Wise Energy Decisions

The Corruption of our National Academies

Mon, 10 May 2010 07:24:00 -0600

Up until a few months ago, I was a big supporter of our National Academies. No more. A fact of life today is that the Internet has facilitated the rapid and continuous dissemination of misinformation and disinformation by those promoting nothing more than self-serving interests. Lobbyists are acutely aware of this awesome power and have launched an unprecedented "marketing" assault on citizens and politicians. The motivations are simple: greed and power. Yes that has always been around, but today we have the perfect storm. We now toss around "Trillions of dollars" like these are some reasonable amounts! These staggering and unprecedented disbursements have (not surprisingly) spawned the most sophisticated and aggressive breed of profiteers that we have ever encountered. As a physicist and longtime environmental advocate, I know that it is critically important that (to counter this onslaught) there be a source of competent, objective, scientific information on the technology issues (like energy) that we face today. I had looked to the National Academies to fill that essential role. No more. Here is the tale of woe that came about when I happened to peek under an innocent looking rock. It started by my looking over a report in one of my fields of expertise: Electricity from Renewable Sources.... Having read many hundreds of energy reports, it didn't take long to see that this document was nothing more than agenda propaganda, and that any connection with science was inadvertent and purely happenstance. I was surprised that such a PR piece had been released by the Academies, and decided to investigate whether this was an aberration, or a degradation of standards. I was put in touch with a senior person at the Academies -- we'll play Dear Abby here and (to protect the innocent) call him "Dr. D." I had several lengthy correspondences with Dr. D, and the more I heard, the more concerned I became. In the beginning, after I objected to the lack of science and objectivity in this report, Dr. D tried to dismiss my contentions by stating that I simply didn't like its conclusions. That, of course, was a disingenuous response, as I had said absolutely nothing about the report's conclusions, and had focused my comments on its methodology. Unfortunately, this was a sign of similar foolishness to come. After receiving a barrage of excuses for the report's unscientific methods, I finally asked Dr. D outright: are you more a defender of the Academies' existing report system, or a person genuinely interested in improving it? Conveniently he contended that he was both. Unfortunately that also has proved to be inaccurate, as in our entire 21 pages of correspondence there was not a single matter where he said anything remotely like: "That's a good idea -- I will do everything I can to incorporate that into our study process."
------------------------------

My main message to him was: "I have been an ardent supporter of the National Academies. Due to their good standing in the scientific and political community, the Academies have been targeted by lobbyists to become another outlet for promotion of their financial interests." "Despite your belief that that the Academies' report system is robust, it HAS (for example) been compromised by the 'Electricity from Renewable Resources...' study." I won't bore you with all the details of our communications, but what I eventually did was to boil down the many issues we covered, into four key ones. To make absolutely sure that I was not reading something into what Dr. D might have rashly said to me, I asked him to give me a written answer to these four questions (regarding reports put out by the Academies):

Process

Result

"consensus science"

scientific methodology

Confidentiality

Transparency

bias

conflict of interest

Please give these some thought, before reading about his answers. I posed these particular queries as to me the core issue here is scientific integrity. If the Academies are not an objective bastion of scientific information, then who is? To simplify matters, I purposely phrased each question so that the second option was what I believe is the correct answer. Surprisingly (to me), despite some pontification, Dr. D said that the Academies chose the first option to each of the questions. I found none of his responses to be satisfactory, or science-based. To me, the most disturbing fact was that Dr. D studiously avoided the Academies from taking the "scientific role" throughout this whole report process. For instance, his unexpected answer to my first question (I'm paraphrasing) was: the less evidence there is available, the more the Academies deviate from scientific standards. (Huh?!) This flies in the face of ALL logic. It would seem to me that "where the available evidence is thin, or not definitive, or when deep ideological divisions exist" that all three of those circumstances would scream out: BE EXTRA CAREFUL, AND GET MORE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE BEFORE PROCEEDING! Yet Dr. D said no to that, and instead stated that it was the Academies' policy to let a select handful of biased people make a guess that suited their agenda. Furthermore, regarding the Renewable's Electricity report, there are some 100,000 turbines actively producing data throughout the world today. Exactly how and why can the data from 100,000 turbines be "thin" or "not definitive"? The only conceivable explanation for that would be that the keepers of such data know that the results do not promote their financial interests, and therefore studiously avoid releasing it. Should the Academies tolerate that obfuscation?
------------------------------

In Dr. D's answer to my second question, he begrudgingly acknowledged that the result is "important." However, he then stated that results "need to be supported by the best evidence available" which is a good sound bite, but is precisely what did NOT happen with the Renewable's Electricity report -- and he already made an excuse for it in his prior answer. Good evidence DOES exist in this case, and if the committee members made a formal, public complaint about it's "non-availability," it is extremely likely that it would then get released. The fact that they took no such action would indicate that the majority (along with their complicit "monitors") were willing to settle for speculation -- even though they knew that hard data existed. This exactly follows Dr. D's full script where he effectively said "the results need to be supported by the best evidence available, but if real evidence isn't easy to come by (or if it doesn't support the agenda of the majority of the committee) then the committee will forego such evidence, and instead rely on a consensus adjudication." Amazing. I can't say it any better than this: "The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." This is also a superb discussion of the scientific consensus concept.
------------------------------

