One of the major issues with the environmentalist/sustainability/climate change debate is why the developing countries should restrict their standard of living because of the excesses of the western world – especially the US.
But the normal articulation of the problem skips over one key step in the argument. The implicit assumption is that it is not possible to have a high standard of living without the excesses. But a large percentage of the resources expended in the developed countries add nothing to the lifestyle of their citizens. There is enormous amounts of waste which are inherent in almost every part of the system. Removing this waste could allow the same end result with much less raw materials.
Waste is generally a consequence of inefficiencies. And the supply side of is constrained by mechanisms and processes put in place a hundred years ago.
Consider for instance, power supply. It is enormously inefficient to generate power in massive facilities and then ship it across distances the size of a country. Transmission lines use very high voltage because this reduces losses in the line. Even so, carrying the power over hundred of kilometres means that a large percentage is lost. How much better it would be to generate the power at the point it is to be used. [Aside: this is the mechanism used in cars or gas appliances. The energy is generated at the point of use by burning a suitable fuel. The trouble is that you still have to move the fuel to the usage location.]
There are a number of reasons why this solution has been locked in; not least of which is the enormous investment made into power stations and associated infrastructure (such as transmission lines). However, while new technologies do not YET afford a practical alternative, they are not far off. Concerted effort driven by an urgent need (such as climate change?) is likely to lead to fairly rapid progress. The problem is that there is not such a drive in the western world which already has the expensive infrastructure in place and additions can be considered incremental costs (although fairly large increments given the cost of power stations).
However, the developing world has not yet made as much commitment to existing paradigms. Although, there is some and they do provide a significant barrier to alternatives, they are no where near as difficult to pass as in the ‘developed’ countries. The barrier is even lower in places such as much of Africa where there is no established infrastructure. There is no real reason why such places should not leap-frog the cul-de-sac that the European settled countries find themselves in.
Assisting small countries to develop localised utilities (water, power, communications etc.) in the same way that they also have localised food sources would allow relatively rapid improvement to those areas. At the same time the advances could be included in developed worlds as supplements to the existing infrastructure, with the aim of eventual replacement.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Decentralised or desalination
The Victorian government has instituted a plan to build an enormous desalination plant. The idea, of course, is to create enough fresh water to supply the state for the “foreseeable future” (a phrase that sets off alarm bells for anyone who pays attention to politics at any level – it generally means until the next election).
A desalination plant is a large facility which requires enormous amounts of power and which generates great amounts of heat and waste. And even in the best case the final product needs to be moved over long distances to where it is used.
Of course there is quite a backlash from many different groups. The locals don’t want it near where they live. Greens have a number of reasons to object from pollution to power use to environmental damage. Even economists are concerned about the cost of the plant and potential return on investment.
All these are good points but my major concern is along different lines. Basically this is simply not a good solution to the underlying problem.
Centralisation of production generally is a throwback to the industrial revolution. With today’s technology there are often better methods and in this specific case there are many. This is a theme that I will return to in other cases as well. Decentralisation of resource production is often the best, simplest solution to the sort of sustainability problems that we are facing as a culture.
In the case of water as a resource, there is more than enough fresh, clean water available exactly where it is needed. But we throw this away into the ocean and are now proposing to import it again over a long distance after an expensive and difficult re-processing.
Instead we should consider how to best utilise the rain which is generally available. At minimum water tanks could be installed in every household and to all major buildings. Re-cycling storm water (which would only need minor re-processing) as well would provide the majority of requirements. We may still need catchment areas for cultivation and supplementary supply, but new dams and especially the facilities such as desalination should generally be unnecessary.
Such a solution would be far superior in numerous ways. It would be more robust; failure at one site would have almost no impact across the rest. It would be more flexible; variations according to site needs would be easy to implement. It would be more extensible; updates and additions can easily be rolled out as needed (for instance adding a first flush system so that the water can be used for drinking as well. It would be more scalable; additional capacity can be added easily and specifically in locations where required. It would be more maintainable; although trained personnel (plumbers) would be required but not the sort of specialists necessary at a central plant. And, support costs would be dispersed to the individuals who benefit most taking significant load off the government.
Of course, there would not be a big new project run and owned by the government. It would not make the same sort of splash in the news. And there is no where need the same sort of control over the process.
A desalination plant is a large facility which requires enormous amounts of power and which generates great amounts of heat and waste. And even in the best case the final product needs to be moved over long distances to where it is used.
Of course there is quite a backlash from many different groups. The locals don’t want it near where they live. Greens have a number of reasons to object from pollution to power use to environmental damage. Even economists are concerned about the cost of the plant and potential return on investment.
All these are good points but my major concern is along different lines. Basically this is simply not a good solution to the underlying problem.
Centralisation of production generally is a throwback to the industrial revolution. With today’s technology there are often better methods and in this specific case there are many. This is a theme that I will return to in other cases as well. Decentralisation of resource production is often the best, simplest solution to the sort of sustainability problems that we are facing as a culture.
In the case of water as a resource, there is more than enough fresh, clean water available exactly where it is needed. But we throw this away into the ocean and are now proposing to import it again over a long distance after an expensive and difficult re-processing.
