Point Henry Solar?

This is my blog and no-one reads it anyway so why am I keeping it to generic topics?

I've read Alcoa's plan for the Point Henry site and I understand the Geelong council and State Government are also considering similar options for the area. But the area is a combination of salt marsh, protected wet-lands and contaminated soil. I can't really see a residential development being a reasonable use of the land. While, the proposal looks good on paper and housing is generally a high return than most other land uses, I doubt the quality of the homes that could or would be built in that region. It won't even grow trees of any real size and the idea of a lawn is laughable without kilotons of soil being imported - and then washed away. More likely it will end up with a scraggly row of houses such as Avalon Beach - and for much the same reasons.

So what else for Point Henry? Well there are the salt flats there, and a (now) disused Aluminium Smelter, a set of high tension power lines leading out to the Otways, a wetlands on the back side and a single long pier for large ships.
Hmm, salt pans - large flat areas exposed to the sun for most of the day. What modern and growing industry needs large flat areas exposed to the sun? But any intermittent power generator needs a storage mechanism - that is just common sense, as well as being a key recommendation of the Finkel Report. The two most efficient mechanisms are pumped hydro and molten salt. The first requires very UNflat ground - something like the Otway Ranges where Alcoa have their (disused) coal mine, the second requires a facility to manage and work with high temperature materials. And, of course, any power station needs high voltage lines in and out.

So a solar plant sounds like it might at least be plausible. The point might also lend itself to wind or wave power although suitable protection for the wetlands needs to be considered. There has also been talk about geothermal at the other end of the power line which is outside Anglesea. So we have a multi-technology options for both generation and storage.
The downsides? Well, I have no idea if the salt pans are still operational or economically viable and I think the owners might wish to keep them if they are making money. The need for greater power into the grid at Geelong needs to be considered on a cost/benefit basis. The costs and effort in retro-fitting all the necessary equipment, even though some is available, it may actually make more sense to install elsewhere (the geothermal plant didn't go ahead). And last but not least is the impact on the local environment. I think it is isolated enough, but close enough to Geelong that there is not likely to be much backlash from the public but potential other plans for the area need to be considered. A bridge across Corio bay is unlikely still on the cards and it would almost have to leave from Point Henry.
To take the idea further would mean involving Alcoa (obviously), Salt International who I believe own the flats, a Power company - Momentum have a good presence and reputation in the region and have background in renewables, and definitely the City Council.
I suspect the last of those would need to be contacted first, but a reasonable business case would need to be created first, and that involves everyone else.
So how could the basic feasibility of the idea be evaluated - where to start?

Integration is not Interoperability

There is a tender out from the ADHA for an "Interoperability Framework" for Australian eHealth systems. Apart from the ridiculous timelines for such a wide ranging topic, I have a problem with what they seem to think 'Interoperability' actually is.

Interoperability is NOT the same as integration. It is not just about data transfer and communication mechanisms, but also about how well functional separation is maintained and demarcation of responsibilities. It is a consequence of good design and following the principle of high cohesion and loose coupling. The difference between the two is the difference between speaking the same language and playing well together. The concepts are linked but interoperability covers a much wider space and is somewhat more nebulous.

Integration between systems is a well understood discipline with many well thought out patterns, along with clearly guidelines on when and how each technique should be applied. To support the many (many) applications on the market that don't support modern integration techniques, there are products widely available which abstract the whole communication thing into a mediation layer, acting as a translator between the different units.

But just because you can talk together doesn't mean that you do - or do so effectively. Interoperability is what makes disparate applications work as a system, one that is able to work with other systems into a larger whole. At the lowest level it takes in the concept of workflow or business process management; do you use orchestration or a choreography, where and how is control handed off between components and where do responsibilities start and end. A well designed system, built for interoperability, is able to delegate tasks and accept responses, fitting other systems into its own flow so that tasks are performed as effectively as possible.

A prime example from the industry at hand would be the patient management system in a hospital. There is administration which tracks admission and discharge,  costs and payments, accommodation and feeding schedules. There is also the medical records which track condition, treatment, testing and medication. Both systems need to have a relationship management aspect which are looking at the patient from very different directions. Since doctors tend to also operate their own practices separately from hospitals, we have another set of records, and the government is now entering the mix with the MyHR initiative. Whatever happened to the principle of a single master source for data? The problem is that none of these systems has the capability to delegate responsibility for record keeping to another system - a proper CRM which is designed to track any and all interactions with an individual. Each is built to be self-contained, which is fine, and has no ability to interoperate when necessary, which is not.