Regarding my third question, he again made a token acknowledgment, saying "Transparency is, of course, essential to the results..." The problem is that (despite these good words) there is essentially zero transparency in this study (and evidently in the Academies' normal review process). Transparency is when ALL of the review comments are published (e.g. as an addendum and after the report is issued), and each of these are identified as to their source. Transparency is when all committee meeting minutes (and conflict of interest documents) are available to the public. None of these happened in this case. Based on his words, Dr. D believes that "transparency" simply means listing the names of the reviewers and the monitors. How have we gotten to the point where such revisionist redefinitions are tolerated by esteemed academics? Right after acknowledging that transparency was good, he then went about arguing against it. His first claim (unsupported) was that "transparency results in less quality reviews." I sent him a study that concluded otherwise. Didn't matter. Despite providing no data that supports his contention, he persists with his illogical opinion. His second justification for doing an inferior job at transparency boiled down to his belief that other institutions do a worse job at transparency than the Academies do. I asked him if he was familiar with the adage "Two wrongs don't make a right?" No reply. BTW, one more indicator about the Academies' transparency: I have written the study director of this project to send me some basic information on what transpired with this committee. He has refused to provide ANY of it. I then sent in a formal Freedom Of Information request for this information. The Academy has also stonewalled that, and provided none of the information. Transparency indeed.
------------------------------

Dr. D continued on by providing another stunning answer to my last question. He stated: "A committee member whose employment is directly 'connected' to the results of a committee's work may or may not pose a conflict of interest." (!) He then again launched into a defense of the Academies' venerable "process." At no point did he explain exactly how it is determined that a committee member whose employment is directly connected to the results of a report he is writing, would not have a conflict of interest. Likewise he did not explain how another conflict situation has been deemed acceptable by the Academies: a committee member who has a financial relationship with a study's sponsor (e.g. like GE Energy in this case) -- or is an employee of a study's sponsor! Before my correspondence with Dr. D I believed that the Academies would always err on the side of caution. His commentary indicates that the exact opposite has evolved, so that now (for instance) the term "conflict of interest" has been so diluted that it has effectively lost its meaning. What is proved by a "consensus" if there are (let's say) nine committee members, and five whose employment depends on their promotion of a particular agenda? What assurance does a reader of such a report have that a "consensus" by these five members means that the Academies' document has genuine scientific legitimacy or integrity? Very little, would be the obvious conclusion.
------------------------------

The keystone of Dr. D's arguments is that he believes that the Academies have a stellar review process that effectively pre-empts any corruption of the system and the results. As I wrote him, his listing of their checks and balances was impressive, but it reminds me of the extensive list of checks and balances we were told were in place regarding our home mortgage system. One has to only look at the sub-prime fiasco to see how self-serving participants along the way were able to successfully and effectively subvert such "checks and balances." It seems to me that the well-intended controls of the Academies' report system have lulled the organization into a complacency -- which has now resulted in a breech of their defenses. A report like the one I discussed with them undermines all the standards and credibility that the Academies have worked many years to establish and uphold. The fact is that the Academies' good review process has become dated, which is no surprise considering that it was literally designed for the horse and buggy era. We now have greenwashing, twitters, social marketing, sophisticated pseudo-science, etc., etc. The Academies absolutely MUST adjust to this new reality, or they will be eroded into oblivion -- a process already begun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My initial correspondence with Dr. D began with beliefs that:
1 - he was first and foremost a scientifically oriented person,
2 - he would welcome suggestions for improving the Academies' review process to make it better, and
3 - he would personally see to it that as many good suggestions were enacted as possible. It now seems (based on his words and actions) that these assumption were all incorrect. It appears that:
1 - Dr. D is first and foremost a defender of the Academies' study system,
2 - Dr. D does not genuinely welcome suggestions for improvement as he feels that the Academies' process is at a sufficiently high level, and
3 - based on that opinion, he also has little interest in implementing improvements to the Academies' process. I also started with a concern that Dr. D and the Academies had unknowingly been victimized by some very slick promoters. After hearing his justifications, it has instead become quite clear that Dr. D is actually an enabler of such scams. His complacency has invited in those whose objective it is to undermine the good name and works of the Academies. Shame on him and other like-minded persons at the Academies! BTW, I am not the only one who has come to these conclusions about the Academies' process (and this report). An excellent critical commentary from a reviewer of this particular report was done by energy expert Glenn Schleede.
------------------------------

So what is the solution? Option one seems to be to fix the situation at the Academies, so that their sole focus is to provide objective and sound scientific analyses. Their new policy should state (and their new process insure) that no technical report will be issued under the Academies' name unless it is firmly rooted in scientific methodology. The jury is still out as to whether or not this is possible, but current receptiveness and mindset so far say that this is a long shot. Option two is to start a new organization, whose sole objective is to ascertain the scientific soundness of technical policies, legislative proposals, organizations' agendas, etc. I have drafted up some ideas as to how this would work, and the proposed name is "Scientific Integrity Foundation" (SIF).
------------------------------

My position regarding our energy situation is that:
1 - we do have serious energy and environmental problems,
2 - we need solutions that are technically sound (e.g. reliable),
3 - we need solutions that are economically prudent, and
4 - we need solutions that have provable net environmental benefits. My experience is that #2 through #4 are NOT happening. The main reason for this is that the process has become over-run with lobbyists and political agenda organizations (e.g. AWEA, Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, NREL, now the National Academies, etc.). The end result is that we are being dictated solutions that are palliative political pablum. In my view the only way out of this quagmire is to go back to the basics: Scientifically Sound Solutions. The most fundamental part of this is that any new idea (e.g. industrial wind power) must be subjected to the process of scientific methodology. This is a comprehensive, objective assessment of the merits of any such proposal. If it passes, then we assess #3 & #4. If it succeeds with all three, then we should adopt it forthwith. If it fails, then its advocates go back to the drawing board. Of course lobbyists (and even some well-intentioned folks) are saying "we don't have time to verify that new proposals really work -- there's too much at stake to wait another minute!" My contrarian view is: the more there is at stake, the more certain we have to be that what we are doing really works! I don't know what clever name to call that principle (common sense?), but it is an idea that has apparently escaped most all of our esteemed organizations, government agencies, politicians, etc. john droz, jr.
physicist & environmental advocate; Brantingham Lake, NY; Crystal Coast, NC
See: EnergyPresentation

