium-sized jobs like brakes and suspension have an excellent payback and I imagine that when I do the timing belt it will give a huge return, provided it doesn't take me more than a day. But these projects are a pain in the butt because they are often performed under pressure - we need the car so we can't have it out of commission for more than a weekend, so that means I'm out there cranking on it non stop until it is done, likely running to the auto parts store 2 or three times as I discover other worn parts. In the case of my wife's suspension, I started the job to replace the strut bearings, and by the end of the day I had been to three auto parts stores and purchased new shocks, upper bushings, and lower stabilizer bar links and bushings. A 2 hour job turned into 8.5 hours and a bunch of surprise purchases.

During a lot of this time tallying, I've also been trying to declutter some things and sell excess items whenever possible. I sold a Volkswagen wheel hub for $25. I spent about 20 minutes on that, taking the picture, putting it up for sale on a forum, and then finally throwing it in a box and taking it to the shipping store when somebody bought it. That's the equivalent of $83/hour.

What about other used parts that I can't sell? I've got two well-worn Macpherson struts in the garage taking up space and I can't bring myself to dump them in the trash. How long will it take for me to get them down to the scrapyard? It's barely worth the gas money driving down there, but knowing it isn't in a landfill is worth a lot. So I guess I'll deal with the used auto parts taking up space for the next few weeks until I find time to get to the scrap yard.

This stuff isn't going to get me to retirement any time soon, and I still need to find that one thing that earns me a lot of money and doesn't require my constant attention. Someday...

Other stuff for sale... anybody need an old router or a pair of flimsy but usable saw horses?

How the Federal Interest Rate is Like Trying to Fly in a Dream

2010-08-26T16:38:00.001-04:00

Ever have a dream where you are trying to fly? Lots of people have this dream in different ways. In mine, sometimes I flap my arms to gain altitude, but most of the time it’s something more like a “pushing” against the ground somehow with magic invisible flight muscles. I kind of flex muscles in my back, shoulders, and abdomen and with each exertion of some unknown force I can begin to take flight.

If I lose concentration or somehow lose feeling of my flight rhythm, I begin to drop. Sometimes I have frustrating flight dreams where I lose it, and I spend the foggy remainder of the dream trying to recapture my ability to get my feet off the ground. Sometimes I’ll have the frustrating experience of skimming the ground in futility without gaining any significant altitude. In some dreams, my conscious mind is barely grasping the situation and complains about it. “You’ve done this before, dummy. C’mon. What’s the matter with you?” But my magic flight muscles have somehow lost their strength. It’s almost like they are weaker when I’m closer to the ground.

Sometimes, if I get it just right, I can pump up high into the sky and then let myself drop in some controlled fashion, like a calculated dive bomb. If I get my pumping going just right, I’ll correct the dive and somehow pull up in a giant accelerating swooping arc and regain altitude. It even feels like the centrifugal force of the arc is working against me. This kind of action is some weird controlled chaos that I don’t fully understand, because a minor miscalculation on the swoop would mean I’m a bug splat. I don’t understand why people can have these dreams or why we are all familiar with these sensations. In those dreams where I can swoop, I am not only flying, but I am soaring and it is fantastic. Perhaps we have some bird genes buried in our DNA double helix that cause flight hallucinations in dreams.

The Federal Reserve tries to pump the economy by dropping interest rates. Like the way you might try to pump your arms to fly in a dream, the Fed has managed to prop up the economy by dropping rates. The problem is, they’re so low right now I’m wondering if it’s no different than one of those dreams where I spend most of my time trying to recapture flight. No matter how much I pump my magic flight muscles, I just can’t seem to get off the ground. What if that happened here? What if we dropped rates so low, we lost flight power? What happens then? Could the Fed rate be like my magic flight muscles in that it’s weakest when it’s close to the ground?

Usually, my dream will fade into something else completely unrelated but totally reasonable for dreamtime logic. Maybe that’s what we need to do. Just forget that the whole economy sucks and think about something else.

Air Quality: The Cloudy Data

2010-08-07T11:13:00.003-04:00

In Terry Tamminen’s book “Lives per Gallon”, he begins his discussion on the US oil/energy/environment issue by summarizing issues associated with air quality. In areas with visible smog, air quality is an obvious issue. In areas without noticeable smog, the significance of air quality is harder to grasp.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has managed to quantify carbon (and therefore carbon dioxide) as the most measurable quantity in emissions. The reason why this can be done is because the molecular composition of common combustible fuels is well known, and with a bit of high school chemistry the amount of carbon by mass in a given fuel is easy to calculate. But there is something absent from most discussions on emissions: there is a lot of talk about CO2, but not enough quantifiable talk about particulate emissions (PE), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. All of these pollutants are more immediately relevant to local air quality in the short term than carbon dioxide. In addition, the quantity of these airborne contaminants per gallon of fuel combusted is variable, depending on engine temperature, efficiency of the catalytic converter, engine load, engine RPM, relative humidity, altitude, and even contaminants in the intake air.

For example, if you are researching your next vehicle to purchase, you may be interested in fuel economy and environmental stewardship with regard to your driving activities. Therefore, the statistics at fueleconomy.gov are likely to interest you. On that website, you will be able to identify the fuel economy of your vehicle, your estimated cost per mile, and your carbon footprint.

Here is an example. Suppose you do a lot of highway driving, and you have about $15,000 to spend on a used vehicle. With these requirements, you might be in the market for any one of the following 2006 vehicles: Volkswagen Jetta TDI, Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, or a Honda Civic non-hybrid. All vehicles have fuel economy greater than 30 mpg on the highway. For good measure, I’ll throw in a 1992 Volkswagen GTI 16v for comparison, a fun little car that is cheap and reasonably efficient.

Here is what fueleconomy.gov would tell you:

Fuel economy, prices, and carbon footprint (ton/y) per 2006 MY

Vehicle CO2 City Hwy Price Mileage

Jetta TDI 6.4 30 38 $15,999 35k

Toyota Prius 4.1 48 45 $16,998 31k

Honda Civic Hybrid 4.5 40 45 $14,599 45k

Honda Civic 6.2 26 36 $14,000 40k

1992 VW GTI 8.9 18 26 $3,000 90k

Immediately you’ll see that everyone’s favorite hybrid, the Toyota Prius, sips the least amount of fuel and has the lowest carbon footprint. By comparison, the ’92 GTI was once considered a frugal and efficient vehicle in the early 90’s, but it looks like a pig against these younger vehicles.

However, you might have other considerations. For example, the Jetta can be had in manual or automatic, and also comes in a wagon. Utility might be a concern for you. While I’ve heard the Prius can swallow a few 2x4’s with the seats down, it might be harder to take the dog to the dog park. If you are considering the diesel, wouldn’t you like to know what the exhaust gas composition is? Maybe cost is your primary concern, so would that tilt you towards the plain old gas Civic and GTI? What would your emissions look like then?

That data is much harder to find, and the reason why is because it is variable. If you are driving on the highway in a TDI in fifth gear at 70 mph, the engine is running at optimum RPM and temperature under optimal load, and this is the cleanest the vehicle will run. Combustion is homogeneous, the catalytic converter is hot and efficient, the injectors have leaned out the fuel mixture to optimize the air-to-fuel ratio. The particulate emissions are minimized in this state, and as you go whizzing down the freeway a stationary bystander won’t be able to tell whether you are running on diesel or gas. If you are running biodiesel, you can cut about 10% less particulate emissions as well. Take the same diesel off the highway and put it in city traffic, and its exhaust composition will look entirely different – likely dirtier. For this reason, hybrids win in the city because the electric motor takes the burden of the work.

Stop-and-go traffic presents inefficient operating conditions for internal combustion engines. A diesel engine driving a bus up and down a stop-and-go route sends the engine into variable RPM cycles that sweep past its optimum operating parameters. The engine rarely has the opportunity to settle into peak efficiency. Most of the time, the engine is under heavy load which is when it runs the most rich: this is evidenced by the belch of particulate-laden exhaust from a city bus you’ve likely witnessed at the bus stop. The argument for hybrid buses and delivery trucks is clear – but is it cost effective? Hybrid buses can achieve 148% the fuel economy of their incumbents. In Columbus, series hybrid buses were purchased for $574,000 each and achieve 7 mpg. Compare that to $342,000 for a conventional bus which gets about 4.7 mpg. The US Department of Transportation, in its study “Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation”, noted that the average speed of a bus is just over 12 mph. Buses last about 12 years and travel 37,000 miles per year. Assuming a total of 444,000 miles over the life cycle, the hybrid bus would consume 31,000 diesel gallons less than the conventional bus. Even at $5.00 per gallon, however, the hybrids don’t pay for themselves on fuel savings alone. It is yet to be determined if the savings in brake replacements because of regenerative braking will help make the bus more cost effective, as was found in San Francisco and New York City studies on hybrid taxis. Brakes last twice as long. Even if the buses don’t pay for themselves in operations cost savings, what are the indirect cost benefits, such as avoidance of air quality fines or lawsuits? Or… let’s ignore the lawyer talk and just think about how nice it would be to walk in a city that doesn’t smell like exhaust. From a city budget perspective, the $232,000 premium likely isn’t worth it for clean air, unless someone else is paying for it, as was the case in Columbus which bought the buses on a $2.1M federal grant.

Large diesel engines in buses are significantly different from the diesel engines in passenger vehicles. Recent developments in urea treatment in the catalytic converter and direct injection of the fuel have made diesel engines in cars significantly cleaner than before, due to the discriminating tastes of the car buyer compared to the commercial needs of a bus or delivery truck. Since diesel engines do not require spark plugs, engine timing can be controlled with the injector rather than spark timing. The modern piezoelectric common rail diesel fuel injector operates at 26,000 psi and can tolerate the violence of combustion directly in the combustion chamber. These recent developments have led to the adoption of direct injection in gasoline engines as well, which partially is why the V6 in the newest Chevrolet Camaro is highly efficiency for its class, achieving 29 mpg highway and 300 hp (also with the help of tall gearing at highway speeds). That is better fuel economy with nearly twice the displacement and twice the power output of the 1992 GTI.

Therefore, if you are worried about fuel efficiency for your next vehicle purchase, the case is pretty simple depending on your commute (highway or city). If you are worried about carbon footprint, that argument is easy to make based on fuel efficiency. But if you are worried about air quality, consider the local and immediate impacts. If a highway commute is your challenge, you might have a good conscience driving a diesel if you can find one with a good price and decent mileage. Also expect to rack up the miles – it is common to see diesels run well past 200,000 miles with good maintenance. If you have a lot of mixed driving, a hybrid will meet all of your requirements: reasonable cost, good fuel economy, and low emissions.

Now, if the series hybrids like the Chevrolet Volt can get their prices down, local commutes will look entirely different since this vehicle and others like it will have a ~40 mile electric-only range. Perhaps another day we’ll talk about shifting emissions from the tail pipe to the coal stack.

New Energy Bill is an anti-climax

2010-08-05T15:55:00.001-04:00

Check out the new and revised Senate Energy Bill. Something is conspicuous: it does not mention or call for a Federal Renewable Energy Standard.

The bill also excludes an extension of incentives like the PTC – or production tax credit (which expires at the end of next year), which is a proven engine for wind development. Historically, it has been shown that installation of wind turbines grows and stalls in step with the PTC. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the $19/MWh PTC for wind development lapsed. The end result was a series of boom-bust cycles. In 1999, there were 700 MW of wind installed, but only 67 MW in 2000 when the PTC lapsed; only 5% of the previous year. In 2004, only 368 MW were installed, which is only 21% of the 1687 MW installed the previous year (see “20% Wind Energy by 2030, US DOE 2008). Again, if the PTC expires, it can be expected that the most recent growth cycle in wind energy – which recently made the US #1 in wind energy production globally – will suddenly halt. For all those critics that think that anything that requires a subsidy shouldn’t be considered a competitive technology, think again.

Supposedly, the effective income tax rate for oil-related businesses is 11% compared to the non-oil industry income tax rate average of 18%. Keep in mind that most businesses have significant tax advantages, but evidently not all are equal. In a succinct paper on the topic of energy subsidies (Koplow, Doug. “Subsidies to Energy Industries”. Encyclopedia of Energy, Vol 5. 2004 Elsevier), the following was found:

- Federal R&D programs between 1998-2005 allocated 32.6% of the budget to fossil energy research, and 30.2% to renewables. Subsidies through capital formation, usually through accelerated depreciation or investment tax credits, are common. There are provisions in the tax code that grant special accelerated depreciation schedules for energy-related assets. Electric light and power, gas facilities, and mining, shafts and wells have allowable depreciation schedules that are 28, 45, and 44% faster, respectively, than the actual economic depreciation of their assets according to data compiled by the US Treasury, i.e., an investment in an oil is front-end depreciated, likely sheltering any income produced by the well in its early life. Such depreciation schedules attract cash-rich investors who need to shelter income from their other investments. Because large scale energy projects benefit from this depreciation and have long construction times, energy resources that conserve capital are not favored.
- Another cost not often considered is decommissioning. Decommissioning costs can be as much as a 1/3 of the capital cost to build the asset for coal fired power plants and oil refineries because of the associated environmental costs and hazardous materials management. Decommissioning is often an allowable business expense and tax deduction.
- The “environmental cost” of conventional energy sources is often cited as a reason for investment in renewables, but it is rarely quantified. Perhaps the $16,000 per barrel of oil spilled in Alaska (see previous post), and the as yet undetermined cost of the Gulf Spill will help quantify these costs. Also note the collapse of the coal mine in Kentucky in April 2010 which killed two miners, the leak of 500 barrels of oil from a pipeline in Utah in January 2010, the natural gas pipeline explosion in Texas in June 2010 that killed 3, and the spillage of the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant fly ash slurry from a failed pond in 2008 that released 1.1 billion gallons into the nearby Emory River and surrounding neighborhood. Emergency response to these disasters is paid for by local, state, - and in the more dramatic cases such as the Gulf disaster– and federal governments. These costs could likely be quantified by assigning statistics like those complied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) incident reports to the average cost per incident.
- Tax policies on a state level also affect activity in the conventional energy sector. It is common practice among US states to incentivize companies in order to attract them to establish offices or factories within state boundaries, thereby creating jobs and supporting local economies. With regard to energy production such as the production of oil & gas or mining for coal, there can be a production or “severance” tax, which is the most widely adopted state tax specifically applying to the US oil industry. Some states waive or reduce this tax to attract certain industries, as Texas does for in-state oil producers. Texas charges an effective 3.1% severance tax on oil production compared to neighboring Louisiana’s 9.4%. Texas also charges an effective 1% income tax rate for oil producers compared to Louisiana’s average 6%. Alaska now allows producers to take a credit against severance tax liabilities for capital expenditures used in exploration and development, i.e. oil producers are encouraged to explore and drill in lieu of paying taxes on existing production (see “State Tax Policy and Oil Production: The Role of Severance Tax and Credits for Drilling Expenses. Chakravorty, et al. Dec 2009).

This is a meager attempt to wholly quantify the tax advantages that conventional energy systems have over renewable energy systems, however it should be clear that the assertion that traditional energy investments do not require subsidies is not entirely accurate. Both federal and state governments enable investments in fossil fuels with attractive depreciation schedules, friendly taxes, and support when an environmental catastrophe arises.

The above data reveals something we already know: the US Tax Code is designed to favor businesses that make a strong US economy. Oil and gas have made the US strong in the past, so it is no wonder that they are favored. However, wind, biomass, geothermal, and distributed solar can make the US strong, so it’s about time we recognized this fact. It’s just a matter of committing to it, just like we did with oil and gas. We can produce all of our electricity in this country with renewable sources, many times over.

This weaker Senate Energy Bill proposes $15 billion for energy efficiency programs, water conservation, and new transportation technologies based on natural gas and electricity. The bill also raises the liability cap on offshore oil drillers if they spill oil, which is probably the clincher that will get this bill sent through. Milton Friedman was right: “only a crisis - real or perceived – produces real change.” In this case, the change is not so dramatic.

In short, this bill fails to secure wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass technologies in the future energy portfolio. It is but a meek acknowledgement of our need to diversify our energy investments. Just as we needed to switch from hunter-gatherer food acquisition to subsistence agriculture, we need to switch from hunter-gatherer energy acquisition to renewable energy harvesting on a grand scale.

A Federal RES would make a difference. While most states have an RES in place, a Federal RES is more than just a standard – it’s a commitment. But despite all the talk, the US is still weak on energy. If there isn’t a commitment on a federal level to promote renewable energy, what does that say about US energy policy in general?

Here is an example from Ohio that shows how the RES works: Champaign County has some of the best wind resources in Ohio outside of the Great Lakes. In this beautiful and rural area, there is a ridge that runs nearly as far north as Kenton and southward through Bellefontaine toward Madison County. These higher elevations are ideal for wind farm sites. It took some time, but energy and property tax laws were reviewed to make exceptions for wind power, and once those were removed, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and the Ohio Power Siting Board pushed through the zoning approvals that had previously stalled wind development. Champaign will grow more than 400 MW in wind this and next year via projects that are already in the approval stage. For the first time in many years, wind turbines will be installed in Ohio. Wind energy output in Ohio will increase by two orders of magnitude this year, and three orders of magnitude by 2012. The short story: the Ohio RES makes a difference.

This is the power of the RES. Ohio could have a gigawatt of wind power by 2012 and we could have a thriving wind operations industry in addition to a thriving manufacturing infrastructure for wind. This is exciting for Ohio, and finally puts Ohio amongst other states that have demonstrated commitment to solving the energy problem. It makes direct jobs, but the indirect jobs for infrastructure, manufacturing, and further development are in greater quantity. If Ohio wants to be a player in this area, it now has all the tools to do it. This is a big deal, because the coal fired power plants in Ohio produce cheap electricity that has made other sources noncompetitive, and Ohio’s history in the energy sector hasn’t demonstrated progressive movement towards alternatives – until now.

Now, why won’t we do this on a Federal Level? The US has been a respected and responsible country in the global stage for nearly a century, but this Energy Bill is wimpy. Even drilling for natural gas using new hydrofracture methods has safety and environmental issues; just ask all the people living on top of the Marcellus Formation how their water tastes.

Numbers on the Gulf Oil Spill

2010-06-11T11:18:00.004-04:00

Let’s put this oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico into perspective.

- Since collection started, it is estimated that 73,000 barrels of oil have been collected. Of the natural gas that has been collected, most of it has been flared. The market value of the collected oil is $5.4 million based on today’s oil price of $75/barrel. Much of what has been captured has been burned.

- As of today, it has been 52 days since the explosion that sunk the rig and killed 11 people.

- The actual flow rate from the broken riser has been estimated as low as 1,000 barrels per day and as high as 70,000. Presently, the mean estimate has settled at about 32,000 barrels/day. Using that number, greater than 1.6 million barrels have spilled into the Gulf waters.

- The US consumes 19.5 million barrels of oil per day. Therefore, the total spilled volume from the Macondo well, despite the havoc it is wreaking on the Gulf environment and local economy, represents a mere 10% of how much the US consumes… in 1 day.

- At today’s market price, a total of $124.8 M of lost revenue has accrued, corresponding to a financial loss rate of $2.4M/day.

- Some estimate that $1.2B has been spent to date on disaster response, recovery, litigation, and claims to date. The lost oil revenue is less than 10% of that number. The cost of this disaster is about 10 times the potential revenue it would have generated during this time.