Loose coupling between components of a system would allow it to disable the internal store and plug into an external module as and when required. It would allow workflows and processes to be handed off to sub-systems or associated applications and the results re-integrated once complete. This is the mindset behind the current approach of micro-services and composed applications. Unit design and interchangeable parts have been standard in the manufacturing industry for a century but IT is only just coming to grips with it.

That is interoperability.

Climate trolls

Scott Adams has been talking about a couple of issues lately - obviously trolling although he does seem to actually believe what he is saying as well.
I am not sure why I keep feeling the urge to reply but hopefully documenting the obvious holes here will ease the desire. For a number of reasons I prefer not to respond on his site - I don't feel I want to login to comment for one, I really hate to feed the troll - which includes the other commenters, and there are so *many* comments that it is probably pointless anyway.
While Scott's statements are (deliberately) inflammatory, there are points of interest. The insight into Trump for instance, says more about American population than it does about the target. One clear point is Adam's own cognitive dissonance on the topic. He admittedly admires Trump and that is seriously colouring his interpretation of events, even to the point of changing his previous system of agreeing with the experts when he does not understand a topic. Trump himself, of course, disregards... no not disregards - denigrates - anyone who disagrees, whatever their level of expertise in the area.

As Feynman said "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled" - although there may be disastrous fallout in the meantime if the people who ARE fooled head off in the wrong direction. Feynman said this while investigating the Challenger disaster. In that case management convinced themselves as well as the funding bodies that no problem could possibly arise, while the engineers were constantly warning about known issues. There are significant similarities to the conversation about climate change.
But to cover Adams' comments- first he uses his favourite straw-man argument, talking about climate models. No, models are not accurate. Yes, there are multiple ones around each of which state something slightly different. No, the details don't agree with observed reality. As a business man, Adams knows that there are multiple ways to predict future earning, none of which predicts the future accurately but are essential to operations.
Actually, this is not a bad analogy since the climate change models are the same order of complexity, accuracy and uncertainty. Except that we are talking about the stock market, not an individual business. Who believes, that the stock market will drop suddenly? The market has risen and fallen in the past, but the smart money is on a continuing upward trend.

But that is not the point either. The models are used to predict the future, but they are not the core of the argument for climate change. Past performance shows an unprecedented increase compared with at least the last 12,000 years. The safe bet is that it will not suddenly stop. The models are just a fancy way of saying that. And, yes the data is based on a limited set of evidence, but it is a limited set in each of about a dozen difference disciplines each of which agree on the rough numbers. There is no precision in the data - but there is a clear trend.

But even that does not directly address Scott Adams central argument - which is mostly about his 'persuasion filter' and 'bullshit' detector. He says that there are significant disadvantages to any scientist who doesn't toe the party line and so everyone is jumping on the band wagon to keep their jobs. Which is shows a major lack of understanding of the scientific process for someone who claims to trust experts.
Climate change has been under discussion in the scientific community for decades. There were books about it in the 70's. It is not a new idea and there have been at least two occasions I can recall where action was taken to succesfully reverse human impact on the atmosphere. The acid rain problem, especially in Europe, was mitigated by cutting sulphur emissions and the hole in the ozone layer is finally starting to close over due to reductions in CFC usage. Neither problem is, or will be, completely solved.
In both cases, there was major push back from the companies most effected by the fix, and their politicians, about who's fault it was, who should pay and especially about whether the problem really existed. Which is the same as the current (political, not scientific) argument about climate change.

So the underlying issue is that there has been a recent - last five, maybe ten years - push back against science which has been on-going for decades. The denial camp is the late comer and, as challenger, the burden of proof is on them. However, the core arguments seem to be simply - "I don't want to believe it". I have not heard anything more substantial.
Nonetheless, these arguments carry some weight and this is core to Adams' point. The deniers are better persuaders. Of course, this does not mean they are right, or even that they believe their own arguments, only that they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Carbon emissions come, in the main, from energy generating systems - including the petrochemical industry. There is a  lot of money, political clout and - importantly - persuasive people involved in those areas. Ones that do not like to lose, and have the will and the means to prevent it.
In that context, it is interesting to note that the last 5-10 years also covers the rise of NewsCorp as it took control of much of the world media. Murdoch is definitely a master persuader - that is his entire business. He is also a climate change denier and most (if not all) of the arguments against it were first published in his media.