Models of Illusion

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:00 -0600

Everyone readily admits that things aren't always what they seem. But are we really applying this knowledge in our daily dealings -- are we consciously ferreting out the illusionary from the reality? I think not. For instance, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we aren't really being run by pandering politicians, self-serving lobbyists, fanatical environmentalists, and greedy Wall Street manipulators! They are the illusion. There is another even more powerful (but much less visible) agent, behind all of these puppets. The person behind the screen is the computer programmer. And, just like in the Wizard of OZ, they do not want you to look at this real controller. I'll probably have to turn in my membership card, but as a computer programmer (and physicist and environmental activist) I'm here to spill the beans about the Wiz. The first hint of trouble is spelled out in Wikipedia's explanation about computer programmers: "The discipline differs from many other technical professions in that programmers generally do not need to be licensed or pass any standardized (or governmentally regulated) certification tests in order to call themselves 'programmers' or even 'software engineers.'" Hmmm. My layperson explanation is that computer programming is all about making assumptions, and then converting these into mathematical (boolean) equations. The big picture question is this: is it really possible to accurately convert complex real-world situations into one's and zero's? Hal may think so, but higher processing brains say no. Yet this is continuously attempted, with very limited success. Let's pull the screen back a bit more. We'll start with an example about how such a model makes assumptions.

That's a LOT of different potential conclusions!

Unfortunately there are actually MANY more possibilities! My assumption that this debtor situation could be condensed down to a YES or NO answer, is not accurate. There are several other real situations that fall outside of YES or NO.

For instance, what if the debtor never got a notice in to first place that the amount was due by the date the agency is monitoring? Or what if the debtor sent the money and it got lost in transition? Or what if the debtor made the payment to the original person they owed, rather than the collection agency? Or what if the debtor sent in the money on time, and the collection agency incorrectly didn't credit the debtor for the payment? Etc., etc. For the computer program (model) to be accurate, ALL of these scenarios need to be able to be handled properly (legally, timely, etc.). Can you begin to see the complexity here, just with this very simple example of a payment not being received on time? There is still another significant factor (we're up to #4 now) not mentioned yet. What about the situation where the debtor hasn't paid, but it's because his child has MS, and he has no insurance? How does a computer programmer write code for more abstract concepts, like "fairness"? In other words, can ones and zeros be arranged in such a way to represent intangibles? I think not. So the bottom line question is this: is there any way that a computer program can correctly handle ALL of these real-world possibilities -- even in this simple debt collection case? The answer is no. NO!!! We have considerable difficulties just translating the relatively simple thing we call language -- e.g. Greek biblical texts into English. How many versions of the Bible are there? Why isn't there just one? Can we possibly hope to translate a process much more complicated than just words? We can certainly try, but clearly the answer is that there is a LOT lost in the translation of any complex scenario (debtors, energy performance, etc.) into mathematical equations and computer code. Some uninformed parties believe that the user has control of all the variables, and can manually (and accurately) change scenarios. That is incorrect, as the user-controlled elements only represent a small fraction of the actual number of factors that are built into the computer model. A similar fallacy is to think something like "we know the assumptions that the programmers made, and are adjusting accordingly." Wrong! In writing a computer program of any complexity, there are literally hundreds of assumptions made. The computer programmer does NOT reveal all these to his customer, for much the same reasons that an accountant does not tell his client all of the assumptions made in preparing a tax return. He goes over a few of the more basic items, and then says "sign here." Oh, yes, this example brings up still another MAJOR variable (#7): the data the programmer uses as the basis for his creation.

Just like preparing a tax return depends on two parties working together, writing a computer model is a collaboration between scientist and programmer. If the taxpayer gives incomplete or inaccurate data to the accountant, the result will be wrong. What's disconcerting is that in many cases, neither party will know that the results are in error... Similarly if the scientist gives incomplete or inaccurate date to the programmer to use in his creation, the result will likewise be wrong. AND neither party will know it! I hate to keep going on here, but this is important stuff! Believe it or not, there is still one more significant variable (#8) that we have to take into account. After a computer model is generated, there is then an interpreter (e.g. IPCC) that translates the "results" for politicians and the public (i.e. the media).

Here's a surprise: these public interpretations are influenced by such factors as political, religious, environmental, financial, and scientific opinions. In their public revelations, do the interpreters explain all of their underlying biases? By now you know the answer: absolutely not. When these are introduced into the equation we obviously have strayed so far from scientific fact that it is not even in sight anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------ Soooo, we need to think VERY CAREFULLY before we take major actions (e.g. spend a few Trillion dollars based on climate predictions, wind energy projected performance, etc.) that are almost entirely based on computer models. What to do? Should we just scrap all computer models? No, that's the other extreme. Computer models have merit -- but shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog. We should realistically see computer models for what they are: tools to assist us in organizing our thoughts, and producers of highly subjective results that are simply starting points for real scientific analysis. Because of their inherent limitations (which I've just touched on here) ALL computer models should be treated with a very healthy degree of skepticism. To insure appropriate integrity, ALL computer models regarding matters of importance should be subjected to the rigors of scientific methodology. If they can't accurately and continuously replicate the results of real world data, then they should be discarded. Unfortunately that is not what is happening. We have gotten so addicted to the illusion that these programs are accurate -- and some have become so agenda driven -- that we are now adjusting or discarding real world date that doesn't agree with the model. This is insane! If a model has not been proven to fully reflect reality, then it has very limited use, and should be treated with the same degree of consideration that one might give a horoscope. John Droz, jr. Physicist & Environmental Advocate For more energy info see my online presentation "www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation".