Instead we should consider how to best utilise the rain which is generally available. At minimum water tanks could be installed in every household and to all major buildings. Re-cycling storm water (which would only need minor re-processing) as well would provide the majority of requirements. We may still need catchment areas for cultivation and supplementary supply, but new dams and especially the facilities such as desalination should generally be unnecessary.
Such a solution would be far superior in numerous ways. It would be more robust; failure at one site would have almost no impact across the rest. It would be more flexible; variations according to site needs would be easy to implement. It would be more extensible; updates and additions can easily be rolled out as needed (for instance adding a first flush system so that the water can be used for drinking as well. It would be more scalable; additional capacity can be added easily and specifically in locations where required. It would be more maintainable; although trained personnel (plumbers) would be required but not the sort of specialists necessary at a central plant. And, support costs would be dispersed to the individuals who benefit most taking significant load off the government.
Of course, there would not be a big new project run and owned by the government. It would not make the same sort of splash in the news. And there is no where need the same sort of control over the process.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Customer Service
There is a service station near us which has introduced a simple but marvellous boost to its customer service.
They have a bowl on the counter next to the register filled with 5 and 10 cent pieces. A sign on the bowl states that these are for customer use if they are just over a round dollar amount for their petrol. For instance, if you put $50 dollars in and drift slightly over so the charge is $50.05, you can take one of these coins to make up the difference.
Think about this for a second, for the cost of a few dollars in coins, the store has enormously enhanced the customer experience. They remove the need for their operators to provide large amounts of change or to eat into the till float. They implicitly recognise that the amount is trivial and that they are willing to waive – except that they cannot do it through the register. It is a tip that the manager cares about the customer’s convenience.
I am sure that there are people who abuse the system, there always are. But the bowl is right next to the till and couldn’t have more than about a hundred coins anyway – about $5.
Personally I am never likely to use this facility – if I am short I will use the controls on the pump to limit what I put in the car. However, I will preferentially use this service station simply because they have thought of this idea.
They have a bowl on the counter next to the register filled with 5 and 10 cent pieces. A sign on the bowl states that these are for customer use if they are just over a round dollar amount for their petrol. For instance, if you put $50 dollars in and drift slightly over so the charge is $50.05, you can take one of these coins to make up the difference.
Think about this for a second, for the cost of a few dollars in coins, the store has enormously enhanced the customer experience. They remove the need for their operators to provide large amounts of change or to eat into the till float. They implicitly recognise that the amount is trivial and that they are willing to waive – except that they cannot do it through the register. It is a tip that the manager cares about the customer’s convenience.
I am sure that there are people who abuse the system, there always are. But the bowl is right next to the till and couldn’t have more than about a hundred coins anyway – about $5.
Personally I am never likely to use this facility – if I am short I will use the controls on the pump to limit what I put in the car. However, I will preferentially use this service station simply because they have thought of this idea.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
what's missing with weight loss
The way weight loss is sold, the basic principle, is that "calories in" must be less than "calories out".
The trouble is, for someone with a physics background, there is a step missing here - from a logical point of view. My main problem with it is: Calorie is not a measure of weight.
It is a measure of energy. Despite Einstein mass and energy are not equivalent - at least not at this scale. Hence the missing step in the logic.
Now I am quite aware that there MAY be a close dependency between the energy content of food and its weight. But skipping that point means that we are disregarding some of the consequences. Loss of body mass is related to the difference between the *weight* of input and the *weight* of the output.
If we assume that the weight of gas in and out is roughly equivalent (which is a big assumption but lets go with it) then the liquid and solid input needs to be less than the liquid and solid output. I have heard that the liquid part of this dominates the equation enormously - by far the biggest impact on day to day weight it the amount of water that passes through the body. However, this is transitory and any reasonable measure (NOT "Biggest Loser") does not consider day to day changes when looking at weight loss - week to week or month by month is much more useful.
So, if it is the actual quantity of food which matters what difference does that make to counting calories.
Well, you still want to take in the same nutrients. Your body still needs its fuel. If you want to this with less mass of food then you need to choose nutrient rich foods. Ones which have less empty calories and more of the key things that your body needs. Which, of course, brings us back to the point we started at - calories - but with a much better idea of why.
The trouble is, for someone with a physics background, there is a step missing here - from a logical point of view. My main problem with it is: Calorie is not a measure of weight.
It is a measure of energy. Despite Einstein mass and energy are not equivalent - at least not at this scale. Hence the missing step in the logic.
Now I am quite aware that there MAY be a close dependency between the energy content of food and its weight. But skipping that point means that we are disregarding some of the consequences. Loss of body mass is related to the difference between the *weight* of input and the *weight* of the output.
If we assume that the weight of gas in and out is roughly equivalent (which is a big assumption but lets go with it) then the liquid and solid input needs to be less than the liquid and solid output. I have heard that the liquid part of this dominates the equation enormously - by far the biggest impact on day to day weight it the amount of water that passes through the body. However, this is transitory and any reasonable measure (NOT "Biggest Loser") does not consider day to day changes when looking at weight loss - week to week or month by month is much more useful.
So, if it is the actual quantity of food which matters what difference does that make to counting calories.
Well, you still want to take in the same nutrients. Your body still needs its fuel. If you want to this with less mass of food then you need to choose nutrient rich foods. Ones which have less empty calories and more of the key things that your body needs. Which, of course, brings us back to the point we started at - calories - but with a much better idea of why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)