- By comparison, in 1989, 250,000 barrels of oil were spilled in the Prince William Sound. The punitive damages for that spill were near $4 billion.

- The Prince William Sound spill still has ongoing litigation, 21 years later. Appeals in the courts reduced the original punitive damages payout from $5 B to $500 million. The rest of the cost was cleanup and settlements. There is still $92 million outstanding.

- At today’s market price, the 250,000 spilled barrels represented $18,750,000. Given what was paid out in damages and settlements, the risk of the spill comes to $16,000 per barrel.

- There is still oil in Prince William Sound's beaches as witnessed by digging a few feet under the sand.

- The Macondo well has already expelled 1.7 million barrels, and will likely spew another 1 million barrels before it is capped, and perhaps only 50% of that remaining volume will be collected between now and then, so the Gulf can expect the burden of approximately 2.2 million barrels of oil.

- Using the $16,000/barrel risk factor from the Valdez incident, the cash outlay for environmental cleanup, settlements, and punitive damages could be a median number of $43B, versus the $165M in lost revenue during this time. The total cash outlay would be about 3 years of "replacement cost" profits for the responsible company.

Accountability is gone

2010-05-06T14:38:00.004-04:00

I want to know what has happened to accountability.

Once upon a time, a business founded by a business owner was not too far removed from the actual work performed. It is rare today, for instance, to enter an auto mechanic shop and find the shop owner under the hood with dirty hands. It is as if the connection between the service and the customer has been lost.

Throughout high school, college, and graduate school, I helped pay the bills by working as a busboy, a cook at a sandwich deli, a house painter, a landscaper, a gas station attendant, and a server at a restaurant. When I finished a day in those jobs, I was tired from not just the labor, but the constant customer interaction. Dealing with total strangers who have high (and sometimes unreasonable) expectations is exhausting. The food service jobs and working at the gas station were the most emotionally taxing and not worth the money I made. As a food server, I sometimes felt like a maltreated servant working for a person of royalty. I had completely polar reviews of my work, sometimes in the same day. One customer would tell me I was the worst server ever, and the next customer would say I was the best server and I made their day. Serving food sometimes required groveling, whether it was my fault or not. If I entered an order wrong, it was my fault. But if the kitchen undercooked their fish, that was also my fault. I just sucked it up and took the burden of admonishment because it was my tip at stake. I genuinely wanted to make these people happy, so I sometimes supressed feeling like I failed even when I knew I did my best.

As a gas station attendant, I experienced both polite and rude people. My colleagues at the gas station and I sometimes marveled at the extent which people would go out of their way to insult us. On one occasion, we were directed by our upper management to ask for identification of every customer to purchase alcohol, regardless of their appearance or age. If we failed to do so, “mystery shoppers” hired by our corporate office could secretly test us and report our failures, perhaps costing us our job. As a result, one day my colleague dutifully carded a particularly gruff looking fellow who proceeded to curse at us, knock over a display, and go stomping out of the station flipping us the bird because he couldn’t produce a driver’s license. On another occasion, I was stuck at the station by myself which meant I couldn’t leave the register. An attendant must keep the register and safe secure at all times. It was a cold wintry day, and all of the windshield washer buckets were empty or frozen, but I couldn’t do anything about it. A gentleman came storming into the store and threw an armful of squeegees on the counter, and said “you’re out of fluid, asshole.” He had plucked each squeegee from all of the buckets and brought them to me in an act of total enraged anger. I was so shocked and amazed by his totally sociopathic behavior I burst out laughing (not in mockery, but surprise). This of course aggravated him further, and he went red in the face and stormed out. I didn't have time to apologize. If that guy is reading this: I sincerely apologize for ruining your day. It was certainly not my intention.

In those jobs I genuinely felt terrible if someone was unhappy, and I often groveled even when I knew it wasn’t my fault. I just wanted to make it right. But I learned a good lesson: it isn’t always true that the customer is always right.

However, this doesn’t give business owners license to swindle their customers. This total fubar situation on Wall Street, for example, smells of fishy conflicts of interest. The regulators, the bank CEOs, and the hedge fund CEOs share common links on their resumes, and they move from regulator sector to regulated sector like a lawn sprinkler. This is unacceptable and I’m disgusted with the fact that there really isn’t a damn thing I can do about it, except perhaps pull my money out of the stock market. And then what…? How else am I supposed to save for retirement? And if I do that, I’m one of the sheep causing the markets to tumble which means I’m part of the problem. But I’ll tell you, this whole fiasco makes me reel back at the thought of handing the control of my money to these people that clearly do not deserve it. Now I feel like that guy who threw the squeegees at me, and I understand his anger. I do not know to whom is most deserving of my anger, but some great injustice has been done.

Recently my wife and I experienced not one, but two significant acts of negligence (actually... three, come to think of it!) by established businesses that have so far cost us not only money, but significant time. I am flabbergasted that in order to point out their severe errors, it requires the summation of all of my intellectual capacity to sort, organize, and clearly present the data leading up to the very moment that they erred and inadvertently screwed us. I have just completed one written letter with 7 articles of evidence and submitted it to the president, vice president, and general manager of one company with the hope that it will produce the desired result: an admission of accountability and a reimbursement of our direct costs due to their incompetence. It seems that simply because I am capable of figuring it out for them, I am therefore obligated to do it. If I was incapable of figuring it out, I’d just be screwed. Totally screwed. It makes me wonder how often this happens to other people and if they’ve ever been able to do anything about it. That just… sucks.

Even while gathering the evidence, writing the letters, and making the phone calls, part of me doubts whether it is worth the time just to get our money back for the mess these people have caused. I’ve literally performed a root cause failure analysis on these events which would command a substantial fee if I paid a third party (“root cause” failure analysis isn’t just the study of how things fail, but it’s the study of “people failures”, or the human factor error that led to a chain of events). It is the principle of this matter that keeps me plugging along. I have to keep reminding myself that at no point in time did I ever volunteer - in writing, verbally, or in any other fashion - that people may waste my time and take my money without my consent. That is not OK.

There was once a time when somebody gave their word and it meant something. Is it really the case that this is no longer true? Honestly, how many people do you meet a day that you could say you trust? My circle of close friends is small but tight because I know, trust, and cherish their genuineness.

Lack of accountability is a cancer in this societal structure that is difficult to detect and even more difficult to treat. I have had discussions with friends, family, and colleagues about it and we’ve all come to the same conclusion: there is a sense of entitlement that perhaps arose in the generation gap between those that worked to get where they are and those that inherited their status. This concerns me greatly because it seems to imply that this will get worse with each generation until we’ve bred the hard work completely out of our genes. It makes me wonder if – in two or three generations – this world will be inhabited by a bunch of selfish, irresponsible, myopic, spoiled, cold-hearted brats with no comprehension of hard work.

I don’t know how to do anything about this. For those that have children, they can help. They can raise good kids and teach them the value of hard work, trust, ethics, and the Golden Rule. Hopefully, those kids will make good kids, and then those kids will make good kids, and so on. At least there will be one legacy of well intentioned humans who have no preconceptions of entitlement. That will make some difference and perhaps it is the most successful treatment of this societal cancer... like a vaccine for entitlement. In the meantime, I don’t know what else to do to help make this world better. Sadly, I’ve learned through experience in recent years how to handle these situations. Don’t curse, say what you mean, keep your voice steady, look people in the eye, follow words with action, and don’t ever waver.

A Call for Applied Knowledge

2010-03-29T15:23:00.002-04:00

Lately I've been getting an itch for some different and new knowledge. Not that I don't learn every day... in fact I am learning constantly, but I tend to learn in the same pathways that I always learn. What is nice about learning a lot about related subjects is that a person can develop efficiency and effectiveness in those areas. However, when I find that I am out of my element in other areas I can feel the depth of knowledge hidden behind the topical layers that I am touching, but I can't see them. It is irritating knowing that there is so much knowledge to be had and there just isn't enough time to grasp all of it.

So I've been trolling websites and course listings in various community colleges and continuing education institutes to see what is available. For example, I would like to become more proficient in finite element modelling beyond the elementary skills I have at the moment. Turns out there isn't much out there unless I want to re-enroll as a Mechanical Engineering undergraduate, which is completely unrealistic and unnecessary. FEA is evidently one of those topics that is just advanced enough to be too advanced on a community college level, just proprietary enough that training only comes from the vendors of the software, and just obscure enough that not that many people are looking for courses titled "FEA For Dummies in 7 Days" or something like that.

In another area of interest, I have always been dissatisfied with my knowledge of electronics. Give me some hand and power tools and I can build just about anything, but give me a handful of diodes and a microcontroller and I'm pretty useless. I once dove into the BASIC Stamp kit with the intention of making a programmable Christmas Tree light controller. All I got was 3 LEDs that could blink in different patterns, and then I lost interest.

This is unacceptable. I would like more proficiency with electronics. I would like the ability to build robots for fun in my spare time, or make automated things for myself at home that look like something Rube Goldberg cooked up.

So what I'd like to see is the founding of "The How-To Proficiency Institute". This learning institution specializes in hands-on foundational courses that pack all applicable knowledge into 7 days or less. For example, course titles may include:
- "TIG Welding: From AC to a Stack of Dimes (Bring a Helmet)"
- "Stand Alone Engine Management for the Gearhead that Hates Wiring Harnesses"
- "Build a CNC Mini Mill in 5 Days with No Prior Knowledge About Anything"
- "Get a SCADA System Up and Running with the Parts you Just Bought"
- "Make a Robot Designed To Kill Another Robot Right Now"
- "Build the Hardware, Record the Data, and Transmit it to the Web Portal You Designed"
- "Explosives: Enough to Be Simultaneously Clever, Fun, and Dangerous"
- "Using DAQ Systems For Temperature, Voltage, and Current vs. Time Measurements"
- "Make Your Computer Control or Talk To Anything in 7 Days"
- "FEA Modeling for People That Don't Have the Patience to Flip Through their Old Differential Equations Textbooks"

These courses would assume that you are a total dimwit, but they wouldn't have any sympathy on you for it. They would be reasonably expensive, designed for people who don't have time to reinvent the wheel who want to develop proficiency in an area in a short amount of time. In all of these courses you would have a shopping list assignment before you come in with the assumption that you want to learn this stuff because you intend to put it to use. For example, the TIG welding course would expect you to show up with a welding helmet and a welder. The SCADA course would recommend that you buy a bunch of off-the-shelf stuff and bring it to the first day of the course. You show up with your own equipment, and you pass the course if it is running and working when you leave, and you did all the tweaking yourself.

And the FEA course... I know that one doesn't exist. I'm fascinated by the damped harmonic oscillator (so many applications!!) and would love to sit all day and ponder its magnificence, but today I just really need to get a model running, please.

Misplaced Value Economics – The Root Cause Grows from the Intangible

2010-03-09T09:12:00.001-05:00

Are we undergoing a massive transformation in our collective perception of value? Recall earlier my post on the idea of the Metcalfe Economy – an economy where we buy, sell, and trade goods and services in a networked, value based system rather than a linear or hub-and-spoke system based on actual physical entities.

While those who have helped create this conceptual and growth-enabling economy may claim to have a solid understanding of how it works, the vast majority of the population likely does not. As a result, while the value of goods and services has become the new Gold Standard, the tangible, physical thing that is being traded has lost meaning. Mobile phones are yet again a good example. The value of portable communications, texting, and sending picture messages is what drives the market segment, but the consumer is completely detached from the complicated infrastructure that supports it. The electricity market is similar.

In terse economic terms, value is linked to the price of a good when an exchange occurs, i.e., the perceived value of something reveals itself when an exchange occurs because that is when a person is willing to give up money to have it. How much money they give up indicates how much they value the object.

Implicit in the value concept is the idea of leveraging. Leveraging is the basis of credit. Since value is linked to how much a person is willing to give up in order to obtain a good or service, if that person is able to obtain credit to obtain that good or service then he or she is giving up very little. With credit, the value for the buyer is lessened. The value is distributed between the buyer and the creditor, but the seller obtains the same revenue no matter what. It would appear that in a severely leveraged market, the perception of value is dulled.

So what happens to the perception of value when the entire market is leveraged? The hedge funds that collapsed in 2007 and 2008 and precipitated this present monstrous market disaster – an event large enough to alter Greenspan’s world view – leveraged $billions on the intangible and now infamous mortgage backed securities. The system became unraveled because the value judgment was misconceived and the dollars were not tied to actual credit-worthy mortgages. By taking options (buying “short”) on these credit default swaps, the hedge funds were highly leveraged and were pushing around monstrous volumes of borrowed money. Their swap strategy bet heavily on mortgages defaulting, while taking long bets on the market going up. With this kind of financial volume, it is likely that the hedge funds themselves drove the market downward in a self fulfilling prophecy while the actual market – the one with all the tangible goods – collapsed on shaky credit. (By the way, a fantastic read on this topic is “The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed it” by Scott Patterson).

What triggered the collapse? Was it finally that threshold limit of homeowners defaulted on their loans and ruined the returns on the credit default swap process? Or was it that the entire hedge fund trading mechanism was based on misplaced value?

In reality it was both, and it is tied to a systemic problem and underlying cause that cannot be fixed with any amount of regulation or financial reform. By using credit to buy everything, the consumer has a skewed perception of value, as does the multi-billion dollar fund manager. The dynamic and flowing credit market supports a vast infrastructure of goods that have been leveraged, and houses are perhaps the largest single physical thing that can be leveraged significantly. Cars are a close second. As a result, the housing and car markets are crushed at the moment the credit freezes up. However, there is a bigger credit prop-up: the stock market. It is the heaviest leveraged good in the entire US economy, and it isn’t even tangible.

I could be hopeful and expect that the market would shift toward something more tangible. Relying on genuine know-how and skill is more valuable than borrowing money and adopting a sense of entitlement toward materialism. But how is this possible with a population of > 6 billion humans on this planet, all of whom are striving for a better cost of living, plentiful resources, and expectations of wealth accumulation? The population is simply too big to shift back to the fundamental trades for everyone. Something has got to give… we can’t expect entire nations to sustainably maintain 1/3 of their population in retirement living off saved money. Nor can we indefinitely expect the market to sustain an >10% average return. Inflation and heavy leveraging can’t coexist and must be juggled in phases, as Greenspan tried to do by changing and altering the flow of money into the US economy.

There are other long term trends over the next 10 years that – by themselves – may not alter the markets, but the second order consequences of these forces in combination are totally unknown. All of those 401(k) accounts with a mandatory withdrawal at 70 1/2 may have some unexpected consequences as those retirement accounts are liquefied. The population will continue to increase globally, but the aged population in western countries may change the demographics in those countries. Taleb’s black swan would be the unfortunate combination of a market dive coinciding with western populations burdened with non-working elderly. In that scenario, a working family supporting multiple generations in an unstable market could be faced with depressed home values, greatly reduced job security, and a depressed market. I prefer to be optimistic, but knowing that this is possible (but not necessarily destined) is unsettling.

While unimpeded market growth is not sustainable, total collapse and reversal of 100 years of industrialization is not necessarily sustainable, either. A large upset in economic forces – if possible – is unlikely to erase the accomplishments of recent generations from collective memory. Consider Donald Trump; the man has fallen into bankruptcy and gotten back on his feet as if nothing happened. Once you become successful, you don’t forget, and the next time you build your empire it is easier. In any major market disaster, the world won’t forget and can’t ignore the infrastructure that will still be standing, even if there is no money to maintain it. It is unrealistic to think the world would collapse in an Atlas Shrugged–like climax where everyone is just sitting around hopelessly as the infrastructure fails around them.

So there is a solution. The solution is to place value in things that are tangible, and build from those things. Tools, property, and skilled trades are a good start. Knowing how to use a hammer and nail is useful in any economy. But we’re not talking about everyone becoming carpenters. Instead of thinking that economic changes require all of us to build our own compounds and homesteads, the real answer is that we need to focus locally but keep a critical mass in our community economy. We need carpenters for the 21st century, and those carpenters are people who can build communities, and sustain them with their basic needs while supporting that community with a foundation of jobs. Businesses that provide infrastructure – shelter, food, water, energy, and transportation are the building blocks of a sustainable community. Focus on trades that support these elements, make them sustainable, economical, and – most importantly – self sufficient, and you can build something from nothing. If the 21st century economy can be built on self sufficient and interconnected local communities, we will have a self healing economy that is stronger than what we have today. This is not the entire solution, but it will be a big part of it. If each community can do its part to keep itself alive, then the questions about the global economy will be less relevant.

A Car Should be Fast, Efficient, and Affordable - Pick Two

2010-01-31T09:32:00.003-05:00

I have project cars. I love cars. I love the sound of a loping V8 with a bumpy cam, and every year when I attend the Goodguys car show in the summer, I get chills when someone gooses the throttle or does a burnout. Cars are just so cool.

But I am so conflicted between the fun and good times that cars represent, and the unique freedom that electric vehicles represent. But EVs are so limited in other ways. While some EVs play an audio soundtrack to sound like a real engine, none of them have it. They are typically slow, have limited range, and don't offer a driving experience like what the internal combustion engine can offer. Well - there is at least one exception - the Tesla Roadster is fast and fun with extensive range, but there isn't the sound of the internal combustion engine revving at 5500 RPM on the way up to redline in the Tesla.

I recently unloaded a 1985 Toyota Supra. It was a car I bought on a whim when I was in graduate school. It needed a lot of work but it had been an Arizona car so it was rust free. I had always thought Supras were neat looking cars, so when a cheap one came by I couldn't pass it up.

I proceeded to overhaul a lot of the essential components. Brakes, exhaust, and new tires were the first items. Then I started slowly addressing the engine bay. The radiator developed some severe leaks that caused overheating and so I overhauled the water pump, radiator, thermostat, and all the dry rotted hoses. It always leaked copious amounts of oil and I slowly started replacing gaskets around the engine. Then, on the day I had lumber delivered to begin construction of a new garage - a garage intended to enable me to work more on my project cars - the timing belt broke. The 2.8L inline 6 cyclinder 5MGE engine in the Supra is a non-interference motor, meaning that none of the valves came into contact with the pistons during this incident. But I had to have the car towed home and it sat next to the garage while it was being erected for over a year. One day I finally pushed the dead car into the alley by the garage door and rigged up a ladder, two tie-down straps, and a ratcheting pulley to pull the car into the garage.

My Supra and my 1998 Jetta shared garage space for the time it took me to put up siding, paint the garage, finish insulating it, and put in some power. Finally when I had an opportunity to get to the Supra, it took several days of cursing and sweating to replace every gasket in that engine - with the exception of the head gasket itself. When I was done, it had a new timing belt, tensioner, and bearing in addition to a new oil pump and fresh gaskets on the top, front, and around the oil pan. I also replaced about 75% of the cracked and dry rotted hoses in the engine bay with home-made rubber hose from the local hardware store. Also, more than a year of sitting dead had neglected the new-ish battery enough to kill it, so I replaced that too.

One day the moment of truth came that I would turn on the ignition in the car. When I sat in the drivers seat and attempted to turn it over, it sputtered and cracked and clunked and then started right up. It idled really rough, but it was running. I was a bit surprised. The idle smoothed out and I let it run in the garage for some time before checking around the engine bay for leaks. I was disappointed to see that the engine still persisted to drip oil, but not nearly at the rate it had previously. After all of that work, however, I was irritated.