Is Nuclear A Renewable?

Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 -0600

As a physicist, my belief is that one of the reasons that intelligent energy policies have not gained sufficient traction is that we are allowing those with political agendas (vs scientists) to define some key energy terms.

[One thing I know from golf, is that a match is usually won or lost at the first tee -- where the terms and conditions are agreed on.] Outside of "fiscal responsibility" probably the most significant misused concept that we have unwittingly gone along with is the term "renewable" energy. Giving some critical thought to this moniker is no academic matter, as the majority members of the US Senate's Energy Committee are currently pushing for a national Renewable Electrical Standard (draft). Their decision as to what is a "renewable" will have profound technical, economic and environmental consequences on the United States.

Renewable is an energy resource that is replaced in a reasonable amount of time (our lifetime, our children's lifetime)...

"reasonable"

Who determines what is a reasonable amount of time, and what is it: 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

The reason the definition of renewable is focused on time, derives from the concern that we may exhaust some electrical energy sources, relatively soon. But how much is enough to have? For instance, if we have 100 years of some fuel, would the replenishment rate really be that important? Clearly, within the next 100 years of use, there will be some profound changes made regarding the efficiency and applications of said fuel's implementation -- in ways we have little understanding of today. Look at the well-reasoned expectations that were had in 1950 about what would happen in year 2000. The message is that almost ALL of the best guesses were wrong. In the same vein, prior technology predictions by experts (like Einstein) have also proven to be significantly off the mark. Who among us will stand to say that we have a better understanding of technology than did Einstein?
----------------------------------------------------------------------- In that light, let's look at the case for nuclear being "renewable." First we should answer how much longer will our nuclear fuel supply last. Consider:

When considering these sample facts, an important thing to keep in mind is this quote quote from some scientists at an excellent University of Michigan site: "Only 40 years ago, nuclear energy was an exotic, futuristic technology, the subject of experimentation and far fetched ideas." Hard as it might seem to believe, but most of this nuclear development has occurred in just the tiny space of 40± years -- so having any fuel supply that lasts 100± years could cover an enormous amount of new development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondly, some definitions of "Renewable" include a reference to "power derived from natural sources". Of course that is amusingly non-descriptive since essentially all sources of electrical power are based on natural materials -- and that includes nuclear.

Terrestrial Energy

here

A third factor sometimes appearing in the definition of "Renewable" is a reference to a power source's ability to reduce CO2 (i.e. to be a "clean" source). That same University of Michigan site has a very informative graph about how (worldwide) we have been able to reduce CO2 since 1973:

Now, for the sake of comparison, let's quickly look at the flip side of this question, at the poster child for renewables: wind energy.

wind energy requires more than a thousand times the land that nuclear does, to generate the equivalent amount of 24/7 power.

is not renewable by anyone's standards

shouldn't ALL of its major components be renewable?

The evidence says that we will run out of appropriate US land for industrial wind energy before we run out of fossil fuel for electrical power sources.

So considering this information, which is the true renewable: wind energy or nuclear power?

"Renewable" Energy ? R. I. P.

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:32:00 -0600

As a physicist (with energy expertise) and a long time environmental activist, I have grown increasingly concerned about our deviant electrical energy path. My belief is that technological decisions (i.e. those relating to energy) should be based on science. Instead we have the most impolitic situation where they are instead made to incur political favor. If you endorse energy policies contrived by lobbyists, then be happy and read no more. One of my pet peeves is the indiscriminate bandying about of the term "renewable" energy. This is no academic annoyance as right now the US Senate is drafting up a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The first version is an abomination that amounts to the biggest earmark in history (http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/END09012_xml.pdf). Clearly the Democrats have yet to absorb President Obama's directive concerning science (http://tinyurl.com/ce73km). In my view some of the main issues with it (and most state RPS's) are:
1 - all renewables are treated alike (i.e. wind power = solar = geothermal, etc.);
2 - any renewable is assumed to be better than most any conventional source (i.e. wind power is better than nuclear power);
3 - renewables are given credit for making significant environmental changes (i.e. wind power is promoted as the way to a carbon free future);
4 - the huge cost to taxpayers and ratepayers for renewable implementation is written of as the cost of "progress" or some other such platitude;
5 - the considerations of such stalwarts as grid reliability and dispatchability are now foreign concepts. The problem with these five items is that they are ALL wrong -- but who cares? Our "representatives" are determined to pound this renewable square peg into the round electrical energy hole. IMO one of the main reasons we are sliding into the energy ditch is that we are allowing those with political agendas (vs the scientists) to define some key energy terms -- like the word "renewable." To my knowledge there is no legal definition as to what renewable means. The explanations proffered vary quite a bit. Technically all sources of power are renewable, just at different rates -- so the key difference between a renewable and non-renewable is the rate of replenishment. That, in itself, should be a flag that this (in science terms) is a rather arbitrary and subjective definition. Who is to say what replenishment rate is good or bad, and on what basis? Consider these typical definitions (http://tinyurl.com/dkugz): "Renewable is an energy resource that is replaced rapidly by natural processes... A non-renewable is any resource that is not replaced in a reasonable amount of time (our lifetime, our children's lifetime, ...) and are thus considered 'used up' and not available to us again." Such words as "rapidly" and "reasonable" are subjective and relative terms -- not scientific. Another pivotal aspect ignored in these definitions is the fact that although a source (e.g. wind) may be quickly replenishable, it uses up other resources (e.g. land) that are not replenishable at all. We will run out of suitable land in the US for wind power sooner than we will run out of fossil fuels. Shouldn't the entire package be assessed as a whole? Considering the variability, inadequacy and politicalness of its current iteration, there is some merit to just exterminating "renewable" from our vocabulary . But nature abhors a vacuum, so for soundbite reasons, if we refuse to use renewable, then we should come up with a good replacement. To me, then, these are the options:
1 - redefine "renewable" so that it makes more scientific sense, or
2 - if the term "renewable" is beyond rehabilitation, come up with a substitute. Recently I posed this question to a group of energy experts. Interestingly, they were unanimous in their consensus that there was no hope in salvaging "renewable." One wrote:
"Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that the word renewable, applied as a source of energy, was a pejorative -- and I treat it as such today (much as I do windmills and windfarms). These are all words bowdlerized of any positive meaning, designed by the craven to casually separate people from the contents of their wallets. And so, in my public comments, I always connect renewables with fraud. Rather than refine the definition, I move that we ridicule the very concept, Instead I recommend promoting the principle of our making decisions based on energy density, or something in that vein." Another PhD energy expert said:
"When questioned on 'renewable' it is relatively simple to explain the First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation. Energy cannot be 'new,' thus cannot be 'renewed.' All we are doing is transforming one manifestation of energy into another -- and we should be doing it in a 'clean, non-polluting, preferably non-carbon-based' manner. This avoids (most times) the controversial subject of potential, unquantified global warming versus thermal equilibrium -- which is too long and too complex for most listeners." "I normally use the phrases 'clean energy,' 'clean sources.' etc. but throw in the occasional 'non-polluting' and 'non-carbon-based'. This meets, rather more than less, my concerns as a scientist and as a 'green person.' Simplistic? - maybe. But a lot more accurate than 'renewable.'" Anyway, the current leader of my unscientific poll is the term "clean." (The runnerup is "sustainable.") What constitutes clean? My recommendation is that would include any power source that does not produce more than 10 gCeq/kWh in production of electricity [ref http://tinyurl.com/7tmy2]. Now don't get me wrong here. This word change doesn't nearly fix the situation -- it is just one small step back towards scientific footing. Clean (or sustainable) doesn't necessarily mean reliable, or dispatchable, or any of the other seven important criteria spelled out in my online energy presentation (http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation). The bottom line is that in this highly complex electrical energy area, we need to make decisions based on what is technically, economically and environmentally sound. "Renewable" doesn't adequately address any of these. If you have a term that is more comprehensive in its description as to what electrical power sources should be, please volunteer it!