But back to the point; Adams apparently is a denier because that side of the "argument" have better persuasion skills. Of course, as every debater knows the ability to convince people of your argument is completely irrelevant to the reality. Climate change denialism is a flag of convenience for the folks at the top. It's a loyalty oath and a touchstone: they don't necessarily believe it, but it's very convenient to fervently preach it in public if you want to continue to turn a profit.
So, the story about your average joe scientist toeing the party line to avoid losing his job is backward. It is not a conspiracy of silence amongst thousands of people, but rather a concerted effort by a small number of master persuaders.

Finally, a comment about the fears of taking action whether or not climate change is real. As I understand it, and I haven't heard a good explanation, the problem of improving the world anyway is the potential economic impact. Which, of course, is not supported by economists or by ANY economic theory.

Taking action on climate change means adding regulation to a number of old, well entrenched industries - the ones who make profit from cost-cutting and processing efficiencies. The ones who are best able to automate, shed jobs and reduce costs. New industries are required for handling renewable energy and sustainable approaches - ones that create work that has not existed before and need experienced people to fill them. Ones that will spin off secondary industries to make use of what they produce.
While there is a threat to the old guard, for the rest of us, we stand to gain more work, better, cheaper products due to new production processes, cleaner air and water.

 But of course, this has all been said before and don't claim to be a great persuader, so it is unlikely any of this will make any difference at all... but I do feel I needed to say it.

Terrible actions

An American white supremacist, an Israeli Zionist and an Afghan radical are all terrorists. Their origin and religion are not commonalities in explaining their actions. More meaningful is the fact that all are male and between 15 and 25 years old - which are not emphasised in any media discussions.
The common factor is their desire to inflict fear and take extreme steps to obtain their goals. The reasons they are willing to commit violence and how to mitigate those driving forces need to be determined and the constant talk about irrelevancies is a distraction. Chances there are more than one or two factors in play, or more accurately, some deeper similarity than just the surface aspects.
The current measures being discussed - most obvious in the USA across the world - sets the net way too wide to allow a viable response to be developed. All that happens is security theatre at the cost of large amounts of money and inconvenience for enormous numbers of people.
In other words, the current response plays right into the hands of those who wish to negatively impact the lives of their targets.
None of this is new of course, but I think it bears repeating...

Financial momentum

The following is derived from watching some Khan Academy videos on macroeconomics and reading Piketty's book.

From the discussion, the financial health of a country is significantly impacted by the 'velocity' of money within its economy. The videos indicate that the quantity moving is important as well as the speed. This is, of course, basic economic theory arising from Keynes and others.

I am not an economist although I have been trying to build up some knowledge of the principles. However, I am a physicist (or was) and the key factor in the study of motion is 'momentum' or mass times velocity. Which raises the question about the equivalent metric in economics - what does it mean to refer to financial momentum.

This does not mean to say that the analogy is valid but it does prompt the thought experiment to see how far it can be pushed. For instance: is there a economic equivalent of conservation of momentum? Is the net flow of money (wealth?) within a system is constant?

First: the more common important quantity in the physics of motion is the rate of change of momentum or force: F = ma according to Newton. Economics, as with natural language, usually less precise terminology, but forces could be interpreted as changes in the flow of money.

But perhaps 'money' is not the correct entity to use as a measure of an amount of substance in economics. It is representative of a deeper underlying concept - wealth perhaps? "Capital", especially in Piketty's case, refers to something more specific, but it may be meaningful to refer to the flow of wealth or value, with money being the unit of measure. The concept of what exactly is flowing may require more thought.

More basic is that the distinction *must* be made between velocity and speed. The two are NOT the same and the distinction is critical in understanding movement. Speed is a single value and can be added and subtracted simply as a number. Velocity, on the other hand, depends on direction and changes when the direction changes even if the measured speed is the same. And a force is required to change the direction even if the quantity doesn't change. Velocities (or momenta) add as vector quantities and only cancel out if they are in opposite directions. 