As I began looking into getting the car re-registered, I would occasionally take it out of the garage for neighborhood "fun drives". When a car is running and you haven't driven it for awhile, sometimes it is fun to get into the car because it feels different. The clutch is different, the seating angle is different, the steering wheel is different, the turning radius is different, and so on... this is what makes driving fun. Every car has a different feel which totally changes the driving experience.

After one of those fun drives I backed the car into the garage and noticed a faint white smoke in the exhaust as it was captured in the enclosed space, which could only mean one thing: head gasket. As I got out, I could smell the coolant in the exhaust.

At that point it was too much for me to do - a garage still in need of some tweaking, two project cars, and a house that could use some updates, not to mention my normal responsibilities with work and family. I put the Supra on eBay and sold it to a National Guard member who intended to race it. At least it would have an opportunity to be the fast car I always wanted it to be. I figured I would regret selling it, and although I miss it, I don't miss worrying about it.

After charging the dead battery in the Jetta overnight, I was eager to take it for a test drive this morning. Like the Supra, the Jetta has been under the wrench for some time as I overhauled the front brakes in addition to the right front spindle, wheel bearing, tie rod end, and ball joint. Last night was the first time the car has sat on its two front wheels in about 4 months. When you don't have a lot of time to work on a car, that's what happens.

She started up this morning and I pulled her out into the sunlight where I saw just how much the poor car had been neglected. It is covered in drywall dust, as I put drywall on the garage ceiling while the Jetta sat and watched. I am really debating about selling this car too. I've had this car for 10 years, and when I bought it it was the first nice car I had ever owned. The VR6 in that car is a sweet sounding engine, and the car has been tweaked and tuned but neglected for the past four years or so. It sounds so mean and can go so fast I always felt like I was getting away with something when I drove it. This morning, I took the car down the alley and out onto the street (this one has up to date registration) and headed for the freeway to find that feeling again. By the time I got to the on ramp, the engine was warm and the car was ready to go.

In my truck, getting onto the freeway is a calculating affair. The truck isn't very fast, so getting on the freeway is a matter of finding the open spot and hoping you make it. This morning, however, I reminded myself how much fun fast cars can be. A white Honda Odyssey was passing by the on ramp as I began my entry, and as I rolled into the throttle I remembered that the Jetta has never had to wait for an entry on the freeway. The engine screamed up to 6000 RPM, chirped the tires in second, and I ran it up again and shifted into third, and the car roared past the Honda and onto the freeway while I pressed into the seat, giggling. I looked down and I had just touched 80 mph, so I backed off the throttle and resumed more reasonable speeds. The engine has so much spunk you have to manage torque steer as the front wheels search for grip. I was spitting loose gravel onto the berm as I cruised into the left lane. Fast cars are so much fun - even when they are front wheel drive.

The electric vehicle can't deliver this kind of performance without lighter and more expensive batteries, though electric motors have the capability of delivering prodigious torque from 0 RPM and up. The Tesla produces a flat torque curve of 270 lb ft from 0-6000 RPM before it drops off, at which point it is holding about 215 hp. It reaches 60 mph in about 4 seconds, and only has one gear. The Tesla is faster than my Jetta and is rear wheel drive to boot. Check out this dumb little video of someone sliding a Tesla sideways in an empty parking lot. Weeee! The price for this kind of fun? North of $80,000.

I've got a garage full of performance and aftermarket parts for the Jetta. I imported two Syncro drivetrains because I had dreams of converting it to all wheel drive. I obtained one from a wrecked Golf Rallye in Denmark, and the second from a wrecked Passat Syncro in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Importing these parts was an interesting experience that led me to understand the mysterious ways of dealing with Customs. I have a Vortech supercharger that I never installed, and some nice Fikse FM-5 wheels that have beefy rubber on them - too wide to fit in the wheel wells of the car since it rides only about 2" from the ground. I always wanted to weld in more aggressive wheel arches and shove deep dish wheels into those wells. As I look and the laundry list of things to do to achieve the vision of what I wanted the car to be, it seems like an awful lot of work and money for a car that runs on gasoline. What is the matter with me, thinking like that? Have I lost it?

I've kicked around the idea of converting it to run on ethanol, but biofuels still require some dependence on a market dominated by the price of hydrocarbon liquid fuels. It is fun to drive a car, but I still have shirts stained with the oil and antifreeze from the Supra. These oil stains remind me what it takes to keep a car running. Endless quantities of liquid hydrocarbon products. It never bothered me before, but it does now. In the past, I hadn't studied the life cycle of these things. Now I know and unfortunately I can't ignore it.

Even if I did install the supercharger, I could probably squeeze 25+ mpg out of it on the freeway in either FWD or AWD. It is a fast car but also reasonably efficient. I could use it as a weekend fun car or as a summer commuter. The gas tank is only 10 gallons and a fillup hurts much less than my Silverado. A second or third car is inherently more expensive to run and doesn't get driven nearly as often, so perhaps I wouldn't be violating my ethics too much if I allowed myself this luxury.

But here's the point of this post. If an EV were fast and fun, even with limited range it could serve the function of the hobby car without all the oil, antifreeze, and gasoline. For about $10,000, I could probably convert a VW to electric with reasonably quick acceleration and about 40 miles of range using lithium iron phosphate batteries. Recently I've been drooling over the selection at www.electricmotorsport.com, and I am enthralled with the idea of an electric motorcycle. It has limited use, but a motorcycle has limited use anyway. Perhaps this is the solution - an EV motorcycle would be reasonably fast, fairly efficient, and reasonably affordable.

So... if I sell off all my Jetta parts I'll miss the car, but think about the EV possibilities.

I Can't Wait for Cheaper Solid State Hard Drives

2010-01-14T08:38:00.003-05:00

The next computer I build will have a solid state drive in it. I want to do this because not only are they lightning fast, but they are more energy efficient. Check out this data I gathered while using my handy Kill-a-Watt monitor over a 5-6 day period:

Item, Cummulative kWh usage:

Kenmore Side By Side Fridge...... 14.6
Home Computer with WiFi Router... 12.7
Kitchen Aid Side by Side Fridge.. 8.45
Kitchen Aid with warmer temp..... 8.48
Phone Chargers and Alarm Clock... 2.39
Incandescant 60 W Light.......... 0.9
12W CFL Lamp..................... 0.26

I love CFLs and LED lights. Love 'em. Look at that little sucker, consuming only 1/3 of the Edison bulb with the same lumen output. I just wish I could get more lumens out of an LED light without paying $100, and better power quality with the CFLs. I picked up a pair of little 30W-equivalent LED light bulbs for $20 including a subsidy from local AEP, but the lights are quite dim. It took me several attempts to find a suitable light to put them in, and I finally settled on our timed light in the front room. I tried our lights on the garage to light the back alley, but they just couldn't put out enough light, so CFLs are out there. On a timer that only lights the alley at night, my total cost to run the lights is about $8 per year. By the way, I thought it was interesting that the higher temperature setting on the fridge didn't save energy - in fact, it increased. I think the fridge cycles longer when it kicks on.

But look at the list and you'll see that my PC (which is on most of the time) is a total energy hog. Moist of that energy is spent blowing heat off that stupid spinning hard drive and overclocked chip while the computer is doing nothing but idling.

I have experimented with different energy management schemes on the computer and for some reason it just can't seem to execute the sleep mode effectively. And startup is slow enough that it makes it difficult to save your work, shut down, and then restart later. I'm hoping that the new SSDs will fix some of this, allowing a person to shut down and start up the operating system in seconds rather than minutes. I figure a custom-built PC with a stack of several drives would be pretty slick.

It just so happens that my trusty laptop has recently developed a terrible syndrome where it starts up, loads the OS, then suddenly shows me the Blue Screen of Death, restarts, and does it all over again continuously until I force it to turn off. Perhaps this will be a good experimental candidate for SSD surgery... hmmmm.

I just wish the cost would go down a bit more - right now I'm seeing the cheaper ones go for about $3/GB. Only a few years ago they were $10/GB. I think when it gets to about $1/GB you'll see these things all over the place.

2010 Begins With A Look Back

2010-01-04T11:10:00.007-05:00

It helps to not forget the point of all of the energy talk and green washing. The data does the talking... sometimes when I get discouraged I go back and look at the data and ask it to tell me what to do. The image above is published crude oil production numbers for all of the US from 1920 to the present. I created this chart in Excel by downloading the crude oil production data from EIA (www.eia.doe.gov). This data can be reproduced by clicking on "Petroleum" and then "Crude Oil Production". In the page that follows there are downloadable data lists in Excel format.

The data is telling me to do two things. First it is telling me to ask why that trend exists. Second, it is telling me the implications and what to do about it. The production trend is evidently not unique to just the US, but is similar on a global level if the International Energy Egency reports are valid (which might be a fair assumption). It isn't worthwhile to run around in a panic with hands waving, but it is worth reflecting on the directives above.

Why does the trend exist?

There are lots of answers. The conspiracy theorists would like to say that we're stockpiling or that we're hiding our cards in a poker game. They might say there is motivaion to intentionally hold back production to drive the price up. There are fearful claims that there is way more oil in the North Slope than anyone is willing to talk about and we're saving it, waiting out the other countries so that we have oil when everyone else doesn't. There are other questions about transparency with oil data. For example, if I were to own several production fields and I am in direct competition with another producer, I wouldn't feel inclined to publicly announce just how much oil I have because I would then lose my advantage over the competition, i.e., neither of us knows what the other has, and we prefer to keep it that way. Of all those possible reasons for the production trend to behave as it does, it is peculiar. If I were in charge of production and I had oil to produce, would I rather produce more now to make money, or would I have a long term persepctive? Typically, when choices concerning money are involved the perspective is decidedly short term. Is such a long term strategy real? All of these explanations have different risks associated with them. Is it possible that oil producers are holding back production to drive up price? Perhaps. Is it likely? Maybe. What is the consequence? Higher oil prices. If that scenario were true there would be some questionable ethics involved, but the consequence is less severe than the worst answer. Maybe, just maybe, the reason for the curve above is jsut what it says it is... fields are becoming depleted faster than new fields are producing, which is what "Peak Oil" is all about and is what M. King Hubbert loudly proclaimed almost 4 decades ago. If that is the case, the consequence is much larger.

So, instead of wasting time hypothesizing about the reasons, in order to hedge against the worst case, perhaps it would be wise to diversify our energy investments a bit. There are many reasons why the oil production curve looks as it does, but what are we doing about it?

Jimmy Carter would have told you to conserve. That is certainly one valid way to reduce energy consumption. Conservation is good. The technical folks will tell you that we need new energy sources, and so there are people working on solar panels and wind turbines and controlled fusion and geothermal heat pumps and more effcient gas turbines and heat recovery, which are all good things. Many of the economists would sit back and wait for the market to figure it out, while other economists would rather push it forward with inventive investment drivers. There are valid reasons for either economic method. Those setting policy are also coming up with ideas. Some would rather wait and see what the technical folks will come up with, others would like to throw money at them, and all of the policy folks are debating about what might happen if new laws are written to regulate emissions or force stricter fuel economy requirements on automakers.

Unfortunately all of these discussions are missing the point. Whatever you decide to do, do *something*. Look at it this way... if it is a conspiracy thing, I don't know about you but I'm not a big fan of being held hostage to prices or to supply. I don't want anybody controlling how much I pay them, which is the feeling at the heart of capitalism that encourages and justifies market competition. I tend to bend towards the technological solutions that might address that issue. To address these concerns, it is pretty clear to me that I'd rather have more than one way to power a car, more than one way to make electricity for my home, and more than one way to heat my house. I can't be the only one coming to these conclusions. In order to stay functional in an unpredictable energy market, it is best to be diversified. Energy diversification addresses both environmental and energy security concerns simultaneously, so let's get crackin'.

The crude oil production trend is really a symbol. It isn't the subject of the debate - it is the poster child for the debate. It says "hey, look at me. Whatever the reasons for this are, none of them are good."

Our economy is looking to be back on track. Google and Apple are releasing new phones and both of their stocks are right back where they were only a year ago. And the price of oil is slowing creeping its way back up and we're back to our old habits of paying at the pump regardless of the price. Ken Deffeyes, in his book "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak", explained that the oil price will follow a sporadic trend of spike and collapse as the oil supply stream becomes intermittently disrupted, following a nonlinear trend not unlike the dripping of a faucet or progression of the checkout line at a busy grocery store. With sporadic spurts of production fueled by fluctuating supply, the price (amplified by speculation) will be similarly sporadic. Ironically, Deffeyes wrote that before the end of 2008 before we saw the crushing oil prices of that year. Don't forget the $140 per barrel we just paid. Steven Stoft similarly predicted the price spike and - more importantly - the sudden collapse in his book "Carbonomics." In Jeff Rubin's book "Why Your World is about to Get a Whole Lot Smaller", he predicts a shift toward local resources rather than global ones, which is something we are already seeing. It makes sense - when threatened, people retreat back to what they know. Whether the Peak Oil theory is true or not, oil is too volatile to be the sole energy source. Let's back off on oil and get a little more energy into the mix.

I don't try to predict when or how much, but it is only a matter of time before high oil prices come back. Is this a matter of concern for you? If not, ask yourself why, and if your answer is a good one, share it. If it is a concern for you, what are you doing about it? Is your answer a good one, and if so, please share?

I've shared most of what I'm doing in this blog. My solutions don't have to be solutions for everyone. But everyone has to have their own solution.

Stupid Quick Project # 3

2009-12-24T14:54:00.005-05:00

I've been on a kick to see how much I can accomplish in 30 minutes or less. In this way I feel like I can get something accomplished, large projects are split into tiny pieces, and as long as these tiny things are being accomplished then the project does not languish.

Today's project required a piece of oak and 4 screws. A couple of cuts on the radial arm saw and a few minutes at the drill press produced this silly shelf next to the air hose reel. It holds a tire pressure gauge, a tire filling nozzle, and an air gun to dust off work benches and such. These cheap but valuable little tools are often misplaced and I feel that their functionality is therefore limited by their availability. If I make them available, perhaps I will get more use out of them. I didn't square up the shelf, the 45 degree cuts were not quite square, the drilled holes weren't centered or measured, and the shelf isn't level. I don't particularly care - I just wanted to do something that felt productive.

Having the cell phone handy is good because I can take low resolution pictures like this one and email it to myself for easy posting on my self-praising little blog journal here. Even getting out the USB cord for the camera is too much effort... geez, I'm getting lazy.

Mnemonic Devices

2009-12-07T09:04:00.010-05:00

SohCahToa.

Make a snake and hit it in the nose.

The right hand rule.

These little phrases are burned into my brain. Yesterday I was cleaning and organizing the garage, hoping to get it into some state that approximates a long term organizational standard. The garage has been in a constant state of flux since its construction. First it was a concept, then a concrete pad, then a skeleton of framing members, then a Tyvek'd moniker of a garage, then a rough version of the final product, and now it appears to be mostly functional with a complete exterior with lights, insulated lower level, and a functional interior most recently updated with a very hastily-done drywall job on the ceiling. It's no house, but it's a damn good workshop.

So when the concrete guy (Concrete Contracting Solutions) poured my slab, he incorporated a slope into the garage floor that would allow fluids to run out of the garage. At the time I liked this idea and they did a fantastic job on the floor - bringing it to a nearly reflective finish that still impresses people when they see it (even though I've since stained it with oil and drywall dust). Looking back, however, I wish I would have thought ahead on the design. First, the slope doesn't seem like it would be aggressive - it drops 4" over 24 feet - but it is just enough to be a hassle when aligning workbenches along the side walls. Leveling them involves a tedious trial and error of cutting shims with scrap wood on the radial arm saw, and it never quite comes out right. Second, the slope terminates at the apron that transitions the garage to the alley roadway. This means that any fluids run out of the garage and into the crack between the garage slab and the apron, which means in the winter that water will get under the apron, freeze, and possibly cause heaving. I've seen this first hand already, as the sponge-like joint along the apron swells in the winter with water and rises from the crack. I should have had a drain installed along the garage door - but... I didn't think of that at the time. Oh well.

So now that I'm trying to get my workshop into a clean, presentable, and well organized work area, I'm finding that the slope of the floor is becoming cumbersome. The workbenches look crooked even though they aren't. Near the front of the garage I can reach the top shelf of my cabinets, but near the rear I have a bit of trouble because I've lost about 3" of height. I have to carry a foot stool around to give me access.

Some time ago I built a crude frame and wheel stand for the radial arm saw that would allow me to wheel it out of place for easy cleaning and transport. My table saw has wheels already built in. the workbench that sits astride these two saws was a super good deal at Sears in a January sale. Unfortunately, this work surface is not level because every item tilts slightly forward at about 1 degree because of the garage slope. This is not a big deal most of the time, but it's like a mental block - I don't put a lot of effort into making precise cuts because the saws aren't precisely aligned anyway. I'm thinking that if I could get them dialed in, I'd take more time and put more care into my wood work.

So I finally made a spreadsheet that lists a conversion table to help me calculate shim thicknesses. It calculates the run in inches and then the drop in the nearest 1/16th of an inch. I'm going to print this off and hang it on the wall in the garage, and I'll look at it every time I'm repositioning something and need to level it.

Some day I have a dream of equipping everything with self leveling feet, like these:

Or, in the meantime, I'm picturing one heck of a wood working station on wheels with individual bays for the table saw, radial arm saw, and eventual router table. In my mind, it is built into 3 sections with leveling platforms for each tool. Once in place, the tools can be raised or lowered with respect to one another in order to make one big vast and level work surface, ideal for running or ripping long planks or pieces of plywood. This would be pretty handy for another project in my head: built-in shelves all over the house.

So what does this have to do with mnemonic devices? I realized yesterday that they are a continuous hum in the back of my mind. They never go away. As I moved the saw yesterday and scratched my head as I stared at the crude shims under its feet, "sohcahtoa" popped into my head. I started scribbling some calculations on a scrap piece of wood to see if I could calculate the exact thickness neeeded to shim and level the saw, but gave up after I realized that 4/288 is not the best number to be working with by hand, and I didn't feel like going inside to do the calculation for real. So I gave up on that, and instead, built the little handy shelf and tool station shown at the beginning of this post. It positions my tape measures, hammer, and bottle opener right by the door and light switches. That way I always know where they are. That little project took about 10 minutes and was built with scrap wood, spare screws and nails, and an unlevel radial arm saw and and unlevel drill press.

Oh, by the way, the mnemonic devices listed above are:

In a right triangle, sine (s) of an angle is opposite/hypotenuse (oh), cosine (c) is adjacent/hypotenuse (ah), and tangent (t) is opposite/adjacent (oa). Hence, socahtoa.

Make a snake and hit it in the nose is how my kindergarten teacher taught me to write the number 8. Making the snake is basically writing an "S" and upon completing the tail of the "S" a straight line connects the tail to the nose. Smack.

The right hand rule is known to some as "righty tight lefty loosey". I particularly like this one because it not only helps for remembering right hand threaded things such as caps, screws, bolts, and nuts, but it is also useful for determining vector relationships and the direction of current in a wire with respect to the magnetic field around it.

Fat, Dumb, and Happy

2009-12-02T12:53:00.007-05:00

Well... definitely fat, maybe not so dumb, and not so happy.