Our Energy Policies: The Wild West All Over Again

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:17:00 -0600

A well-intentioned friend sent me a correspondence that endorsed industrial wind power as an electrical power source that he thought might meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions. In his polemic he repeatedly characterized the developers as "investors," and stated that if wind power didn't perform as advertised that it would soon fall by the wayside. There were so many holes in his position that it was hard to know where to start, but the implications that there are normal free-market forces at work here, and that only the best (most effective) products will survive and prosper, and that the public will benefit from this process, are unsupportable and patently false. The reality is that we have a completely artificial environment where enormous sums of money are being doled out for "products" that have zero independent and objective proof that they really work. Let's try an analogy to see if my limited communication skills can get this point across. Remember that I'm just a scientist, not a wordsmith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm a big believer in the adage about "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." When we see western movies with charlatan doctors peddling rip-off remedies, one of our first reactions is to think "how could those people be so gullible?" In fact I've often heard someone say something to this effect: "if I was there then I would speak up and expose those frauds." Right. In reality the scams that happened back then were actually quite sophisticated. Most people were taken in, and it was due to a series of clever tricks and stunts used by the swindlers. For instance, the larger traveling shows employed smooth talking advance men to herald their arrival. They often entered town with circus-like fanfare, typically with a band leading a procession of professionally decorated wagons. Skits and other diversions were used to attract audiences, and to lower sales resistance. Clearly this cost a lot of money, so one of the initial subconscious impressions was that they must be successful to afford all this extravagance. The gathering was eventually treated to the spiel -- which was carefully given the academic name, the "Lecture." [Interestingly, when medicine shows eventually expanded into radio, these pitches became the commercial.] During all this, some assistants moved through the crowd garbed as Quakers to lend an air of moral respectability to the affair. Shills were paid people who stood up and gave enthusiastic testimony as to the effectiveness of the phony product. Native Americans were frequently recruited to promote the notion of "natural" or environmentally friendly medicines, which were given names like Wright's Indian Vegetable Pills, Seminole Cough Balsam, or the Amazing Kickapoo Juice. Now we'll go back and add today's reality to that historical era. Let's say that at that time there were well-intentioned organizations (e.g. the Sarah Club) that expressed concern for citizens' health. There was a legitimate basis for this anxiety as there were few health facilities then, no regulation of such matters as drinking water quality, and people were indeed susceptible to a wide variety of diseases where we had little in the way of real cures. Manipulating that information, these organizations goaded the government into classifying this as a national crisis. The Sarah spinmeisters characterized the situation as a threat to our survival as a young, growing, but vulnerable new country. The lobbyists said that immediate action was needed, so there was no time to waste on a scientific assessment of the options. (The idea that haste makes waste was a foreign concept.) In response to incessant political pressure, the government did step in. The political quick fix was that each and every citizen was MANDATED to buy and use at least five "medicinal" products a year, for the next ten years. The legislation was called Robust Physical Shape or RPS. Wags labeled it as five & dime. As if the absurdity of that wasn't enough, the government then declared that for every new "health" product introduced, that it would subsidize the "developing company" $10,000 (a windfall amount for those days). [Note that in this irrational and artificially created market, that the government introduced zero controls to assure the validity or effectiveness of any of this snake oil. Amazingly this omission was endorsed by the same organizations who professed to be concerned for citizens health (under the guise of "not wanting to increase the size of government").] One end result was that essentially anyone could simply put a label on bottled swamp water stating that it was an elixir of good health and they were good to go. Soooo --
1 - would it be an "unexpected consequence" that bogus products would proliferate in such a scenario?
2 - would one call that situation a "free market" environment?
3 - would marketers of Kickapoo Juice really be "investors"?
4 - would better products succeed more than poorer products -- or would marketing, bribery, etc. be the dominant factors?
5 - would citizens be able to make competent choices as to which "medical" products were truly worthwhile?
6 - would US citizens -- and the country -- have genuinely benefited from such a one-sided government intervention? Is there any serious person (outside of UCS) who would truly believe that all this would have made good sense? Once you get a firm grasp on the insanity of that situation, you will have a clear idea of exactly what we are currently experiencing with our indiscriminate support of renewable energy (esp industrial wind power). See http://tinyurl.com/abb4x8 for a proposed solution.