The economic equivalent would be the exchange of items of equal value between two entities which would lead to a zero net flow of wealth. Also the net force driving further motion, after the exchange is complete, would be zero so the impact on the larger system can be disregarded. I don't think this is the same in economics - but it should be a point of further investigation. [As a side-note, there is some relativistic influence here since the value of the items will differ for each entity else they would not be exchanging them; another break-down of the analogy or can it be extended into electromagnetism?]

But when there are more than two bodies the direction of flow is not directly opposing and so the net forces do not necessarily cancel out. In physics, the mathematics for a multi-body system can be *very* complicated and there is no general solution to the equations; they must be calculated on a case by case basis and the computation may be difficult.

Hence it is not the flow of wealth that matters, but the circulation which requires a sort of centripetal (or centifugal?) force to maintain. Which is another interesting concept: what does the push of wealth away from the centre, as would happen with high velocities, mean for an economy?

One other point on this collection of ideas before I take it away for more incubation. Wealth at rest, like mass at rest, has inertia holding it in place. It is ballast which requires larger forces to move. According to Piketty it also accumulates (at least within our economic model) which gives it gravitational attributes - the larger the body the faster is gathers more substance to itself and the greater the influence on (particularly moving) entities around itself.

Maybe the analogy is not entirely far-fetched?

Jobs and Growth

I've been reading a bit about economics recently and one clear point seems to be that no qualified economist believes that trickle-down a.k.a supply side a.k.a. neoliberalism a.k.a reagonomics/thatcherism actually works. It does not lead to significant growth, tending instead toward depressing economies and, in general, no new jobs are created.
From a logical point of view it seems to me that this has a lot to do with how well established a business is. New industries create new jobs - entirely new, things that people have not done in the past and are not yet understood well enough to automate. Old, large, established industries have defined processes, tools, targets etc. and tend toward getting more efficiency out of their existing resources. Hence automating, tuning and generally reducing costs - including labour. People may move from one company to another but there are rarely new roles created within the industry as a whole.
In other words, from the government point of view, creating jobs is more likely to arise from supporting small and emerging businesses - especially new industries. In other other words - renewable energy, new technologies, start-ups. Science and other research lead to new ideas and new approaches, especially in the things like uses for big industry waste products, and hence to new industries, growth and jobs.

Security in Office Buildings

I have had occasion lately to enter a number of office buildings for various reasons and the security measures vary enormously. This led me to wonder both how effective and how costly they are.
On entry some corporates have a reception and some do not - depending on whether the general public is likely to appear. Most office buildings these days have some sort of card access in the lifts, commonly with an additional point (using the same card) on the floor as well. I am including the independent barriers before the lifts in this as well. One place even had reception on the first floor - which is only accessible via a secure elevator!
I can see the reason for these - barriers ensure that security officers (if they exist) can see people, unlike security in the lift itself. With multiple people in each elevator it makes sense to have separate access to the floor - it is a challenge point for humans if you do not recognise the person trailing you. Depending on the corporate culture, challenging does actually happen although it is rare if the person looks like they know where they are going (whether or not they actually do).
As a  side-note: there is an increasing trend for new building to have lift buttons outside the actual boxes. I have heard that this is to increase security but I really can't see any obvious way this would be true. More likely it arises from centralising the control software to more efficiently allocate the lifts. Nevertheless I think it is a major backward step in usability. The design really doesn't take human foibles into account and I can see multiple ways the theory could break in practice.
Then of course there are the security guards and pass-cards for temporary access - some of which require a driver's license before being provided. All to ensure that no authorised people are allowed access.
And what are they protecting? An office building - that is - levels and levels of desks with some computers on them. Valuable equipment yes, but rarely critical. Who are they protecting them from? I don't know. I am not sure what the expected attack is supposed to come from or what benefit the attacker is supposed to gain.
Simple thievery could be deterred by much simpler and cost effective means - how much does it cost to have 3 full time security guards + reception staff and how often are they actually required to do anything. The alternative is prevention of attacks on staff, either personal or corporate motivated. However, there are surely simpler and more unobtrusive mechanisms for detecting unauthorised entry. If the police force, surely one of the most targeted groups does not require the same level of control then I can't imagine that the department of Economic Development is in great danger.
All security is a cost-risk comparison and I really can't see the benefit in those terms. So perhaps the reasoning is more about presenting a sense of importance to any visitors.