Obesity (source: CDC):

During the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. In 2008, only one state (Colorado) had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-two states had a prevalence equal to or greater than 25%; six of these states (Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia ) had a prevalence of obesity equal to or greater than 30%.

Education (source: ARWU)

Check out the top 10 universities (world ranking) for engineering and technical fields:

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Univ. of Illinois Urbana
4. UC Berkely
5. Carnegie Mellon
6. University of Michigan
7. Univeristy of Texas Austin
8. Georgia Institute of Technology
9. UC San Diego
10. Caltech

These are all US universities. I found something else interesting. I was trying to find data on education rates and rankings across countries and nationalities. The US consistently ranks high in number of years of education and tertiary education (higher learning). We even appear to have a somewhat high ratio of time spent learning science.

Happiness

The US appears to be relatively "happy" but this contradicts data that shows that adult use of anti-depressants almost tripled between 1999-2000. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 2.4 billion drugs prescribed in visits to doctors and hospitals in 2005. Of those, 118 million were for antidepressants.

So what's the deal? Evidently the US has all the food, brains, talent, and tools to continue to be tops in the world, but we're so sad.

Another interesting point... world population data carries with it an interesting implication. It is called demographic transition and is the assumption that population growth rates will reach a constant over time due to vast global industrialization, increased contraception, urbanization, and reduction in subsistence agriculture. If this is true, then it would appear that there is no place for hands-on ingenuity in the future. But c'mon... we can't sit around with servant robots and Star Trek replicators in 2050 while admiring fine art. Somebody has to build the cities and make the art. And if we're not making and raising kids, we must be occupying our time in other ways.

Anyone who has performed a task as simple as cleaning the house has enjoyed at least a brief moment of satisfaction while surveying a job well done. Our ingenuity has given us more food than we need. Our education gives us all of the knowledge we need, but our ingenutiy and happiness appear to be lagging. Our economics appear to be directly linked with our happiness, and I'm not the first person to come to this conclusion (see "Gross National Happiness", Ross McDonald, U of Auckland). As we become more advanced, we evidently fall victim to our idle hands. We aren't keeping ourselves busy enough.

The answer? Go create something. Go build something. Start a business. Start a garden. Do something.

In Pursuit of Self Sufficiency

2009-11-30T22:32:00.005-05:00

The wood stove is evidently the first step toward a long path of addiction.

Already I am considering how I might be able to swing the purchase of some solar panels next year. And this weekend I made a first step toward a viable energy management system, which simultaneously achieves a goal I set for my little startup, Rube Energy Systems, LLC. Keep watch around Q3 of 2010 for a publication under that company name.

I am learning the value of insulation. The baffles I installed in our attic around the whole-house fan and the attic ladder have made a tremendous difference on the drafts in the upstairs. This evening it is a brisk 33 degrees Farenheit outside. Yet the garage - which has better insulation than the house - is quite comfortable. The walls are R-19, the ceiling is R-30, and the doors are R-10. As an experiment I took our portable kerosene heater out to the garage and fired it up for about 10 minutes. It brought the temperature noticeably upward before I turned it off. Two hours passed before I returned and it was still "cozy" out there. I am so glad I took the time to plan ahead for insulation when I built that thing. At only 576 ft^2 with good insulation and the hefty thermal mass of a 4" concrete slab, the garage is quite heat efficient.

I really want to tear open our house and turn it into a seamless heat envelope, but I haven't dared disrupt our internal living area. I dread the thought of tearing out acres of lath and plaster and blown-in cellulose insulation, but the thought of achieving the thermal envelope of the garage is really tempting. Our house could be so efficient if only I could harness the heat that invisibly escapes from our walls. This past winter I rented a thermal camera and found this:

If you can't tell, on the left is a window with some window coverings, and on the far wall is another window. There is a conspicuous cold streak originating at the top of the window on the left and extending all the way across the ceiling of our living room. I never knew that was there, but quickly deduced that the previous owner - in his haste to install lights and a ceiling fan on the front porch - drilled a hole in the wall for wiring and never insulated it. The hole in that wall is located just above the tongue and groove pine ceiling of our front porch, and allows heat to escape all winter. In October of 2009 I finally cut an access panel to the attic area of the front porch and sealed the holes in the wall with expandable foam. It has made the living room less drafty, and the floor of the bedroom above it much less cold.

With the thermal camera I discovered many imperfections in the heat envelope of the house. Not all of them were as drastic as what is shown above, but it is overwhelming to think of what would be required to fix all of it. The best solution I can imagine at this point is a domino effect of two projects: to simultaneously replace the siding and improve the insulating barrier on the house. We have the original cedar shake shingles, and I'd like to replace them with Hardiplank like what I installed on the garage. In the midst of that process, I envision that I could wrap the entire house in a continuous 1/2" foam wrap which would add about ~R-3 to the walls while simultaneously plugging all of the little holes that allow heat to escape. The addition of R-3 is not terribly significant, but the reduction of drafts and sealing of holes would be considerable. I can only imagine how this could improve the heating situation. If used in combination with a better way to circulate heat from the wood stove, we might just achieve total heat self sufficiency with wood heat.

There are two supplementary heat systems that I think are quite attractive, and both are solar based heaters. Evacuated tubes like these Sunmaxx units have been used extensively to heat water or ethylene glycol for heat exchanging applications. The evacuated tube panels measure about 5' x 5' and can produce appreciable temperatures even when the ambient temperatures outside are near freezing. This is accomplished by capturing and intensifying radiant sunlight in evacuated tubes that essentially act like mini greenhouses that effectively store heat. Cycling water or ethylene glycol through the evacuated tube heat exchanger produces hot water that can be stored in a hot water tank. The hot water can be used for direct heating or as a hot water source. Personally, I like the idea of using Warmboard in conjunction with solar heating tubes to create a warm floor or wall in the house.

A similar technology does not use water as the heat exchange medium, but instead uses air (see Solarsheat). Similarly shaped (a big squarish box), this black unit cycles air through a series of solar-heated channels and uses a small solar PV panel to force the air back into the living space with a fan. Something like this would be perfect for the south facing wall of my garage, and could conceivably keep the temperatures in the garage above 40 degrees F all year long. Both of these solutions do a better job at using solar energy than solar PV in my state, where the sunlight is barely more than 1/2 of what Arizona or California would receive.

Our little house has a long way to go before it is truly energy efficient, and I am a little overwhelmed when I think about all of the projects I want to do and how little time I have to do them. If only I could devote myself to the full time study of self sufficiency, starting with energy. This is my dream.

Carbon Life Cycle of a Lumberjack

2009-10-18T09:04:00.008-04:00

We finally got our wood stove. Once I have it installed I'll put up a picture of the hearth and stove. Recall that early in this blog I posted pictures of refinishing the brick fireplace in preparation for the stove.

With the stove nearly done, I am now expanding my inventory of man-operated implements to include various lumberjack-ing equipment. Item #1 of great utility: a chainsaw. Item #2 of great utility: a wood splitter. While I am already equipped with an axe and a hefty sledge, I will likely find a good maul and another wedge to supplement the first two items. To offset the energy needs for wood splitting as well as get some exercise, I should split some of it by hand.

And that's the rub. While the chainsaw and splitter are needed in order to harvest huge quantities of wood, it nags me that these are gas powered items. But if I were to harvest every pound of wood for my father and myself by my own manpower, I would probably have to quit my job for the winter and become a full-time unpaid lumberjack. Instead, my hope is that the gas and oil needed for lumberjack days should have greater avoided costs in fossil energy equivalents. Since my father and I will be combining our efforts, we should be able to improve the odds with economy of scale. On a crude carbon life cycle basis, the hope is that all of the gas and oil we put into the chainsaw, splitter, and wood hauling with the truck is an investment that should have a positive ROI with wood heat between our two homes.

In 2008, my records indicate that my house consumed approximately 899 CCF of natural gas, the majority of which was used to heat the house in the cold months. I am curious to see how this changes. In October of 2008 I sucked out all of the old blown-in cellulose in our attic which only amounted to about R-18 of aged, soot-covered, and damp blanketing. I replaced it with two layers fiberglass batts, the first filling the rafters with R-18, the second running perpendicular to the rafters with R-30, making a total of R-48. This summer I built two extruded polystyrene hatch covers to insulate the attic ladder and whole-house attic fan openings. At 2" thick and an R value of roughly 6 per inch and with a double layer on top of each cover, I'm hoping the extra R-24 barrier around those openings will cut down our upstairs drafts. Now, with the wood heat I hope to install a vent on our stair landing that will flow heat from the hot living room to the upstairs, thereby cycling our renewable heat through the whole house. Our walls contain blown-in cellulose which should amount to about R-12, and two years ago we replaced the majority of our windows with new, better insulating and better sealed vinyl replacements. This summer I also tore out the single pane windows in our basement and mortared in newer glass block windows which should make our basement much more air tight. Our house is slowly gaining in energy efficiency.

Using 2007 as a baseline year and contrasting it with 2008, we've achieved a 27% reduction in spending on gas and a 17% reduction in spending on electricity. With less reliance on the furnace this year, I hope to cut that back even more. However, the effects of weather cannot be ignored; a mild summer reduces cooling costs and a mild winter reduces heating costs, so some of the savings are an artifact of this relationship and I haven't separated that out for you. It has already been a cold October and we've had the heat going. I do not yet have enough data to do a true BTU or kWh vs. temperature analysis, but it is nearing statistical significance as the months pass.

To get an idea of how much fossil fuel is invested in just gasoline to obtain enough firewood to last two houses through the winter with nearly 100% wood heat, this is a rough breakdown:

1. Truck - 3.5 gallons of gas round trip per day in my V-6 Silverado, including driving north to Dad's house and back, lumbering around the land, towing the splitter, and hauling wood home

2. Chainsaws - 1 gallon of gas per saw per day of lumberjack activity

3. wood splitter - 2 gallons of gas per day of activity

I am so far ignoring oil. With the truck, two saws, a splitter, and about 2.5 lumberjack-ing days per year to harvest enough wood to heat both houses for the winter, we're looking at 18.75 gallons of gas. My dad's house has an old oil-burning furnace which he rarely uses anymore, and our house has a newish gas furnace. For my father's house, he needs a rough volume of about 900 ft^3 of split and stacked firewood to get through a typical Ohio winter. Assuming 128 ft^3 per cord of wood, that's a little over 7 cords, or about 2400 lb of wood per cord and 6400 BTU/lb. (see ORNL ref) I'll probably need a little less than that for my own house since it is smaller with slightly better insulation, and our new stove is oversized for us, so I'll assume 70% of Dad's needs.

Using data from places like EIA, Fueleconomy.gov, and Carbonify, one can find some generic life cycle data for various fuels. These numbers aren't perfect, but I wanted to get an order of magnitude on our life cycle. Here's what I found... the following numbers are pounds of CO2 emitted during combustion of each of the following fuel quantities:

per gallon of gasoline = 20

per CCF of natural gas = 0.12

per gallon of fuel oil = 22.29

Ignoring the refining CO2 for oil used to lubricate this equipment and the coal CO2 to provide the electricity to power our forced-air heating systems, here's how the numbers work out on a fuel-only basis:

Total CO2 emitted with our gasoline: 375 lbs

CO2 avoided from my furnace: 108 lbs

CO2 avoided from Dad's furnace: 2,229 lbs

On a per person carbon life cycle basis, I'm a net negative and Dad is winning. Since we only harvest trees that have fallen on their own, we're assuming the wood is net carbon neutral. If we split our emissions between us, we're both responsible for about 187.5 lbs of CO2 emissions. I only get about 60% of the carbon back by burning wood for my share, but Dad gets 11.9 times the payback because he is avoiding the use of fuel oil. If you lump us together as a single emitting entity, we avoid 6.2 times more CO2 than what we invested.

If we both had natural gas furnaces, I can crudely estimate that scenario by using the ratio of square footage of our homes and multiply my own natural gas use by that factor to determine Dad's theoretical gas usage. The carbon ROI for him wold be break even if I do that, but mine would still be net negative.

So for homes that use natural gas heat, wood heating is evidently a net carbon negative assuming those homes use chainsaws, trucks, and wood splitters to harvest the wood. Right now, the only ways I can see to improve this are to use more fuel efficient tools, supplement with sweat whenever possible, and get more wood out of a day's work in whatever ways possible. The overall message: split more wood with less fuel.

As long as Dad has that fuel-oil furnace in his basement, we're combining forces to avoid using that dinosaur, but sooner or later Dad might have a different house with a gas furnace. In the meantime, I am still pleased to have a wood stove because of three factors that aren't calculated here. First, if the power goes out, I can still heat my house, so there is value in the fact that I will have some level of self sufficiency. Second, the comfort level with wood heat is much greater than forced air heat - since much of our time is spent near our living room we should be quite comfortable. And third, though my financial ROI isn't instantaneous, with the tax credit, the money I saved by doing much of the labor myself, and significantly reduced gas bills, I would expect that I should get a financial ROI in about 3 heating seasons.

But what about energy? Based on the numbers above, Dad and I burn about 2.1 MBTU (million British thermal units) in gasoline, but our total wood harvest is about 7 + 5 cords, which corresponds to 184 MBTU of biomass energy including about 20% water content by weight. On an energy basis, we get a whopping 84 times back on our fuel energy investment. But it depends how you look at it - it also means that we consume disproportionately more biomass energy to achieve similar or better comfort than what we achieve with fossil energy.

Action items:

1. In the coming year, come up with ways to split large quantities of firewood without gasoline.

2. In the meantime, practice splitting wood by hand :)

3. Further improve the heat envelope and efficiency of the house

4. Research more energy systems

The simplified life cycle calculation performed here is less relevant to greenhouse gas than it is to energy balance. Most homes depend on natural gas and electricity from a faceless energy supply, and these energy consumers - as individuals - are subject to the whim of the masses as prices swing with demand. From a conscious consumer perspective, that isn't a comfortable place to be. Self-production of energy is attractive because it puts us in touch with the energy we consume. It provides us with awareness about the effect of our consumption and productivity on the surrounding world, and gives us more control over how and when we use energy. As my Dad says, "Wood heats you three times. First when you cut it, then when you stack it, and finally when you burn it." The physical experience of making your own energy is a better teacher than any book, blog, or TV show. Thinking and talking about how to offset our energy footprint is good practice, but the symbiotic combination of many things we DO will ultimately determine our proficiency.

The calculations above show that there is more to the carbon picture than just carbon - it is energy too. The energy balance of heating our homes with wood has pros and cons. It is good in that a little bit of work can give us a lot of carbon neutral energy. But there is a con: we just set it on fire in open air to extract the heat which is fairly inefficient; anything short of installing a wood gasifier won't help improve that picture. In addition, there is enough wooded land between my father and I to provide us with many naturally-fallen trees to harvest, but not all residents have access to this kind of fuel. On an acres/per person basis, there isn't a realistic way to provide every home with wood heat. The moral of the story: improve, improve, improve. No single energy source is the path to renewable energy independence. We will have to use many technologies and practices to get us to true energy independence.

The Metcalfe Economy

2009-09-21T08:41:00.008-04:00

Some time ago we cautiously declared ourselves to be in the Information Age. It is somewhat dubious to declare something so definitive about the present, because future events will determine if that label is accurate. But perhaps we are in the twilight of the Information Age, as we now see that we can network anything, make anything "smart", and add wireless to whatever we want.

I propose that we are now on the verge of something different than the Information Age, but related. I'll call it The Metcalfe Economy.

Robert Metcalfe is an electrical engineer, an MIT B.S. EE graduate, and one of the earliest web tinkerers (see Advanced Research Projects Agency - ARPAnet). He did some of his best work as an Xerox PARC researcher (big private lab), and he acquired his Harvard Ph.D. in computer science. Perhaps Metcalfe is best known for his co-invention of "Ethernet". Metcalfe founded 3Com from his Ethernet work, but eventually left the company that he founded and is now a venture capitalist.

In 1993, writer George Gilder proposed that Metcalfe's work has resulted in a qualitative law about the value of of a network. The words "value" and "network" can have an MBA-ish context here - value meaning something more like potential for opportunity. In 1993, Gilder coined "Metcalfe's Law" and explained that the number of unique connections in a network are proportional to the square of the number of users. Explicitly, Metcalfe expressed the law as the number of connections N is proportional to the number of users n by:

N = n(n-1)/2

Expanding that equation shows that N ~ n^2. Metcalfe was talking about networked computers connected by Ethernet; Gilder was expounding on that law to address other networks - including the MBA-ish network - where ethernet wires are replaced by emails and exchanged business cards. It also mimics the business plans of many retailers and service providers. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Verizon, AT&T... all of them rely on a large network of users who help them capitalize on The Long Tail.

I am finally getting to my point: The Metcalfe Economy is different than The Information Age in that The Information Age technology is now ubiquitous, and we have acquired familiarity with the concept of a network.

The Dawn of the Information Age was a unique point in human history where technology had a direct impact on the way we interact with one another. But now, as our networked hardware becomes more common and therefore more subtle, we take it for granted and accept the Metcalfe Law as a standard business model. Communications technology is now secondary to the culture it created. Our Information Age has led us to a new way of looking at value, and we now enter The Metcalfe Economy.

You likely have experienced The Metcalfe Economy firsthand. Look at your cell phone. I am willing to bet that you paid much less than what it should sell for in the retail market. The reason why you paid much less is because you are paying for it in another way - you've signed up for a contract with your phone service provider, you pay monthly fees for access to that network, and you've signed up for premium services like data and text messaging and possibly web browsing. The capital cost of all of the components of a broadband or cell phone infrastructure is hidden from you, but you and the rest of the network are paying for it indirectly. The cell phone towers, the satellites in orbit, the new phones introduced every month, the new batteries powering those phones.... all of these things represent billions of dollars invested in infrastructure. The provider wants you to not only subscribe to their service, but to pay for all the premium services too, because the value of that service goes up by the square: it's not one-for-one.

The Metcalfe Economy is an economy where businesses create exponential markets via networked communications that allow them to capture fees assigned to user-user interactions. Business is not a function of one person handing money to the business owner anymore. In the old way of doing business, 10 customers meant 10 potential transactions. In the Metcalfe Economy, 10 customers implies 45 potential transactions. The more customers, the better, because revenue goes up by n(n-1)/2.

This concept is not unique to e-business and telecommunications. Consider the recent economic burp that left a bad taste in the mouths of so many consumers. Lenders had spread their value over large networks that contained many users who funded their lifestyle with credit. The transactions in the credit network provided a Metcalfe-like revenue stream, but when users stopped talking to one another (no one was buying), the whole thing fell apart. Metcalfe's Law only works if users are particpating.

The dot com bubble burst, but the soapy residue is all over the rest of the markets. Welcome to the Metcalfe Economy.

Continuing the Civilization Sustainability Theme

2009-09-13T11:03:00.005-04:00

Right now I'm in the middle of a book by UCLA professor Jared Diamon d titled "Collapse" which presents another view on what I've been talking about in previous posts: civilizations, the sustainability of those civilizations, and the factors determining the success or failure of those civilizations. (See Jared Diamond's presentation on the topic at TED).

He analyzes Greenland societies established by Viking and Norse explorers as a case study. The Greenland case is particularly interesting because the extreme conditions of the Greenland environment put tight boundaries on a low tech society. The dominant variables affecting the early Greenland success or failure could almost be counted on one's fingers, and changes in any of them greatly influence the outcome. The climate is first. Short summers (and conversely long winters) imply short growing seasons, make the summertime precious. A short growing season, a cool summer, or a bad crop year could have significant consequences on the long term survivability of the community. Also, since the communities depended on seal meat and caribou, a significant drop in these food sources would also have dramatic effects on the societal sustainability.