Energy Is Now A Life & Death Matter

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:56:00 -0600

Imagine this scenario: pharmaceutical companies selling any drug they feel like, having no scientific testing to support their drug's efficacy, making any claim that's in their financial interest, and having no federal or state oversight (e.g. FDA) regarding any of these matters. Would that make any sense at all? Would we consumers be healthier under that setup? Would you be surprised if bogus products proliferated? And despite platitudes like "consumer beware," exactly how would citizens possibly be able to assess the merits of these specious claims in the highly technical area of modern medicines? Well that is EXACTLY the absurd situation we currently have with electrical energy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rightly exists because health is a top priority -- but energy and health now significantly overlap. For instance some energy pollutants (e.g. from coal power facilities) are known carcinogens. More importantly, many believe that the sum effect of these energy contaminants will result in the human species' demise. What trumps that? Right now electrical energy profiteers can sell essentially any "alternative" source of energy they feel like, have no independent scientific testing to support it's efficacy, and make almost any assertion that's in their financial interest. Wind power is an example of this charade. Since this fiasco exists due to the lack of adequate federal and state oversight, the best solution is to create the EEA (Electrical Energy Administration), which would be given FDA-like responsibilities. In short, companies wanting to sell an alternative that garnered tax breaks, incentives, etc., would be required to submit extensive, independent, objective scientific testing to verify that their alternative was at least equal to conventional electrical power sources. This is what's called using "Scientific Methodology." [This screening would also apply to any alternative that wanted to "count" in any Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).] "Equal" would mean that an alternative electric power source must meet the six critical grid criteria before being released to the public. These are that it: 1) provide large amounts of electricity; 2) provide reliable and predictable electricity; 3) provide dispatchable electricity; 4) provide base load, load following, and/or peak load; 5) be capable of being a compact facility near high-demand areas; and 6) provide economical unsubsidized electricity. Additionally, alternative sources would have to submit proof that for every MWH of electricity they generated, that at least 8/10 MWH of fossil fuel generated electricity would be eliminated. [See "WindPowerFacts.Info" for more details.] Again, what citizens need to know is that NONE of this is done today. The EEA wouldn't do testing themselves, but rather would be a panel of independent scientific experts who would evaluate the evidence presented, and approve or reject proposed alternatives based on its technical, economic and environmental merits. Additionally the EEA would have the authority to subsequently see that there wasn't false advertising, and would be able to pull an alternative power source if new adverse information was revealed. In an ideal world, the EEA would also take on the better aspects of the formerly successful Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The EEA could be a perfect watchdog over the huge amount of economic stimulus dollars that will undoubtedly be going into the electrical energy sector. I realize that other federal agencies (e.g. DOE, FERC, EPA) handle various energy issues. That's actually part of the problem, though, as there are overlaps and serious gaps in this coverage. Most importantly, none have FDA-type authority over electrical energy sources. Since I'm against bureaucratic growth, my recommendation is that for every person added to EEA that one person will be removed from both DOE and FERC. This will result in personnel cuts, so a net savings should be realized. If done correctly (particularly learning from FDA and OTA experiences), the economic and environmental benefits to consumers, taxpayers, ratepayers, and the country as a whole would be profound. The alternative is to continue down senseless street: essentially a completely unregulated wild west bonanza, where smooth talking lobbyists and their shills are peddling snake oil, where no claim is too outrageous, and over a trillion dollars will be sucked out of the pockets of us unsuspecting marks -- with miniscule merits.

Alica In Wonderland: An RPS Analogy

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:33:00 -0600

Alica is a normal, active 24 year old. Although she is a bit overweight (140 lbs. at 5'6"), she doesn't have any other known health issues. That's why she was rather surprised how concerned her doctor was at her annual physical checkup. After doing his basic checks, he sternly spoke to her at length about several problems that excess weight is connected to (diabetes, heart complications, earlier mortality, etc.). Alica had been at this weight for years, so asked him why he hadn't said something about this before. He somewhat apologetically acknowledged that he just came back from a national convention and was anxious to try out a new idea he had heard was being done by doctors in other states. "Alica, from what I've just learned, the solution for you is called RPS." Of course Alica had no clue as to what that was. Seeing her puzzled look, the doctor volunteered further explanation: "RPS is 'Rapid Pedamorphic Solution'." Alica: "Oh, OK." "It's simple!" he said. "RPS mandates that you must lose 20 pounds in two weeks." Alica was stunned. "TWENTY pounds in TWO weeks? That's impossible!" But the doctor was prepared. "Not really. At this convention they were promoting a miracle solution. It's called Weight Power. It's been used in Europe and from what I hear, people there love it." "Really? How does it work?" "Well, they've known for some time that an element of fat is CO22. Weight Power is supposed to reduce CO22, and the theory is that this reduction will result in body fat simply dissipating. It's that easy. So, as surprising as it may seem, RPS can be achieved if you use Weight Power." But Alica had a BS in Biology and wasn't just going to just accept this at face value. "Has the FDA approved Weight Power?" "Not yet, but they are looking at it." "Well then what independent scientific research has been done to prove that it works?" she asked. "The manufacturer and their trade reps assure us that it works as advertised. And those people in Europe are smart cookies. They wouldn't be buying stuff that doesn't work!" "How much does it cost?" she inquired. "I have a large supply that I picked up at the convention, so I got a quantity discount. Your initial startup cost is only $5000." "FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS???" "Yes, but remember that your life is at stake here. How much is saving your life worth? Hey, and anyway, your insurance companies will pay for 90% of it." "Maybe they will, but FIVE THOUSAND dollars?" "Full disclosure requires that I tell you that there is an additional $100 per month." "WHAT? For how long?" "For life. Once you stop using Weight Power, those pesky CO22's will come back." "You're pulling my leg here right?" "Not at all. How about trying it out, I have some right here. Two tablespoons a day, before breakfast." (He gives her a sample.) "Oh my god that tastes absolutely horrible! It's just like turpentine!" "Hmmm. Taste is a subjective thing. Some people really like how it tastes." "There are people who like the taste of turpentine???" "Sure. Some people like it so much that they have signed on to sell it." "Sell it? How does that work?" "Well the developers of Weight Power lease some product to interested local people, who then sell it to their community." "Is that really worth someone's time to do?" "Absolutely, there's BIG money to be made with reducing CO22. With RPS catching on, and the insurance companies onboard, this is going to be all the rage. Take my word for it, everybody's going to be doing RPS, and Weight Power is the only game in town." "So there will be people out there in my community saying lots of good things about the Weight Power -- not because they have any independent scientific information that it works -- but because they have a financial interest in it? Got it, thanks for the heads up." She continued: "But back to the science here, why can't I lose this weight by calorie conservation and doing more exercise?" "That's old school thinking. Besides it wouldn't happen fast enough: time is of the essence. You are at serious risk here -- your world could come to an end very soon!" "Well if my situation is so serious, then what about surgery?" "That isn't a good option for someone like yourself. There are known risks to that." "But aren't there risks for Weight Power?" "The manufacturer says no, so were going to take the optimistic position here." "What's actually in this Weight Power stuff?" "Not really sure. It's a proprietary business, so you can understand that they wouldn't want to give away trade secrets. GE and other multinational companies are involved, though, and they're reputable, right?" "So if I take this terrible swill as required, the upside is that you're telling me I'm guaranteed to get rid of enough CO22 so that I will lose the 20 pounds in two weeks?" "Sorry, I should have made that clear. Everybody's body chemistry is different, so you can see why the developers can't be expected to make any guarantees." "Are you serious? You're the doctor here, but let me see if I understand RPS and its implications:
  1) you say that my life is suddenly in immediate peril due to my being 20 pounds overweight,
  2) I have to get rid of those 20 pounds in 2 weeks, or else my life is likely to come to an abrupt and catastrophic end,
  3) I can't resort to surgery as that is too risky,
  4) exercise and diet won't work fast enough,
  5) it's just a hypothesis that reducing CO22 will dissipate body fat,
  6) you are assuring me that Weight Power will consequentially reduce this CO22,
  7) you have no independent scientific evidence, though, that Weight Power actually will do this,
  8) since you don't know what's in it, you really don't know all the risks either,
  9) I will pay you for Weight Power: $5000 up front and $100/month for life,
10) once I start I am committed forever: I can't stop,
11) it tastes like turpentine, but I just have to toughen up for the greater good,
12) there is no guarantee or warrantee of any kind." "Yes. That's a reasonable summary. Can I sign you up?" "OK, where's the Candid camera?" ---------- Credits ---------- Alica ............................................................... US Citizens
Doctor ............... Federal & State Politicians/Energy Agencies
RPS .......................................................................... RPS
CO22 ........................................................................ CO2
Weight Power .................................................. Wind Power
Insurance Companies .......... Federal and State Governments
Turpentine Taste .................................... Unpalatable Views
Community Salespeople ............ Wind Turbine Lease Holders
Calorie Conservation ........................... Energy Conservation
Surgery ...................................................... Nuclear Power
Director ....................................................... John Droz, jr. Get A Grip Productions
Copyright: I/XII/XXXI
www.WindPowerFacts.Info