There are societal preferences that may have also limited the early Greenland societies in their success. Evidently, they didn't eat as much fish as they did seal, caribou, or even beef. Even though there was plentiful fish, the archaeological study of their waste piles found everything but fish bones. Speculations about the reason why include possible cases of food poisoning that perhaps made them avoid fish altogether, or perhaps instead they held biases against their Norwegian heritage and separated themselves with diets more common in central Europe. By hesitating to eat fish, they limited their diet and further placed dependence on other food sources, making it difficult for them to adapt and survive in the event of a food crisis.

Over-farming and deforestation in civilizations such as these are tangible problems because the effect is direct and evident in the short term. If good soil is exploited and over-used in a small society entirely dependent on agriculture, the needed nutrients and minerals to support a good crop are never fully replenished and the crops yield less and less with each passing year. Deforestation is very evident in extreme climates where the trees cannot grow back fast enough to supply the needs of the population growth. In the Greenland case, wood was so valuable as a building material that the Greenland communities were hesitant to use it as fuel for fire, instead relying on manure or grasses (thus cannibalizing their fertilizer and food for their livestock). In the extreme Greenland climate, all of these environmental factors formed intertwining threads of the web of the local ecosystem, but one shift in any single ecothread caused shifts of similar magnitude elsewhere. The demise of the early Greenland colonies was therefore not the consequence of a single event; Diamond emphasizes that simply saying "it got too cold and they died" is incorrect - it was actually a domino effect that felled the early Greenland society. Because of their failure to adapt and diversify their major food and energy supplies, the early Greenland societies failed when they could have survived by simply adapting. Case in point: the Inuit, living on the same continent in more northern (and more harsh conditions) adapted well and survived when the southern Greenlanders did not.

Another good point: conflict of interest between the short term goals of the elite and the long term goals of the society as a whole will affect the survivability of the society. In the Greenland case, the upper class clergy expected to eat beef, and cattle caused a significant drain on the land resources. The cattle ate hay and lived inside the houses with the peasants during the winter. The lower class raised the beef, but their diet was mostly fortified by seal meat. As the upper class demanded beef, each year was a net loss on the Greenland resources as the cows relied on the hay harvest, which was affected by climate. The end result was that when starvation set in, those that owned cattle ate most of their cows, then their dogs, then they foraged for birds and rabbits, and then they ended up starving and freezing in their huts because they had nothing to get them through the winter.

The final message is that there is a choice for a society to recognize the effect it is having on its surrounding environment. Set the modern cliches of climate change and energy security aside, and consider the general problem. Finite resources and a growing population are two things that just can't be expected to coexist in a fixed environment in a sustainable way. It has to end and must end somehow, and it can either end in a gentle shift caused by our own will to intelligently adapt, or it will end in a rather less elegant way as we push blindly forward with no regard for the long term.

By 2050 the global census studies are estimating the global population to reach 9 billion and the expectation is that today's underdeveloped countries will have reached some level of industrialization and modernized life. It is difficult to determine what critical population threshold determines collapse. All of the demands on food, energy, and water can only be sustainable if the rate at which is consumed is less than the rate at which it is replenished. We float quietly and silently in the coldness of space, 93 million miles from our sun, all alone, with nothing to support us but the soil, water, atmosphere, and sunlight that reaches us from our star. In the far future, archaeologists (alien or human) will either be wondering how we could be so stupid as to farm, drill, mine, drink, or otherwise consume ourselves into extinction, or they will be marveling at how we were able to capitalize on what we had to become the advanced civilization we can be. Diamond asks this about the now extinct Easter Island civilization: "what were they thinking as they chopped down the last tree?". It was likely that the logger was simply thinking "I really need this tree".

With Instant Access to Information, are We Smarter or More Stupid?

2009-09-02T16:04:00.003-04:00

I just read a Business Weekly article titled "How Science Can Create Millions of New Jobs" by Adrian Slywotzky. The article points out some great inventions: fax machines, photovoltaics, the transistor, UNIX, and cellular communications. All of these inventions came from one commercial lab: Bell Labs. Not a university, not a federal lab... a commercial lab.

Where are the commercial labs today? They're dead because they're not profitable. Just look at the obituary: Bell Labs, RCA, and Xerox PARC to name a few. These names carried real weight and had real value. They represented smart work, new knowledge, and invention. If a person announced that he or she worked for RCA, it would draw bystanders into the conversation. These labs produced impressive technical papers and were responsible for much of US economic growth through the 20th century. During the big commercial lab era, it was not uncommon for big lab employees to win Nobel Prizes. What happened?

Unfortunately, the perpetual deconstruction of business down to smaller and smaller bitesize pieces has dissipated knowledge to similarly sized bitesize pieces. Individuals are so separated from the big picture that they couldn't tell you what the company does or why they are doing what they are doing. A conversation with any person at a generic call center for any company will provide enough evidence to support that claim. Business operations appear disconnected and ambiguous. This disconnect also seems to promote antipathy among the workforce. Approach a customer service representative with a problem, and the look on their face is decidedly apathetic.

The profitability argument is true because we accept it. It doesn't pay nearly as well to be a technical person as it does to be a manager. It isn't immediately profitable for a company to invest in fundamental research when money can be made today with the technology already invented. With a only a 3-5 year vision, dreams can only stretch so big.

This is the clash of the economist and the scientist. Economists will handily prove that big and spendy federal crash projects are overpaying for results. Crash projects are financially inefficient and market solutions can often drive for more immediate results quickly and with less net investment. This appears to be true in the short term, but what about the long term? Are there market solutions for the long term? Perhaps the only way to dream big is to spend big and keep working until the winnings are big.

This is the key to big ideas in scientific research, and though the concept is dumb nuts simple it is surprisingly difficult to spell it out. A person might ask "Why should we spend money on that? What will we get out of it?" The scientist struggles to spit out this reply: "We research the unknown because we don't know it, so we can't tell you what we're going to learn and therefore we can't assign it a dollar value, but we know that when we know it, we'll know how much it is worth and what we can do with it." And the reply: "Why?" At that moment, the scientist throws up his hands and walks away exasperated. The perfect job for the technical idealist would have unlimited funding with no expecations for results, other than an occassoinal report. That would be great, but in the current business model it is impossible. Today, when asked "why?" Kennedy's infamous answer "...because it is hard" just won't fly.

Perhaps I've spent too much time as a contract researcher. I can't do a damn thing without acknowledging my deliverables and having a backup business case in my pocket. I've been tainted... I used to dream big. I used to crave Moonshot projects that would enable Mankind to strive to answer the ultimate questions, and sometime in the past few years I shifted my acceptance standards for what is "practical". Perhaps I need to do some re-evaluation and reconsider my purpose as a scientist. If I'm too stuck on what is practical, I'm just like everybody else.

As I often do, I am speaking to all engineers, scientists, and technical people directly: dream big. Don't listen to the rest of them. It's up to you to save us.

Lego blocks to build civilizations

2009-08-07T14:21:00.007-04:00

Suppose you wish to build a nation. What do you need?
- People
- Water
- Food
- Shelter

Suppose you wish to build an advanced civilization. What do you need? You likely need the above items plus:
- raw materials
- energy

This planet is a lucky coincidence of geologic miracles and just-right proximity to a stable star. It has a reasonable climate, a good supply of most raw materials, enough resources to build shelter, ample land for support of farming and food, a substantial fresh water supply, and it also has generous oil, natural gas, and coal pockets in its outer crust.

Let's perform an experiment. Suppose you buy an Chia Pet Civilization kit. You set up your little kit and add the provisions for water, food, shelter, raw materials, and energy. Then you add the people. You watch them build huts, tools, and provisions for food. They war amongst tribes, then have bigger wars amongst land regions. They explore their boundaries, have some more wars, expand, and grow. Within a few days or weeks you have a mini industrialized society humming away and you can watch them with a microscope.

Let's also assume that this little ant farm civilization develops much as modern nations have - it adopts governance, builds infrastructure, builds tools and machines, finds energy sources, disseminates information and knowledge, and somehow manages not to expire in a puff of nuclear fire.

What would happen if you turned off the water? How long before total anarchy ensues? I'd bet no more than 2-3 days (more like minutes for your accelerated Chia Pet Civilization). Without water, much of the energy infrastructure would lose cooling capacity and require shutdown. Crops would whither. Lack of waste management would make populated areas stinky. And most importantly, people would get thirsty. How long could most people go without drinking water? How many days before people start knocking on your door asking if you have water? How long until they raid the grocery store? How long before somebody steals that stash of Evian you've got in your fridge?

Okay, so let's leave the Chia Pet Civilization alone and stop messing with it. Give them the water they need. For that matter, leave the food alone, too. Without food, the Chia Pet Civilization would probably experience similar crisis, but it might take a bit longer before your civilization starts to disintegrate.

Let's reflect for a moment. Some years ago I read Niven and Pournelle's 1977 science fiction book "Lucifer's Hammer", from which I think the super lame and scientifically flawed movies "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" scripts were inspired. In "Lucifer's Hammer", a comet hits the ocean and causes immediate tsunamis, flooding, rain, earthquakes, and general chaos.

Not that I'm proposing to throw comets at the litte Chia Pet Civilization, but the effect of this event would certainly be significant. In the book, the insanity doesn't unfold immediately, but with major infrastructure, food, and water supplies disrupted the entire world falls into lawlessness in about 72 hours. Some portions of the book seem a bit dramatic, but then again who really knows how bad it could get? Nightly news doesn't give me much hope. Perhaps Larry and Jerry were correct in their depiction of mankind's fragility.

Water, food, and shelter (in that order) are most critical. Energy and raw materials have implications over a longer time frame. Let's go back to the Chia Pet Civilization kit and see how our folks are doing...

Holy crap, they've reproduced and they're all over the place like gnats. They're going crazy in there! Somebody hand me a fly swatter.

We've forgotten that all of these supplies, while ample, can only support a threshold of population. This little article started with a list of ingredients, and El Numero Uno was "people". As R. Buckminster Fuller put it in his "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth", we are flying through space with a limited supply for the crew. Would it be wise for us to burden the crew of the ship and its life support systems with too many babies too fast? On our current path of exponential growth, how long do we have before the root cause of the problem becomes obvious? Our spaceship's life support systems, fuel supplies, and garden habitats can only support so many passengers.

Presuming we can avoid a major setback in food and water for the time being, it is energy that is the immediate critical need of our civilization over the next 2-3 generations, and shortly after that, it will be raw materials. But the long term issue is population. Wars are an unlikely sustainable way to self-regulate. How long before we take proactive measures and then finally transfer crew from Spaceship Earth to a newer, fully stocked ship? Probably not in my lifetime.

While most of mankind would be happy not to worry about these things, there are a handful who might wish to do something about it. There are a few who hope to be effective before their casket is cast out to space while the rest of the crew looks on (and someone mournfully blows Taps from a trumpet). If you look really close in your Chia Pet Civilization, you might see a few of them. They're the ones looking up at you.

Is there an "energy bubble"?

2009-07-17T14:28:00.003-04:00

If the current market is any indication, the number of energy startups will likely steadily increase until the rate of business creation peaks and begins to decline years from now, perhaps just like the dot-com or housing bubbles that many have witnessed over the past decade. The term "bubble" might not be appropriate because the decline may be slow rather than rapid.

The dot-com and housing bubbles burst because of inflationary mechanisms. Not a literal cash devaluation, $6,000-for-a-loaf-of-bread kind of inflation, but credit inflation. Inflation of value. Speculative inflation. The new energy market is young, so new businesses have a lot of potential of value. There is plenty of room in the market to substantiate the advertised value of new energy and "green" related companies. Even the companies that don't have much value have a lot of potential for value, so they may likely hang around as long as their founders and managers have the gumption for it. If they are not currently valuable, maybe they will grow to become genuinely valuable.

Many of the dot-com cash transfer near the bubble bursting moment occured because companies existed by reputation or appearance of value only. As the market grew, the dominant players consumed the smaller ones through buyouts and takeovers. Some business owners might have been running in the red, but made good money when they received a substantial buyout. They were bought out not because they were profitable, but because they were poorly run and getting in the way of market share for the stronger companies.

What is the fate of this market? The dot-com bubble burst, but it left behind a real infrastructure. The housing bubble burst, but it is leaving different breed of real estate investors in its wake - people who can make money in a depressed market. Perhaps the real change doesn't occur until after the bubble bursts, because that's when the strong are still standing. Amazon.com made it rich and stayed rich. Yahoo became a Fortune 500 company. After the bubble burst, the mature markets could look upon the young market and say: "Now, my son, you have become a man."

This entry is being written the day after Walmart released a statement saying that they would start putting sustainability disclosures on product packaging. Clarification: Walmart won't be putting these labels on anything - they'll ask anyone who is selling something in their store to do it. In the same way that food has a disclosure of calories, fat content, % of daily vitamins, and other information, product packaging may disclose the life cycle footprint data of the product and its packaging.

The FDA regulates food data on the food label. Who will regulate life cycle sustainability data on product packaging? Walmart is talking about the creation of a global life cycle database. Will this information be public? How far will it extend? The questions that Walmart is currently asking suppliers include:
- Have you set publicly available greenhouse gas reduction targets? If so, what are those targets?
- Have you set publicly available solid waste reduction targets? If yes, what are those targets?
- Have you obtained 3rd party certifications for any of the products that you sell to Walmart?
- Do you invest in community development activities in the markets you source from and/or operate within?

There are 15 total questions that Walmart asks on their survey. This is the beginning of a multi-phase project to eventually include a sustainability index for all products they sell. First, they will assess their suppliers, then create a life cycle analysis database, and finally create simple tools for customers (like the FDA food label). If Walmart pushes this through, there will be other stores that ask for this as well. There will be a need for 3rd party certifications of these claims against accepted practices, similar to the way that the FDA and SEC mandate food quality and company filings, respectively. There will be a need for standards that outline life cycle evaluations and guidelines that identify the best practices for computation of carbon footprint and materials usage. While these things are all necessary and good, it is in the details of these practices where the potential for inflationary claims will increase. If a carbon trading scheme is riding on top of this sustainability index, the new energy and sustainabilty market will become another market based on credit, and will therefore have the same risks as any other credit-based market.

Dollars were once based on actual gold. Mortgage-backed securities were once based on actual mortgages. There will be a day when we can say "carbon credits were once based on actual carbon." But this is to be expected. For some reason, gold, silver and platinum are considered valuable metals even though at one point they were just shiny features in rocks. The only reason these metals have value is because somebody said they did and everyone agreed. The same goes for dollars. Somebody once said "This represents gold!" and all were agreeable. As the masses sway from value fad to value fad, there will be new measures of importance and new currencies to trade. Perhaps the future meaning of value will be something much different, and if a person from this era were magically transported to the future, he or she might have a lot of diffculty understanding the future value definition.

Energy Project Financials

2009-07-09T14:58:00.006-04:00

Starting an energy project is expensive. Here are some stats.

Coal costs about $100/ton for the good, dry, high BTU sort. This is the good stuff with a higher heating value (HHV - there is that term again) of 11,666 BTU/lb. For reference, "Montana Rosebud" coal sells on the wholesale market for about $0.75/million BTU. This means coal is about $0.008/lb, or less than a penny. Coal is dirt cheap.

Older coal plants are about 25% efficient, but new designs may realistically achieve closer to 40% efficiency. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) estimates that newer pulverized coal plants will cost about $1550/kW to build. This means an example 500 MW pulverized coal plant would cost about $775 million. If the plant is equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS), that cost grows to about $2,895/kW, nearly twice what it might cost to build an equivalent coal plant without CCS. [see NETL publication Pulverized Bituminous Coal Plants with and without Carbon Capture and Storage by Klara, et al.]. The great assumption with CCS is that this coal plant will have near zero emissions at an additional up front carbon mitigation cost of about $1345/kW.

Wind energy, on the other hand, has been stated to cost between $1000-$1500/kW when taking advantage of economies of scale. A 1.5MW turbine might cost about $1.5M or so when it is installed and ready to run, but these bargains are not realized unless the wind farm is >20 MW or so. A 100 MW plant might cost $100-$150M. That's darn near $1/watt installed. For comparison, a residential wind generator like the little 0.5 kW Sprite or a Sunforce 400W turbine might approach $1.50/W, but this doesn't include batteries or inverters. For larger scale residential wind, the Skystream 2.4 kW unit is about $6,300, or about $2.62/W (based on peak rating). The Windterra Eco 1200 is about $10/W. Keep your eye on the Carter Wind Eagle over the coming years to see possible drops in pricing.

Solar panels on a residential rooftop might cost about $7/watt installed. On a larger scale, solar photovoltaic panels may be slightly cheaper at <$5000/kW. Large scale deployment of solar is capable of reaching $1/watt for the PV panels themselves, as First Solar recently demonstrated. This does not include the labor, inverters, and supporting infrastructure to make these grid ready.

The Infinia Solar System (ISS) is a concentrating solar power (CSP) system that boasts 24% efficiency from sun to AC power. It costs about $6.50-$7.00/watt when more than a megawatt is built at one time. Their units are modular at about 3 kW each. They use a mirrored parabolic reflector to focus solar heat on the base of a Stirling engine, and their heliostat controller keeps the system aimed at the sun throughout the day.

In summary, the high side estimates of upfront capital costs for each energy source in $/kW is as follows:

Stirling Engine CSP: 7,000
Solar PV: 5,000
Coal with CCS: 2,895
Wind: 1,500

Each of these systems requires a carbon investment. Even wind, solar, and CSP systems have a carbon investment to build them. The total carbon life cycle cost of these systems is expected to be less than the coal plant because the coal plant continues to use carbon-based fuel throughout its life cycle, so this is a fuel cost that the other systems do not have. However, the coal plant still makes carbon, it just hides it underground. It is a tradeoff - the newer energy systems force you to spend money up front to save it later, while the coal plant lets you spend money more slowly. It's kind of like a credit card - buy now and save, but pay it back later. In this way, is carbon stored underground like a debt waiting to be paid off?

The Federal Biomass Burning Stove Tax Credit is Finalized

2009-07-05T22:10:00.003-04:00

Scientists and engineers across the world struggle with explaining the details of things to those who don't understand them. Policy turns into a word game somewhere between the laboratory technician and the House or Senate committee drafting the next bill.

Somehow, the difference between lower heating value (LHV) and higher heating value (HHV) made it to legislation for the 30% federal tax credit for qualified biomass burning stoves. I wish I could have heard the discussions which debated about the differences between LHV and HHV and eligibility for the tax credit.

The difference between LHV and HHV ratings brought the entire wood stove (non-pellet) market into qualification for the tax credit. Originally, it appeared that only pellet stoves would qualify for the non-specific 75% efficiency requirement. If the 75% efficiency rating would have been measured by HHV, most wood stoves would have had trouble competing with pellet stoves. Pellet stoves use manufactured fuel pellets that are inherently dry. Since the pellet fuel doesn't contain much water, the combustion efficiency is fairly high regardless of the HHV or LHV efficiency measurement. There isn't much water to degrade efficiency during combustion for pellet fuel, so the LHV distinction isn't relevant.

The distinction between LHV and HHV is important for a wood stove, however. A wood stove is designed to burn wood - any wood that a lumberjack or homeowner cuts, chops, and splits. That wood can be wet or dry, green or aged, pine or oak, and variable in other qualities. It will contain varying amounts of water that will inevitably flash into steam during burning. The energy required to boil off the water during combustion degrades the efficiency of the combustion process. The heat released during the combustion of the wood biomass is partially consumed while boiling off water, so the heat extracted from the mass of the log is less if the log is wet. This actual efficiency - including the energy to convert water and humidity to steam - is specific to the source and is measured with the higher heating value, or HHV. The efficiency of burning wet wood leads to a lower overall efficiency when measured against the higher heating value.

Since the actual efficiency varies with the type of fuel, it is difficult to compare stoves to one another if only HHV is compared. Wetness varies, so efficiency varies. Wood is a much less controlled fuel than manufactured pellets, and assumptions must be made to determine the HHV efficiency.

The lower heating value, or LHV, removes the water contribution to heat by basing efficiency only on the calorific value of the wood biomass itself. The calorific content of each type of wood will vary so even the LHV can bring up questions, however, the LHV efficiency rating is computed by subtracting the energy required to boil entrapped water in the fuel to steam. Efficiency calculated by the LHV measures fuel that is being burned, not the combustion fuel and water. By measuring stoves against LHV rather than HHV, the efficiency number is higher, and therefore many wood stoves now have efficiency ratings above 75% and therefore qualify for the tax credit.

That being settled, if you were waiting on a tax credit certification document for your stove, you should now be able to get it, assuming it has been certified by an independent third party laboratory that measured efficiency by the LHV and found a number greater than 75%. With the purchase of your stove, you should expect a certificate that has language similar to the following:

"According to The American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (ARRTA) with guidance from IRS Notice 2009-53 the following model of Biomass-Burning Stove is a “Qualified Energy Property” (Wood or Pellet Stove or Insert) as defined in Section 5.01(5), and therefore meets the >75% LHV Efficiency. The data for this certification came from the EPA Methods 28A and 5H testing that was performed on a representative sample by a third party EPA accredited laboratory.

(Model)
(Effective Date)
(Signature of liable stove manufacturer representative)
"

Are Whole Brainers all alone?

2009-06-14T21:55:00.006-04:00

Is the left-brain vs. right-brain distinction true? The 1981 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded for the discovery of the functional specialization of the cerebral hemispheres, i.e., the discovery that the right half of the brain is typically associated with creativity and imagination, while the left side of the brain is typically associated with analytical and logical thought.

The implied presumption is that most people think in a way that is dominated by one side of the brain or the other. Supposedly some humans are perhaps "whole brained" and can operate in both modes. If this theory has any truth, how many communication errors can be attributed to left brainers talking to right brainers or vice versa? How many times does a person say something that - to him or her - sounds perfectly clear and reasonable and the other person is thinking of something that is completely unlike what the speaker is describing, and neither of them has any awareness of the total incompatibility in their ideas? If only a universal translator existed that could embody objective thought and provide a translation between parties in these instances. If only there was a way that somebody could say "No, I meant this," at which point a picture and text could materialize in thin air for instructive purposes. Actually, something like that exists, and it's not PowerPoint. It is the whole brainer.

With a little effort, the whole brainer can think both ways. This incompatibility between left brainers and right brainers is likely the source of many problems in communication. When one person is arrogant because he or she thinks that their understanding of an issue is somehow more "correct" than what others might be thinking, their logic is flawed. The same is true for a person who thinks that he or she is "wrong" and is feeling badly for it. It is impossible for Person 1 to be more "correct" than Person 2 when Person 2 is thinking of things that have likely never occurred to Person 1, simply because Person 1 is incapable of thinking that way. Yet what happens when Person 3 comes along who is capable of thinking like both Person 1 and Person 2? This person must feel like a total alien, since he or she can relate to everyone, but none of them can understand him or her. The whole brainer is destined to be alone, walking amongst a bunch of left brainers and right brainers who can't seem to talk to each other, trying to make them understand each other.

It might be assumed that the technical fields such as engineering and the sciences are densely populated with left brainers. The literal speaking, literal thinking left brainers of this world are given the responsibility to create new technology for us. These analytical thinkers are often compared in contrast to the creative right brainer. If the left brainers of this world are to create new technology, then at some point they will be in need of a creative spark. Perhaps some of the best inventors have a right brain balance to their thought; a way to conceptualize ideas and then translate them to practical reality. Unfortunately, many left brainers are so stuck in the left brain rut that they regard the creative right brainer like an intrusion or some unacceptable nuisance. The overzealous right brainer sometimes upholds this image by clinging too closely to creative feeling without being able to reproduce it in the minds of others. These two breeds of humans are just too incompatible. The whole brainers must intervene at these times.

It is a shame that they can't get along. The synergistic opportunities that could exist if the left brainers could try out a little right brain thinking, and if the right brainers could see the value in occasionally tasting analytical thought, perhaps they could enjoy the benefits of thinking like one another and creating something together.

If left brainers and right brainers get along, it must be rare. The whole brainer is probably the key. The only catalyst to get the right brainers aligned with the left brainers is to bring in a mediating whole brainer to coordinate them. Poor whole brainers.... the weight of the world rests on them, and they probably feel completely alone.

Epidemiological Threshold for Ideas in Energy

2009-05-19T10:54:00.005-04:00

So I finally read Malcom Gladwell's "Tipping Point", and some ideas in that book that stuck with me. But first, a little background.

Nonlinear dynamics is a topic in mathematics and the sciences that is based on the study of systems using differential equation models that aren't linear. The topic is "new" enough that it doesn't make its way into traditional math or science core courses because there are a lot of things about nonlinear dynamics that just aren't well understood. For a historical overview of the field of nonlinear dynamics, one might be interested in reading "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick. An excellent text book on the subject is "Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos" by Cornell mathematician Steven Strogatz.

If the field of nonlinear dynamics has a "classic" example to provide, it would be a Predator-Prey model. In this model, two equations represent a population of prey and a population of predators. Imagine ten of acres surrounded by a fence containing 100 sheep and two wolves. If the wolves get greedy, they'll eat the sheep faster than they can breed, and eventually eat themselves into starvation. If the rate at which wolves eat the sheep is just right, then the sheep population will sustain the wolves. The model can get progressively more complicated, perhaps by adding in another prey - such as the grass that the sheep eat - or another predator - such as a rival wolf pack. The models get complicated fairly quickly because the changing parameters are linked and interdependent, and little changes in one parameter can sometimes spur drastic changes in events, such as a sudden decimation of the sheep population.

Now, back to Gladwell. Gladwell proposed that ideas rely on three types of people: Mavens, Connectors, and Salespeople. The Mavens are detail-oriented people who know an awful lot about very specific topics. Mavens are possibly the source of many good ideas. The Connectors may encounter Mavens, pick up on the idea, and bring that idea to new people. Maybe Connectors bring Mavens to other Mavens or other Connectors. Eventually, the Connectors will connect the idea to Salespeople, who are very good at conveying this idea quickly to those who may not be interested in the idea at all. Salespeople do a good job of spreading the word.

This qualitative model proposed by Gladwell is his explanation for how ideas spread like a virus. It is an epidemic model.

There is a definitive epidemic model which is not unlike a Predator-Prey model. It was first proposed by Kermack and MacKendrick. It is a set of three coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations which link people who are susceptible to infection, those who are infected, and those who have recovered. Since these populations are all linked, the nonlinearity of the problem reveals some interesting properties, including a threshold by which the infection rate and recovery rate determine whether or not the infection will die early or spread rapidly. The value that determines whether or not the infection will become an epidemic is the epidemiological threshold.

So I've been thinking about these models and I've been wondering what it means for a core of ideas near and dear to my heart: energy. What are the core ideas in energy, and what is the equivalent epidemiological threshold that determines their fate in a socioeconomic model? Since the energy problem is a social problem, perhaps the Maven-Connector-Salesperson model can be translated to a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) model. But this depends on a number of factors. First, it can be difficult to model infection and recovery rates. In the scientific community, perhaps the immune system is already tuned against infection due to the general consensus that skepticism is a virtue. Second, it would be difficult to find the right transfer function, i.e., the appropriate analogies to make the SIR model fit the energy ideas model. Careful consideration would have to be taken here to choose an example idea and consider all of its avenues for infection to others . And third, what about social ineptitude? Regardless of a good idea, the genius is not always capable of conveying this idea to others. I suppose the infection rate would have to allow for a certain translation error or social turn-off factor.

In any case, Gladwell's idea is interesting and worth considering. In an ideal world, I'd like to solve this little problem, work out the numbers, determine which idea is the most effective, and pursue that one whole-heartedly.

You gotta talk in dollars per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh)

2009-05-18T12:44:00.008-04:00

In discussions with coworkers and friends about the energy problem, the costs always come up. There are so many ways to talk about costs and so many ways to paint the picture to make things look expensive or cheap.

I recently read David MacKay's self published book "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" and he emphasizes a point: we can't intelligibly discuss the energy problem without writing real numbers on the board for everyone to see. Not exaggerated numbers, or numbers by analogy, but nuts-and-bolts numbers. Numbers that we can actually use to look at power output, economics, and the almighty $/kWh. Numbers that mean something and numbers that we can rely on.

MacKay is saying what more people should be saying. Unfortunately, MacKay is a physicist (so am I). This puts people like us at a great disadvantage, because we like numbers and we know how to manipulate them, compare them, put them side by side, and make decisions based on their value. We use numbers to analyze problems and we make exhausting efforts to convert lemons to apples and oranges to apples so we can compare everything; apples to apples. However, most people get a filmy, glazed-over look in their eyes when confronted with numbers. The physicist and engineer might perk up, but the average audience member might say "so what?" in mid-yawn.

The energy problem is a social problem, not a technical problem. Because it is a social problem, it is therefore an economic problem, because money is the social equivalent of emotion. We spend money when we are happy, and we hold money close when we are uncertain and uneasy. Another excellent book, "Carbonomics - How to Fix the Climate and Charge it to OPEC", details the economics of the social energy problem and explains how some solutions are useful and others are inherently expensive and self-defeating, just because of the way we exchange money. The cost of energy for the consumer is pennies per kilowatt-hour, but for existing renewable technologies to be cost-competitive, either their costs come down or energy gets more expensive. In the latter scenario, the cost of energy needs to be closer to dollars than pennies per kilowatt-hour. And the only way that anyone can imagine accomplishing that is to tax energy. There are good ways to tax energy and bad ways to do it, and most of the current solutions mean more costs for you in the form of increased rates and tax adjustments (not just the April 15th variety). How this money will be spent - and how you hope it will be spent - really comes down to a question of what you think motivates people. It's an ethical question not unlike Kant vs. Mill.

Big deal - taxes are nothing new, but the energy problem is costing you money no matter what. Since the energy problem is a social problem, your response to it depends on your ethics. If the Cap & Trade solution, for example, offends you ethically, you might clutch your tax dollars tightly and growl "I'm not letting you spend my money that way!". If you like the proposed Cap & Trade solutions, you might be opening up your wallet saying "How much do you need?". Either response assumes that your taxes are a donation and that you have control over their destiny. But you don't.

Here's a hint: your tax dollars aren't yours. By living in a country or state you automatically surrender your tax money to someone else - someone you likely wouldn't trust with your own kids - but you accept that implicitly by establishing residency and paying taxes. What those people do with that money is beyond your control unless you are willing to join the political ranks of lobbyists, regulators, and elected officials who influence those decisions. Your dollars might be funding break-through research at Sandia National Labs, or it might be buying coffee for a lunch meeting in the Pentagon. By the time you see a tax you don't like, it's out of your control and has been that way for quite some time. You can't do anything about it, so stop worrying about it and focus on something more direct.

You still have money that is yours. The way you decide to buy "stuff" greatly determines how the world goes 'round. Twice now, as Steven Stoft showed in "Carbonomics", consumers have crushed the oil price by their own will. They stopped buying gas in the 1970s and depressed the price of oil by depressing demand. The same thing happened in 2008. The consumer unwittingly showed the world that the flow of money starts and stops at the consumer. The consumer has real power, and in the end, it will be the consumer that solves the energy problem.

"Yeah, right," you say. "I'll just stop running my computer or driving. Like that's going to do any good." And if you're saying that, you're right. Just one rogue consumer won't do a damn thing. But many rogue consumers can do a lot. And the only way one becomes many is via those who lead by example.

A discussion with a coworker this morning led to a discussion about early adopters of new energy technologies. Because things like solar panels and wind turbines are inherently expensive and site specific, the early adopters are those who have the financial, geographic, and environmental means to do so. We made the analogy to email. Early on, email was expensive because computers were expensive, and only people who could afford computers could afford email. Personally, I didn't use email until I found out about Juno and Net Zero, which were "free" email services for me that were very accessible. However, Juno wasn't free. Somebody saw a business opportunity for the paid advertisements that came with every Juno subscription, and they made the investment up front so I didn't have to. And kablammo: email hit huge audiences. Because of "free" email for the consumer, that technology reached audiences that wouldn't have "bought in" otherwise. Investors accelerated the early adoption of email.

Consumers buy what appears to be valuable. The word "green" appears to have value these days, but only if it does not command a substantial premium. Though I am sad to admit it, the energy problem will not likely be solved by a substantial technical breakthrough such as fusion or 80% efficient solar panels. Instead, it will be solved by a marketing breakthrough - something that makes you and me start handing out dollars. When the right entrepreneur comes along with the right plan that makes the $/kWh number just right, you and I will pay for it and the problem will solve itself very quickly. In the meantime, we are stuck with heavy-handed methods like tax subsidies and credits to make things cheaper and carbon taxes to make energy more expensive. Hey, don't get me wrong... I'll apply for grants and credits just like the next guy. It's the best we've got right now, but it certainly isn't the best possible solution. The marketing solution will come first, and then the technical solutions will catch up.

In a MIT paper called "Value Chain Dynamics in the Communication Industry", it was noted that Skype slapped the industry sideways when free, voice-over-IP (VoIP) undercut revenues in the telecommunications market because the service providers lost "voice revenue", i.e., charges associated with people talking on the phone. Skype would have been groundbraking if it was socially relevant in 1995 (see VocalTec or VocalChat, the first commercial VoIP software), but the cell phone market grew first by spreading the cost of infrastructure over tens of thousands of subscribers, and as the infrastrucutre grew, technology slowly caught up. And then Skype had overnight success and bypassed that entire network by absorbing phone costs into broadband, which was a cost the consumer was already paying. From the customer perspective, Skype reduced one monthly bill with no change in the others. The telecommunications industry is forever changing and is now at a stage of evolution that is exponentially faster than it was 10-15 years ago.

The renewable energy market faces a similar destiny if it is to grow to the forecasted levels in 2020 and 2030. Many growth projections are conservatively linear, however, if the new energy market reaches a level of innovation like what is seen in telecom. The market solution must come first. In the meantime, the labs and the industry research projects will continue. Sometime down the road when the market and infrastructure is already established, the new technologies will start popping up daily because they will have been quietly gestating from today onward. But we can't count on those.... those are pleasant surprises. We need to focus on the market solution now, and leave the technical folks alone (but don't cut their funding, please).

It is likely that the best near-term solution will come in the form of some distributed rental or lease of energy systems, kind of like what Better Place proposes for electric cars. Better Place spreads the capital cost of the battery over a "subscriber" network that allows users to swap batteries for long range travel. The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is another possible mechanism that is close - but not quite - to the final energy solution. The day that you and I can get renewable power without coming up with $10,000 or applying for a state grant is the day that we won't care about oil or coal anymore. At that point, we'll focus on the next problem: shortage of raw materials... but that's another story.

Being energy independent without breaking the bank or becoming a hobbit

2009-05-02T09:26:00.004-04:00

So there are a few neat things that have come up recently which make almost possible to reach out and touch self-generation of home energy.

As far as I can tell the 30% Federal tax credits will remain through 2010 and are something to consider when looking for ways to gain some control of your energy use. Solar and wind systems will qualify, and one thing I am anxiously awaiting is the certification standards for qualified "biomass" heating stoves.

There is a 30% Tax Credit in effect for these stoves but presently only 75% efficient stoves will qualify. This largely limits the selection to pellet stoves, which is unfortunate because a pellet stove limits your choices to pre-manufactured pellets that you must buy, and you still need an electrical connection for most of them to operate. You can thank the Hearth, Barbecue, and Patio Association (HBPA) for getting this on the books, but they partnered with the Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI) in these efforts so now you can see what influenced this "efficiency standard". Once again, even for renewable energy the special interests aren't necessarily looking for the most technically and economically sound solution for the consumer.

In any case, everyone is waiting for the HBPA and the Fed to hurry up and figure out what standard test method should be used to determine the efficiency rating of these stoves. The standard commonly cited is CSA B415-1.0-2000: "Method for Testing the Performance of Solid-Fuel-Burning Heating Appliances". Many stoves have already been tested by that standard and some wood-burners have met the 75% efficiency rating already. However, until it is officially stated which standard should be used, you should wait and see what stove manufacturers are willing to give you a certificate of independent, third party certification of your stove so that you can put this discount on your IRS forms at the end of the year. The deadline was supposedly April 30, but these policy makers are still bickering. I'm wondering how much the PFI is trying to swing things toward pellets.

In the meantime, depending on your state you may have additional subsidy and/or tax credits to help you meet a decent ROI on your renewable energy projects. The state of Ohio, for example, has a limited amount of funds available offering an additional 30% grant for the installation of solar or wind projects in your home. If you apply now you might get some of that dough before the funds run out. Also there is money from the Stimulus that your state government might be sitting on, waiting to find a good way to spend it for the sole purpose of creating jobs. If you are a solar installer, meet with your state representatives today and make a case for job creation. They are mandated to spend that money immediately, so would you rather they spend it on some fluff program or distributed renewable energy? Make your case.

In my state, we don't get the greatest sun, but if the solar incentives make it cheap enough it might be feasible. One system I really like is this one from Infinia. It's not photovoltaic; it is actually a concentrated solar power (CSP) sytem using a Stirling engine to achieve 24% energy conversion with 220VAC, 60 Hz power output. How cool is that? I think these are designed for commercial applications but I would be jazzed to have one in my back yard.

Since using battery backup or living off grid is likely unrealistic for most people, there are two things you can do to manage any power you may generate at your residence: Time of Use (TOU) metering and Net Metering. Sometimes called Time of Day metering, TOU is a rate structure that gives you cheap power at night and expensive power during the day. Your meter needs to be adapted to differentiate the usage time, but for example, in Ohio between 9 PM and 7 AM the electricity is $0.01/kWh and between 7 AM an 9 PM it is about $0.09/kWh if you sign up for this structure. Your power company can help you do it (for a fee, of course). If you are using Net Metering you only get charged for your "net" usage. If your meter is capable of spinning backwards, your panels produce power and spin the meter in the opposite direction. Later, when you are home and turning on the lights and watching TV, the meter spins the other way (assuming you aren't producing as much sun power at that point). The net number of forward revolutions is what you pay.

It may be beneficial for you to adopt one or both of these metering schemes to best take advantage of your peak power production hours (middle of the day). For most of us, we're not home in the middle of the day and that's when your system is producing the most power. Net Metering is a way to benefit from that power.