War Of The Worlds

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:26:00 -0600

Although we are at war, most people don't know it -- and no, I don't mean in the MidEast. The war is about our energy future, and the US cost is likely to be in the Trillions of dollars -- considerably more than our Middle East foray, or all the bailouts combined! One reason the public is unaware is that the main assault force has yet to land. But our G-2 indicates that the major campaign is imminent: mostly likely to begin shortly after January 21, 2009. So far events have followed a somewhat traditional game plan, as we have been softened up for some time now in anticipation of the arrival of these troops. The carpet bombing has been from a wide variety of misinformed but well-heeled Hessians, ranging from T. Boone Pickens to WeCanSolveIt. Because of the enormous amounts of money involved, we are arrayed against some very formidable forces. One of their main objectives is to impose wind power (their holy grail) on us. To accomplish this mission they've contracted Madison Ave marketers to let us have it with both barrels. At last count they are wielding no less than six (6) different strategies to get us to raise the white flag. Our best defense against this modern warfare is to use Critical Thinking. An example of the powerful techniques they are employing is a relatively new one called Social Marketing. Instead of telling you how their product benefits you, their ploy is to try to convince you that their product is for the public good. Part of this strategy is for these mercenaries to use very carefully selected words like "free, clean, and green" that are designed to elicit your subconscious support for their financial gain. Once you do some Critical Thinking though, it becomes clear that wind power electricity generation is NOT really free, clean, or green. Then there is another relatively new tactic that has become so frequent that it now has a name: Greenwashing. The idea here is that a business tries to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are. Wind power is a prime example, as many of their claims are bogus, and will only be realized as such if you put on your thinking cap. Then there is the concentrated effort to confuse you. (Some might say deceive.) An example is that these hired guns lump all sectors of energy together as if they were one problem. They are not! For instance in the transportation sector, energy independence is a worthy goal. In the electrical power sector, we've essentially always had it! The storm troopers purposely confuse unarmed citizens on this matter, saying things like wind power will reduce our oil dependence. That's just not true. Camouflage experts as our attackers are, another trick they use is sleight of hand. A common statement you'll hear from these service people is that wind power should be part of a solution of our energy issues. This gambit often works as most of the masses desperately want some type of fix. Taking advantage of that inclination the commando profiteers morph that desire into a belief that doing anything is a good thing. But it's like you desperately wanting to do something as your house is burning down, so they hand you a glass of water to help douse the flames. Another battle plan is distortion. A good example is that wind power agents may say that nuclear power plants are terrorist targets. Critical Thinking research reveals that the facts are that there have been some 13,000 worldwide operational years with nuclear power facilities, with zero terrorist attacks. This isn't just luck, as there are several technical reasons why nuclear reactors are not attractive targets for extremists. Wind power protagonists don't much like nuclear power -- mainly because it's everything wind power isn't. So to discourage the populous from embracing their enemy, they also use Fear as a tactic. One example is that they talk about the danger of an accident in transporting spent nuclear fuel. If you check out the tests done by Sandia labs (online), you'll see that this is also blown way out of perspective. All these schemes are necessary for one fundamental reason: industrial wind power doesn't make sense. If it did, then no shots would need to be fired, as the simple facts demonstrating that it does would win the day. But no, marketing tricks are their only hope. The worst result of this bombardment is that politicians have put on kakis (green) and have fallen in lockstep with the aggressors here. This unholy alliance has resulted in one of the most incompetent ideas in decades: the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The gist of the problem is that these imperial edicts are not only arbitrary and artificial, but they don't really accomplish what they purport to do: meaningfully reduce fossil fuel emissions. To add insult to injury, what tiny amounts of CO2 they save are extraordinarily expensive. RPS's are laughable, except for the fact that they have become so pervasive and have such dire consequences to innocent civilians, on multiple fronts. Since the electrical grid is a highly complex matter, most people have no idea why wind power is not really "free, clean, and green." But analogies are often helpful so consider this. Electrical generation and Transportation are two completely different energy sectors. Unlike the electrical part, the transportation sector does use a LOT of oil related products. Let's say that we agree that (all things being equal) less oil usage by the US would be a good thing. That would require reducing oil consumption in the Transportation sector, which primarily consists of autos, trucks, trains, planes and ships. Let's say that the government, in its wisdom, decided to target the thousands of US marine vessels -- which indeed use a considerable amount of oil (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/there_is_no_fre.php). So they come up with a decree: Ship Renewable Portfolio (SRP). What this mandate says is that 20% of all commercial and military ships must exclusively use wind power by 2015. (Why 20%? Why 2015? Who knows: as I said, such numbers are artificial and arbitrary.) Now carefully consider the consequences of this change. Because of their reliance on sail power all such boats would have to be MUCH smaller than modern vessels, so thousands of new ships would have to be built. In fact one modern cargo ship would need somewhere like a thousand clipper sized ships to carry an equivalent amount of goods. (It's interesting that a similar relationship exists between wind power turbines and a nuclear plant.) In addition, commercial shipping speeds would be significantly reduced, so inventories (and costs) would need to be increased. The Navy's ability to respond to emergencies quickly would likewise be crippled. Etc. Etc. The costs for all this between ships, port changes, additional personnel required, manpower training, etc. would be enormous. In defense of this absurdity, the government (and their WeCanSolveIt type superiors) will say: maybe this is true, but we will be meeting our objective -- saving fossil fuel emissions! Really? Well let's think about this for a minute. First of all, there will be a significant amount of fossil fuel used in the completely unnecessary construction of thousands of ships. Secondly, because of the unattractive implications wind power will have to the shipping business, many customers will take their trade elsewhere. The result of this would be that airlines, railroads and trucking would ramp up their operations to account for increased traffic. All that would mean much more fossil fuel used by those sources. So what would be the NET savings? Unequivocally they would be miniscule. And what would be the cost of this SRP fiasco? Clearly quite large. So there you have industrial wind power in a nutshell: tiny benefits at huge costs. But won't reverting to sailing ships create lots of jobs the environmental protagonists will whine? Wait a minute! They said that the WHOLE point of the SRP/RPS was to make a significant dent in fossil fuel emissions, so aren't they completely changing the topic when they bring up "economic opportunity"? Of course they are: all's fair in love and war! But let's play their new game -- then we'll be done with their diversions, right? Yes, building thousands of new sailing ships will create new jobs in both construction and operation. But is reverting to 18th century employment wise public policy? If so, then we need to give this whole employment business some new thought. For instance, many things have been invented in the last century that were specifically designed to save manpower. So if we are so desperate for jobs, just reverse the process! Here's an example: as part of SRP/RPS the government should outlaw all bulldozers. Considering that there are thousands of bulldozers, and that each does the work of ten men, something like a hundred thousand new jobs will instantly be created. And, as a bonus, since these bulldozers use fossil fuels, we'll cut back on CO2 in the process! If you think that these employment ideas, or SRP (or RPS) plans makes sense, then you should seriously consider joining Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are all advocating such medieval solutions to our modern energy problems. Paul Revere I'm not, but you ignore this warning at your extreme peril. So when the occupying forces show up to take over your town, your way of life, and your pocketbook, just remember who you have to thank. Knowledge is power so if you want to arm yourself see WindPowerFacts.Info.