No state that I know of has adopted a Feed In Tariff (FIT) rate structure. In Germany, there is a country-wide mandate for utilities to pay citizens to put power on the grid. For this reason, most of our solar panel manufacturers in the US are slammed - they are shipping panels to Germany because the people there are totally incentivized to put power on the grid. We're not quite that progressive here. Oh, and by the way, Germany gets about as much sun per year as Seattle.

Really, though, the thing that we all need to think about if we are going to take the energy problem seriously is energy storage. Distributed energy production is great, but the grid would be more more efficient and easy to manage if its load was flat rather than sinusoidal. This is a shout out to the other brains out there thinking about this problem - it's up to us to fix this, folks. Put your brains to work.

75% Efficient Wood Stove - qualify for new energy credits?

2009-04-09T09:44:00.001-04:00

With the new tax credits for wood and biomass, you may see that you might qualify for a 30% tax credit for buying and installing a wood stove that is 75% or more efficient (measured against lower heating value).

Turns out it is hard to find a wood stove with this kind of certified efficiency. Pellet stoves seem to achieve efficiency>75%, but I do not prefer these stoves because they require electricity to run, thereby making them not so helpful in a power outage. In my mind this defeats the purpose of free heat if you still rely on the power company.

This EPA certified stove list seems to contradict manufacturer claims as well. Many manufacturers claim high efficiency, but this list doesn't contain one dang wood stove with an efficiency higher than 75%.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/re...d.pdf

So, the question is - is there such a thing as a non-catalytic, 75% efficient, wood burning stove that meets the requirements for the tax credit?

According to Lopi: yes. I just found this from Lopi:
http://www.lopistoves.com/taxcredits/

Apparently the limit is 75% efficient but the standard by which that is measured is not yet agreed upon. The Stimulus was pushed through quickly and apparently the manufacturers are still catching up. It will require agreement between IRS, EPA, and Hearth, BBQ, and Patio Association.

The standard cited is CSA B415-1.0-2000 Method for Testing the Performance of Solid-Fuel-Burning Heating Appliances. This is a Canadian standard as far as I can tell and I haven't found a US equivalent.

More info: http://www.hpba.org/index.php?id=294

I almost took the bait on the Woodstock Soapstone website because they are having an awesome sale - about 25% off on all stoves. However, they are a bit sneaky on how they advertise their qualification for the tax credit. It looks like their products qualify, but they don't have certification yet.... nobody does. The Woodstock sale continues until April 30, which just happens to be the day that the standard will be released. This is a clever advertising ploy: make the consumer think that the sale is on for a limited time, then free yourself from obligation once the standard is released.

So far, it seems that pellet stoves are the only biomass burning applicances that have EPA advertised efficiencies higher than 75%. Lopi claims to have wood stoves that burn hotter. The Hearthstone Equinox is advertised to be over 75% as well. We shall see.

Wago Connectors and Push Pins from Ideal - an alternative to wire nuts

2009-03-29T22:03:00.002-04:00

Man, I've been rewiring portions of my house, and not because I'm replacing old knob and tube wires, but because the previous owner already replaced all of the knob and tube wires and did a terrible, messy job. My freshly built garage has been primed and ready for electric power for over 6 months, but I've been sluggish to connect it because the main panel in the house is in need for a total overhaul. I've been slowly redoing circuits to prep for the main event, and I've got a shiny new Square D 220 A panel with a generator switch waiting to take the place of the antiquated 100 A Bryant box. In that new panel will be a hefty 100 A breaker to give life to the garage.

So in the course of consolidating stray wires and creating dedicated junction boxes for each room circuit, I have been struggling with the archaic wire nut method of joining wires. Seriously, this is one stupid way to join wires. I have looked for alternatives without much luck. In this age of new technology, electrical wiring seems about 3 decades too slow. I suppose since a house is meant to be a stationary, vibration-free environment, then twisting wires and securing them with a nut is adequate. Though such a sloppy method would never pass inspection in say, an automotive or aircraft application (right?).

However, recently I stumbled across a new type of connector made by Ideal which is similar to the Wago "Wall Nut" which is evidently a UK product. These tidy little inventions allow for wires to be pushed straight into a single connector thus removing the problem of twisting a whole bundle of work-hardened copper into some fragile piece of plastic with raw and aching fingers. Boo ya, what an invention. These little suckers made short work of my junction boxes today. I must note that I have found two criticisms for these things. First, they can't be reused. Second, the contact point with the wire appears to be in only one (maybe two) sharp pinpoint spots, thus creating a possible weak wire connection. However, given the error-prone wire nut, I think that these are a consistent and reliable alternative that should handily dominate the market in the coming decade. I salute the demise of wire nuts.

Smartly, Ideal markets a push connector in addition to their tubs of wire nuts, so Ideal will still be in the wire-joining market if wire nuts die a slow death. As the wire nut market shrinks and the push connector market grows, Ideal will likely enjoy possession of the same market share.

Repetition

2009-02-25T16:31:00.003-05:00

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
- Albert Einstein

This quote has come up four times in the past two weeks for me. When things like this happen I stop and take note.

A month ago, I kept hearing the words "tipping point" over and over again. It was like every voice I heard was saying "tipping point". TippingpointTippingpointTippingpoint, and then I stumbled upon Malcolm Gladwell's books. I picked up "Outliers" and read it on a plane. Gladwell proposed something interesting in that book (among other things); he claims that a person can master a subject in about 10,000 hours. I am comforted by the idea of mastering a subject in 10,000 hours; mastery by simply enduring. Yes, excellent. Suppose you spend 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for 5 years studying one topic. That amounts to about 10,000 hours. I am running a personal life experiment right now to see if it's true. I've got two or three years to go - maybe I'll report back in a few.

Oh, I still haven't read "Tipping Point" yet.

Price Dependence of Biofuels on the Price of Oil

2009-02-21T10:01:00.002-05:00

Biofuels do nothing to improve security of the liquid fuels supply, nor do they regulate the price of liquid fuels. The path of logic to this conclusion is the following.

Premise: Biofuels comprise a minor market segment.
Premise: Biofuels compete with oil-derived liquid fuels.
Premise: There is high demand for liquid fuels.
Premise: Oil-derived liquid fuels comprise the majority the market size for liquid fuels.
Conclusion: Therefore, oil-derived liquid fuels control the market price.

Given that conclusion, the next step in logic is that biofuels are subject to the same swings in prices as petroleum-derived liquid fuels. If a cellulosic ethanol maker can profitably produce and sell ethanol for $2.50 a gallon, yet the market price for gasoline is $3.00/gal, then that ethanol maker will sell ethanol at $3.00/gal and enjoy the extra cash. It is unlikely that ethanol makers would sell below market value because they are feeling generous.

Therefore, statements like "biofuels increase our energy security" are false. Unless we make a commitment to completely replace petroleum-derived liquid fuels with biofuels, and there is a nationwide regulatory effort to cap ethanol prices, we are still subject to the price of oil. Both of these solutions are likely unacceptable solutions, so we will continue to endure an unpredictable oil market.

This does not mean that continued R&D in biofuels is not warranted. In a future with less reliance on oil (regardless of source), biofuels are likely the best source of liquid fuels. But hoping for biofuels to replace oil today is unrealistic, and it is a disservice to the general public when talking heads imply as much.

Steven Chu - New Secretary of Energy

2008-12-12T14:24:00.002-05:00

There is a real honest to goodness scientist in the upcoming presidential adminsitration, and he is heading up the office of Secretary of Energy. He is a physicist (!?). A Nobel Prize winning physicist, no less (1997).

He's been at Lawrence Berkley as Director for the past 4 years, has an intimate knowledge of climate change models, energy efficient buildings, biomass production, greenhouse gas monitoring, and CO2 life cycle analysis. He won a Nobel Prize in 1997 with Cohen-Tannoudji and Phillips for work he did during the 1980s at Bell labs. His Prize was earned for genuine experimental physics accomplisments - he is a pioneer in "cold physics", and is still a name in the condensed matter physics community today.

Chu has a critical and comprehensive view of the energy problem, as seen here, with an economic approach to solve it.

Chu isn't just a manager with a Ph.D. He's done genuine research, experimental research, and his reputation has put him in positions where he has political influence. He's too smart for the mid level intelligence of the common politician. It will be interesting to see what Chu has in store for the US and the promises of a new "Green Economy". I look forward to it.

Vortech Supercharger V1, V2, V9 on VR6 12v Engine Boost vs. Pulley Dia. at 7000 RPM (or thereabouts)

2008-11-26T09:08:00.007-05:00

About a year ago I promised some folks on VWVortex that I would take their supercharger data and plot it so that anyone building a grassroots supercharger project could map out their plan.
From the survey the overwhelming majority used software from C2 Motorsports, who arrived in the VW VR6 market several years ago with affordable kits. C2 competes directly with VF Engineering in the 12v VR6 supercharger market. C2 has since expanded to turbochargers, pairing up with another recent VR6 market dominator, Kinetic Motorsports. Kinetic makes their own cast iron turbo manifolds and C2 builds the software. This is a forced induction dream team for VR6 owners, as their kits are as close to modular as you can get.
C2 changed everything with their "fueling kits", a nifty modular product that uses a billet aluminum mass air flow (MAF) sensor housing to replace the OEM plastic MAF sensor housing. With a new chip, a new MAF sensor housing, and different injectors, you can choose your favorite forced induction and the C2 software handles the rest.
VF isn't hurt by C2, as they have expanded their market beyond VW to BMW and Porsche, among others. VF also has some expensive and versatile equipment at their disposal, such as coordinate measuring machines and vacuum forming equipment. VF kits have excellent fit and finish, and they rely on GIAC software, an equally reputable name in German aftermarket performance parts.
Anyway, on with the data.
Here is the boost vs. pulley diameter curve for the Vortech V2 charger on the VR6 12v engine. For all intents and purposes, assume 30 lb/hr injectors. Some use 36#, but it seems like anything higher than that isn't always necessary. I'm a bit worried that the reduced resolution from the blog upload will make it hard to read.

Here is the data for the Vortech V9 supercharger on the VR6 12v engine.

And finally, here is the boost pressure (psi) vs. pulley diameter (in.) data for V1, V2, and V9 Vortech superchargers on the 12v VR6 engine.

Enjoy!

Refinishing brick on fireplace, continuation of wood stove project saga

2008-11-09T21:34:00.012-05:00

Late this summer the remnants of Hurricane Ike made their way all the way up to Ohio and created quite a wind storm. It was pretty day, warm and sunny, but at about 4:00 PM (I think it was a Sunday?) the wind picked up and started blowing. There was no rain or clouds but the wind got stronger and stronger and continuously blew for several hours. I was working outside and didn't think much of it until it blew over my sawhorses. At that point I decided to go out front and see what was going on. At about that time, everyone else started coming out of their houses, and that's when trees started falling.

Long story short, our power was knocked out and it stayed that way for a week. It took me several days to walk around the neighborhood and figure out the problem. It was a fallen pole behind an apartment complex that blacked out an isolated set of blocks of which we were a part. All of our food in our fridge spoiled. We are lucky we have gas water and a gas stove, so we could still cook soup and we could take showers. But if it would have been winter, we would have been screwed!

So that's when I got to seriously thinking about a wood stove. I had already been considering it since our house isn't the most airtight structure, and I paid a guy to take some pictures with a thermal camera and I discovered a lot of cold spots. I did some air management in the attic, including putting baffles around the perimeter so I could fill that space with new insulation (we upgraded from R-19 to R-49) and I've been tracking our energy costs since we moved in, so I'd like to see the difference in energy improvements. By the way, I hate working in the attic. Hate it.

To install the wood stove, I had to do some work to the fireplace. Some one got the bad idea to paint the bricks sometime in the past, and in order to make the fireplace non-flammable, I had to strip all of that paint. This blog entry details that process, in addition to the beginning of the hearth project.

The bricks were painted red, and before that, they were painted white. I don't have any before pictures. I started with an "environmentally friendly" citrus chemical stripper that was useless. I then spent the bucks on Peel Away which is supposed to be the bees knees of paint strippers. Here's how it works.

I taped off the hearth area with plastic and then smeared the Peel Away goo all over the brick. Peel Away has a neat idea where you spread on the goo, then cover it with paper and let it sit for a day or two. Ideally you can then "peel away" the paper and take the paint right off. That might be great for a smooth surface, but this brick texture is ridiculous.

Quite a bit of scraping ensued.

Using a scraper got the bulk of the goo off, but then I had to scrub. I got out the drill with a wire brush attachment and went to town. This started flinging painty caustic goo all over the living room, so I made a makeshift goo shield using some plastic, a coat rack, and a nearby lamp.

At this point I was ready to risk hiring a sandblasting contractor to come in and do the job because this was extremely tedious, messy, and tiresome. However after about 10 buckets of water and mineral spirits and lots of scrubbing, the bricks started coming out.

After about a week of that, I could finally take some of the plastic down.

Today I framed out the hearth and began the sandwich of plywood and cement board. This is how it looks at the moment, with the hearth laid down for a temporary test fit. The bench is roughly the size of the would-be wood stove.

There is still quite a bit to do. I will have to reinforce the floor underneath the living room by adding some studs in the basement. The stove will weigh anywhere from 300-450 lbs. depending on which model we use. I will also probably have to modify the hearth a bit more to get it reinforced. In the picture you can see some test tiles in the corners. It will likely be trimmed in oak with a finish similar to the wood floors.

Socialism, Paternal libertarianism, socialized capitalism, what?

2008-11-01T08:19:00.004-04:00

So in this election there are a lot of people grumbling about the supposed socialist policies of one candidate while the opponents of the other candidate are claiming that not all problems can be solved by the free market. I would guess that a lot of people are wondering what they are talking about, so perhaps a bit of history and context can clarify.

John Maynard Keynes was a British economist in the early half of the 20th century. Some credit Keynes' philosophy as the the solution to the Great Depression. Roosevelt's New Deal injected government money into the economy by forcing development and therefore employment. By giving people work, and therefore income, the economy grew again. As added security, government organizations were established to regulate the economy to keep it balanced. The success of Roosevelt's New Deal still has a legacy today, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and (gasp!) Fannie Mae still in existence. Social Security also came from the New Deal. Keynes' philosophy had influence on the conception of these entities. In that the New Deal exercised some control on wages and prices, it may be said that Keynes saw his influence most represented in Roosevelt's plan.

Now fast forward to the University of Chicago - 1970's era - to a faculty member's office in the department of economics. Milton Friedman was a professor of economics at that time. Beginning as an economist who fully embraced the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, Friedman later opposed the Keynesian approach and instead opted for monetarism, a philosophy that dictates that inflation is best controlled by the supply of money to an economy. Too much money in the economy, and inflation runs rampant. Too little, and there is no growth.

Friedman saw a lot of influence from his ideas. Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine", outlines Friedman's ideas in detail and attributes his advisory policies to the collapse of several South and Central American economies in the period between 1960-1990, notably Chile and Argentina. The implementation of a totally free market in those economies led to widespread inflation and a total polarization of classes. On the rich end of the spectrum, there was a lot of wealth shared among few people. On the poor end of the spectrum, poverty was widespread among the majority of the population. Klein points the finger at Friedman and makes a substantiated argument in her book.

Given the recent financial mess in the U.S. it could be argued whether the $700 billion bailout is a Keynesian or Friedmanite solution. I think this would be an excellent essay question for students of economics.

Q: How do you keep an economy stable?
Keynes: keep the sum of government spending and private investment stable
Friedman: keep the money supply stable (and readily available)

So what are we doing right now? We're injecting money and reinstating regulation where it is needed (Keynes). But at the same time, we are putting money in place so that banks can continue to make loans and cover daily transaction with liquid assets (Friedman).

I don't pal around in economic circles but I'm sure this debate is more hotly pursued in much greater depth there. Perhaps in classrooms across the country, economics professors are thanking the heavens for such an awesome "teaching moment" to seize. But given the connection between Keynesian economics and social programs, a lot of people think "Keynes" and then immediately think "socialism". On the other hand, a lot of people think "Friedman" and then immediately think "free market".

It could be said that the economic philosophy of the past 2 1/2 or 3 decades has been strongly Friedman influenced. The Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. administrations all had elements of the free market, lasseiz-faire (hands off), operative when it came to the economy, largely due to the influence of Chariman of the Fed Alan Greenspan, a free market proponent (who continued to serve during the Clinton Administration as well). Alan Greenspan's gentle tweaking of interest rates got us through the pop of the dot com bubble, the economic slump following September 11, 2001, and the beginning of this ridiculous housing kersplat. We don't know whether or not it could have been worse if he wasn't at the helm. Or could it have been better? What did he do before all of this to prevent it from happening in the first place? We'll never know. Greenspan stepped down at the end of his term in January of 2006.

Like all things, a concept in theory is much different than a concept in practice. The practical application of ideas is less elegant and more muddied than theory. The role of Friedman and Keynes is essential as they both proposed ideas that made others give thought to economic policy, but in practice the implementation of either ideology is an approximation.

Neither theory considers human emotion. The stock market is emotion-driven. When people are happy, the market is soaring. When people are sad, the market slumps. When people are afraid, they cling to their assets and go for cash, inducing a sell-off. And, if the market is allowed to run free, greed dominates because nothing stops the greedy from consuming beyond their needs. Altruism comes in support groups, greed comes in mobs. Niether Friedman nor Keynes address this. Without at least some regulation, the economy will polarize as it did in Chile. With too much regulation, the population becomes complacent and replaces motivation with a sense of entitlement. A metered amount of regulation is a necessity if slow but steady growth is the goal. Some call this socialism. Some call this paternal Libertarianism, some call it socialized capitalism.

Radiant Floor Heating

2008-10-22T14:46:00.002-04:00

To continue with the temporary idea gestation theme, today I'm on a new kick. I'm in the middle of building a custom hearth for the supposed and rumored arrival of a wood stove in our home (will it ever happen?). I am excited about building the hearth because it is actually an interior house project rather than an exterior one.

In the interest of optimizing home heating, I have been considering radiant heating for kitchen/bathroom remodels. During a recent trip to Norway the hotel bathroom had warm floors and it was extremely comfortable for bare feet.

In combination with a programmable thermostat, reasonable insulation, and lots of natural light, I believe this is a recipe for a warm and inviting home.

2008-10-21T13:51:00.005-04:00

Everyone is too kind. Too kind.

Thank you (all of you) for the kind things you said, and bringing up fond memories of good things. Childhood is precious - I would trade all of the knowledge I have now for the ignorantly blissful wonder I had then. I forgot some of the things people wrote about and it was fun to remember.

I forgot about what Brian said after the railing chipped his tooth. "Chippeph tooph!" Holy shit I started laughing remembering that day. And I forgot about Shitting Dave. Beth mentioned the trip to London (Ohio, that is) - holy cow I forgot about that. But there are many things I remember well and I am fond of them.

So I will try to do this blog some honor and keep it alive, perhaps using it as a place to splatter ideas. I have a lot of locations where I splatter ideas. Here is one side effect of splattering ideas: they never go anywhere!

This is my life challenge right now: taking action on ideas. Taking ideas and turning them into something. What good does an idea do if it isn't working for something? Some might read this and say "okay, so what's the big deal? Just pick one and run with it." Maybe this will help to clarify...

Ever notice that you get stuck on an idea for a period of time before you move on to the next one? For most ideas I think I have a 3-4 day gestation time. I get excited about it and it stays with me for about 3-4 days before it gets pounded down into the subconscious and overcome by newer ideas and daily activity. It stays there to be resurfaced later. Some time ago I think I managed to build a compartment in my brain for subconscious storage of ideas and I can usually dig into it to find them later (usually by accident). The trick is being able to put it there, forget about it, but know where you can find it when it comes up again. And it is always something random that triggers the old idea to be released. [url=http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html]Mythbusters[/url] is a great "tirigger" for me. there are several drawbacks with this Idea Storage Compartment, however:

1) Once I put them there I can forget about them so they don't take up valuable active brain space, but then I forget where they came from. Who told me about it? I don't know. Where did I read about it? Not sure.
2) That compartment is a big hard drive, but it's getting full. And when it gets full, the rest of my brain gets glitchy. Kind of like the Temporary Internet Files folder in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Your computer runs slow if you let that folder get big, and the same goes for me. I have to purge it sometimes.
3) Sometimes I'm not paying attention to what ideas I'm putting in there. I might have a totally dumb idea that I think about a lot. And it takes some time to finally realize it's not worth the mental effort to keep playing with that idea. But I do it anyway, and it takes up memory and time until I finally delete it.
4) Regarding #2 and #3 on the list, some of those ideas have side effects. When my brain is running slow because the Idea Storage Compartment is too full, and I've got time-wasting ideas in there, I've also got data leakage, and maybe a worm or virus that is taking up valuable brain activity elsewhere. I think this is what we call "stress".

So, the key to all of it is the activity that makes me try to stuff so many ideas into the Idea Storage Compartment. For a mentally active person, I don't think it is possible to supress ideas, so that is not the answer. And there is nothing wrong with keeping them around, either. There should be a record. The problem is this: if you have lots of ideas but no time to chase them, then you are stifled (this is me talking to myself, by the way. I'm lecturing myself, not you. Relate to it if you can, otherwise disregard my rambling as nothing more than some silly blog).

Quitting my job to chase my ideas is not sustainable. The first few days would be marvelous, and then the challenge of paying the mortgage with no income would arise and quickly suffocate my newfound creativity and ruin my playtime.

Instead, what I am trying to discipline myself to do now is getate ideas and select the best ones for cultivation. One of these days, I've got to bring one (or several) of these ideas to maturity. It is the only way to overcome this time/ideas assymmetry. And the only way to do that is bring one (or a few) to operation while I am simultaneously preoccupied with the daily grind of job and home duties. Phase in the Age of Ideas, and phase out the Other Stuff. Can't happen all at once.

It's kind of like loading a new operating system onto your PC. Ubuntu lets you run it at the same time as Windows. If you were ever going to switch from Windows to Linux, would you do it cold turkey or would you start playing with Linux while you tackled your daily activities with your Windows PC?

So now that the Brain-->Windows PC analogy is complete, what is in your brain?

Man, I am fighting the urge to have a soda... I'm trying to quit. As good friend Dan Huber would say.... "mmmm.... corn syrup solution".

Maybe next time I'll try to talk about some of the other ideas (and questions) that have been kicking around in my head. Of those topics here are a few for you to chew until then:

1) What was Milton Friedman's influence on political policies in the US from 1970-present, and was he the devil as Naomi Klein might claim, or is his philosophy is an essential ingredient to captialism (John Maynard Keynes should be consulted for his opinion on this matter)?
2) Are metal buildings sufficient protection from an EMP for communications and electronics equipment, and can a magnetic field really cause vertigo?
3) How hard would it be to run for city council and push an agenda to convert all of my local community to geothermal heating and cooling (a project which would be financed by tax dollars and show a return on investment in less than 5 years)?
4) What will energy prices and demand be after the 3-5 years it will take to put offshore wells into production if we start exploration and construction today?
5) How much time would it take to build sidewalks with water runoff drains all the way around the house, and should I do that right now when I'm really thinking about building a deck in the back yard, or will the shingles start falling off before then and I should really focus on new siding because I had to nail 3 shingles back up the other day?

Happy Birthday, Davion!

2008-10-20T07:28:00.007-04:00

Hill Homestead -- 1994

Davion's Wedding -- 2006

*****

Well Davion this is a real privilege to be able to send you my thoughts even though they can't be as extensive as some. I remember you on your wedding day and how very special it was to be able to be a part of that even though little. That day with you and Rikki has remained with me these years since then. I know you will enjoy your day whatever you will be doing. May God Bless You with many more of these special days.

Am sending much love your way.......Cousin Diane

*****

Davion -- What a fine young man you turned out to be. Mature, wise beyond your years, intelligent, handsome, sweet, honest and loving to all. Who would have thought back when you were a toddler, even a teenager, that this could be? Honestly you could be quite the handful back then, always testing the waters and your parents too. I wasn't always around for most of the tales I've heard about you, but I do remember Colorado. When Kristin and I came for a visit one time, we went shopping and then to lunch with your Mom, Trista, Jenaye and you. You poor little guy, being the only male in the group ... Maybe that is why you dared to be disagreeable that day. You were playing the role of "monkey," basically hanging from as many of those rotating clothes racks as you possibly could. Running to and fro, beneath them, trying your best to topple them all. I thought it sort of comical until I looked at your mother's face and saw her frustration. Feeling sorry for her I walked over to lend a hand with you when all of a sudden Linda walked out the front door of the store, stating over her shoulder something like "I'm sure glad that kid isn't mine." Leaving me alone with you while people stood around looking at me like I was a terrible mother for letting my child get away with these antics. I was totally embarrrassed! I tried to get you to come out from under the clothes rack but by this time you chose to start crying ... louder and louder and louder and LOUDER by the moment. All the while I was beet read and feeling the frustration your mother had been feeling a few moments earlier. Finally she came back into the store and took over again. But truly, I will never forget that time. And by the way, you were so darn cute, that it was really hard to be mad at you sweetie. Love you and Happy Birthday -- Aunt Barb

*****

I have so many wonderful memories of my dear friend Davion.

I remember one morning I picked Brian and Davion up from an early morning Soccer practice. We decided to have breakfast. We decided to go to Shonies....from the backseat came the chant...."Sho Neeees Sho Neees. Too cute.

Another time, also coming from Soccer the guys had squirt guns and decided to squirt a few fellow drivers/passengers....one guy got so mad at the two of them he threw his cup filled with soda and ice at the car! Uh, Oh, still funny!

The first day the two of them unpacked in their dorm room....Davion gave me the most incredible hug before Jim and I left. The first visit to their dorm room and seeing all the duct tape; Davion and Brian could fix anything with duct tape.

I remember the last few days I was in Ohio.....Davion was working on his car (in January!). He had on a pair of raunchy brown coveralls. I asked who he was and he told me....Hi, I'm Bill Hill, with the most amazing red neck drawl! Happy Birthday Davion, I will always love you! Love, Susan

*****

I always remember Davion as being fun and carefree. Always loving and thoughtful. I hope you have a life-giving B-day. I love you so much! Aunt Janet

*****

I admire you for loving your parents and family so much. The first time I saw you was when you were with your mother at the grocery store. You seemed so pleased to be with her in public. What a blessing that is for a parent. I saw you briefly times after that. You were always such a gentleman. Then, I was honored to attend your wedding. After praying for many years that you would find the perfect mate, I was absolutely thrilled and honored to see the gleam in your eyes, which showed the love in your heart on your wedding day. You were beaming, and so was I!Love and Blessed Be! Martha

*****

Davion, I remember a time, when you were visiting us here in Spokane, that you were totally bored. I can't recall what everyone else was doing but I could tell you needed a diversion so I invited you to go fishing with me and a couple of my friends. We spent an afternoon at Clear Lake, trying to snag a few fish. You couldn't catch anything, and I only caught one, which we later took back to Aunt Barbs place and cleaned it up and cooked it for everyone to try. It was a big walleye, and there was enough of it to share with Lynn and Linda, Barb, you and myself. The best part of all this Davion, was just spending the day with you. It was the first and only time I was able to that. I jut wanted you to know how much I enjoyed that afternoon with you. It meant lot to me. And I believe you felt the same way. So have a Happy Birthday Davion, and I hope we can share one of those kind of days agin soon. Love, Uncle Doug

*****

Happy Birthday my Dearest, Sweet Son! This is a special event for our whole family, because you came in to our lives on this particular day, 31 years ago. We have all been blessed by your presence. I feel especially blessed to be your mother and I have all the wonderful memories of all those 31 years, tucked in all of my seven hearts . You are everything I could have ever wanted in a son. I don't think there are enough words to express the love, admiration and pride I have for you. You are one in a million, Renaissance Man! Just always remember: "How do I love Thee? Let me count the ways................I love thee with the breath, smiles, tears, of all my life!........." (Elizabeth Barrett Browning) "This is my BELOVED Son, In Whom I am well-pleased." (Matthew 3:17)Davion.......derivative of David.........BELOVED! One who loves his mother "more than seven hearts"! What mother could be more pleased? You make me smile, and you make my heart sing, My Love. Forever, Mom

*****

Davion: There are many, many memorable and special times that Mom and I have experienced because of the privilege we've had of you being our son.

I tell many stories about how special you are, in your honesty, exuberance for life and early innocence, that I know are embarrassing to you. I tell these stories not to embarrass or make fun of you, but to point out just how special and unique you are, for I know not of any other people's sons who have demonstrated the compassion, honesty and strength of character that you have throughout your life.

One instance in particular is worth re-sharing. This is the time several years ago that you, Mom and I went to New Mexico by ourselves to see my old friend Charlie, visit the White Sands and look for a turquoise gold ring for you. We had rented a small compact car, saying that only I'd be the driver. While coming down out of the mountains on a steep and winding road, with very little room on either side of the road, we came upon a most frightening sight - a car stopped in the opposite lane coming up the road and a large tractor trailer rig unable to stop that quickly without running into the stopped car, coming into our lane to get around the stopped vehicle.

We'd let you drive at the point, with Mom being in the passenger seat and me being in the back. There was no where to go to avoid the imminent collision - we'd either hit the tractor trailer if we stayed in our lane or hit the stalled car in the other lane. The sides of the mountain were to either side of the road, right up to the edge of the road. Mom was crying out that "we're all gonna die" and I could see no way to avoid the worst.

However, you kept your cool, continuing to stay in control of the car, not panicking, continuing to look for a way out of the swiftly approaching disaster. Literally in the very last few seconds available, you found the only spot on the right hand berm just barely wide enough to pull our car onto, squeezing past the tractor trailer and stalled car alike, whizzing past them both with seemingly just inches to spare.

Needless to say, we (Mom and I especially) looked at this as a small miracle. You, my son, saved us all that day, for which we'll always be grateful. I truly believe this typifies what is so special and unique about you - your confidence, many and varied capabilities and overall desire to help everyone and always do the right thing.

We trust and believe that you will always exemplify these and so many other remarkable traits that make you the special person that you are.

We love you, my Son! DAD

*****

We all wish you a very happy birthday! Uncle Kevin

*****

davion: i'm raising two boys right now, and so often i am clobbered with memories of you (quite literally sometimes) but nothing quite like it was to be in the same house with you.

i remember your drawings, your inventions, your creations, your experiments. i remember your stamina, your resilience, your persistence in a world of mostly women. i remember your smile, your cunning, your wit, your skill with most anything. i remember your devotion.

all these things i hope for in my boys, and hope to give to them, but i know it is not for me to do. it is their character, their gifts, what they will grow into. i see you now, and i am always stunned with pride at who you have become.

to say i love you seems lame, but it is still very much true. to say i'm stinkingly amazed at you still sounds lame, but it will always be true. nader patater

*****

Dearest Bro -- how have I tainted your precious life over the years? Let me count the ways.

With horror I watched as your blanket swaddled infant body slipped from my 6-year-old arms onto the greenish brown Colorado kitchen linoleum floor. Your head hit with a sickening thump. Worrying that brain damage would become evident at the most inopportune time, I failed to comfort myself by incessantly crying and internally repeating in disbelief, "I dropped my brother!!", even years later when you consistently fell down the stairs and hit the concrete all on your own.

With glee I took a mini curling iron to your beautiful about-7-year-old hair and gave it a healthy spray with unhealthy aerosol so it wouldn't move. Once free from my clutches and the usually female-only electrical unit, you ran around the house laughing with gum on your tongue and agreed to have your picture taken.

With determination and evidently anger I strained the Audi wagon to speed up the early morning foggy hill toward school with you and the seester dead silent in the back. Later, in a combination of exhilaration and terror, you reported we were going over 90 miles per hour. Being who I was and who you were then, I'm not sure anyone believed you.

With malicious severity I held your crying face and told you that you were not alone and you had better f**king call me the next time you felt that way again.

With a strange combination of elation and heartsickness I witnessed you give your love and life to the most amazing woman. To combat those warring emotions, I disgraced all of us by enticing our sister to join me in a physical expression in your honor.

With disdain many times I catch myself thinking I wasn't and am not around enough, aware enough, involved enough.

With restrained relief I'm finding that no matter what I did or do, you are going to be exactly who you are.

From the first moment I pressed my nose to the hospital glass aching to touch your new skin, to now when I look at you across a simple table and ache to hear more about your world travels and irritations and innovative ideas, I love who you are. When I am struggling with myself, I'm comforted by knowing you will understand. I treasure your wise and passionate and patient soul. From here we go up, forward, out -- hypomanic or not -- with everything we've got. I believe in you. Love and love and love. Sister

*****

My memories of Davion:

College:

- There was this AE in our dorm who used to poop a lot and do weird things like wash his socks in the sink in the middle of the night AND he was mean and sort of righteous so Davion and I used to post signs all over the bathroom and dorm halls that said: Beware of Shitting Dave.

- Davion had the biggest stereo in the world and he brought it to college. We used to listen to techno-rave music at alarmingly loud volumes. People thought we were on speed- they called us the "speed twins" behind our backs for a long time.

- After lunch at college in the Shively caffeteria, we would race back up to our room. Once, I was beating him in our race, and as I reached the top of the stairs he was at the bottom and he grabbed the hand rail. The hand rail was loose (and made of huge iron pipes) and when he grabbed it the end I was near snapped up and hit me in the face. It chipped my right front big tooth. He came up to me very concerned and I stood up and said "chipped tooth" like a buffoon. We put the tooth piece in some milk and my Mom came and got me to take me to Columbus to get it fixed. To this day you can see the bonding on my tooth. There literally isn't a day that goes by that I don't remember that story.

- Davion and I both got really bad grades in the beginning of college. We both had frustrating chemistry professors. We both had "Riza" the a-hole Calculus professor. We both remember taking "CAPA" quizzes- "online" chemistry bullshit would have us up in the middle of the night right before it was due. Perhaps these do not qualify as "fond". But hey, now it's a story of redemption!

- I was the drummer in the band that Davion played bass, rythim guitar, and sang in. I have recordings of Davion singing our cover of "Hit Me Baby One More Time". They are incredible and must be played at all of his milestone birthdays from now on.

Pre-College:
(these memories are getting so faint....)

- I remember going up to D's room and listening to Alice in Chains and Pantera and Primus and Nirvana and Megadeth Faith No More and lots and lots of other exciting and forbidden bands. Davion turned me on to LOTS of music. When I go through my CD collection I remember being in his incredibly small HOT room listening to music. He even turned me on to Led Zepplin. At some point Davion moved from the super tiny room in the very back of the house to a less tiny room towards the front of the house and that was a pretty big deal. The above mentioned stereo was the culmination of Davion saving for a long time. It looked pretty funny in that tiny room but boy did that stereo rock.

- Once, when Jenaye got older and we were all in the old light blue mini van that Linda used to drive us to soccer in together I leaned over to tie my shoe and noticed that Jenaye had not shaved her legs. And I just blurted out something like "Jenaye, why do your legs have hair on them" or "Jenaye, your legs are really hairy". And she said something like "that's because I haven't shaved them Brian" without missing a beat. And Linda laughed really loud and then there was an awkward silence because that was kind of rude to just say that about her.

- We used to have sleep overs at Davion's place and watch movies and stuff. I remember Davion's parents also had a dishwasher that they had to plug in or something. Davion's house was very old and strange to a guy like me back in the day. No A/C, strange creaks, two barns, one unattached garage, and old german cars EVERYWHERE. But Davion's house was always really warm and fun because there were always nice people EVERYWHERE. The ratio of nice people:old german cars was usually something like 5:3. Anyway, I seem to recall playing some kind of game where we would jump down the stairwell in the back with a bunch of pillows at the bottom of the stairs. That was lots of fun. I seem to also recall messing with Linda by hiding stuff or moving her stuff around. Maybe that didn't happen, but if I'm every there again I'm doing that.

- Davion and I played soccer together in High School. We were the only Juniors on the JV team along with Rob Harbaugh. Then the mean bald coach (smiggles) left or got fired and the new young nice coach came (Brendan?) and we became Seniors and were on the varsity and that was a pretty fun year. The moms used to take us to breakfast after our morning two a day during August, and one time we wanted to go to Bob Evans but it was crowded or something so Mom asked if we wanted to go to Shoney's and Davion just blurted out "SHOOOONNNNNEEEEEYYYYYYSSSSS" like he was retarded. It was really funny. I never say "Shoneys" the right way anymore.

- Davion was there the first time I ever got drunk, towards the end of high school in my basement. Brad Woods was there too. We drank some beer and a whole bottle of Southern Comfort. It was terrible. I was sucking on the legs of the ping pong table. I don't remember what happened to Davion. Maybe he can add to this story. I was hungover for three days.

- Davion came to my house every year for a bunch of years in a row for my birthday party to play capture the flag at night. There aren't any specific stories except that was really fun. Adam Hoffman, Brad Woods, Brad Weeks, Davion, Tony Haas, Adam Vance, Jay Kerr, and probably lots of other dudes I'm forgetting. Those days were good times.

- Davion, Justin Lebanowski, and I worked together at Angelica's Deli in Powell. We used to cut meat and cheese for the next day and wrap it up and put it in the 'fridge. Instead of labeling the meat and cheese something normal like "Gouda" we would write weird things like "Davion Has Marbles Up His Ass - Gouda". It was funny because the guys who closed the deli the night before would label the cheese and the guy who opened would see all the stupid labels. These two girls who went to Watterson worked with us- they probably thought we were crazy. I think Joan stopped scheduling the three of us together on purpose.

(Brian Foy)

*****

I remember when he used to ride his skate board around at my mom's house singing it's my birthday! I really miss him and love him and I hope he has a great birthday and I hope to see him soon. Cousin Kim

*****

Happy Birthday, Davion. I remember visiting you in Colorado and how many times you ended up in the cactus plants. I felt for you. My favorite memories of you are when you put your arm around me and kiss me on the top of my head. Makes me feel so special. I love you! Aunt Karen

*****

My only funny memory of Davion is having dinner at the Hill family house and just cracking up at everything he did. I don’t think he was trying very hard, but he made me laugh so much. When I visited (last year), I was so impressed at the man who appeared when it was announced that Davion was coming over to visit! He (seems) like a truly classy, thoughtful person. Jenn (Fulkerson) Braico

*****

Sorry this is late. I've been out of town. Happy Birthday Davion! I hope you enjoy your day. Erin (O'Donnell) VanDagna

*****

Hi, Davion.

Wishing you well on your birthday. I miss you and would love to meet your wife. She is beautiful. Have a great day. I love you.

Cousin Kristin