Pecologix Political Ecology Blotter » Ruminations

Donald Sadoway: The missing link to renewable energy | Video on TED.com

A. Cherson — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:32:14 +0000

This is how the idea is introduced:

Donald Sadoway is working on a battery miracle — an inexpensive, incredibly efficient, three-layered battery using “liquid metal.”

Professor Sadoway explains that his angle has been to design around the oil price point, not around some wild and cool technology that can never compete economically. He goes on to say he wants his battery to use abundantly available materials and work in a simple, low cost way. The talk is loaded with an understated arrogance and false modesty.

After the talk I did some reading on one of the electrode materials, Antinomy (Sb). I discovered that it is very rare, produced almost exclusively in China, and expected to be completely depleted on Earth in a few years. Could this be the same plentiful material that Sadoway is talking about? His presentation suggests that for his system to work at the grid level, he’s going to need a whole lot of Sb, and possibly continue needing a new supply forever.

Either he knows something we don’t or he is just getting warmed up using antimony and will be substituting for it with some other more commonly available materials.

I’d like to hear more about this antimony and what I am missing…..

Donald Sadoway: The missing link to renewable energy | Video on TED.com

No related posts.

Technical Study of Scriptural Biomass Gasification

A. Cherson — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:22:35 +0000

Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Labs have announced the completion of an ARPA-E sponsored study comparing the relative gasification efficiencies of key scriptures from the world’s major religions as biomass feedstocks. The researchers gasified typical exemplars of the Bhagavadgita, the Analects of Confucius and the Tao (in one reversible volume), the Torah (with and without Talmud), the Bible plus Apocryphas, the 21 Theses, the Qur’an, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Book of Mormon, and several archaic Palimpsests and ancient Papyrii scrolls, among others. They quantified energy production as well as analyzed ash content and gaseous emissions from the scriptures. As study controls, they also tested Plato’s Republic, Rosseau’s Social Contract, Marx’s Das Kapital, Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Joyce’s Ulysses, the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Flags of the World, the ‘Compleat’ Beatles Songbook, the C+++ Operating System Code (line by line), and a transcription of the Wikileaks documents database.

The researchers emphasize that gasification is an oxygen free form of energy production and that at no time were any of the scriptures or flag books or Beatles music burned (since burning involves combustion in oxygen).

The findings suggest that scriptural biomass could provide energy at an average efficiency of 23% which compares favorably with other forms of plant biomass and is about the same rate as the controls. Since it is estimated that there exists approximately 6-8 billion tonnes of scriptural biomass in the world today, its use as a feedstock could supply enough energy to power 6,000,000 homes for one year in the developed world and about 4 to 5 times as many homes in the developing world.

They speculate that scriptural biomass may have a greater energy impact if used to take people’s minds away from worldly energy shortages and thus reduce the demand for energy in the first place. However, scriptural biomass could also be having the opposite effect by distracting people in the developing world to ignore energy related costs and thereby increase energy demand. They will be conducting a Life Cycle Assessment to try to compare the energy impacts of indirect scriptural use change leakages.

The research was co-sponsored by the International Society of April Fuels.

Rumination: Scientific Relativism and Ecocide

A. Cherson — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:29 +0000

In Michael Crichton’s last novel, Micro, the following exchange takes place between the character Danny, a philosopher of science , and Erika a coleopterist,

“…I have not adopted the scientific worldview of verities and immutable truths.”
“Neither have we,” Erika said. “But some things are repeatedly verifiable and therefore justify our belief in them.”
“Wouldn’t it be pleasant to think so? But that’s just a self-serving fantasy that most scientists have about themselves. In reality, it’s all power structures,” Minot said. “And you know it. Whoever has the power in society determines what can be studied, determines what can be observed, determines what can be thought. Scientists fall in line with the dominant power structure. They have to, because the power structure pays the bills. You don’t play ball with the power structure, you don’t get money for research, you don’t get an appointment, you don’t get published, in short you don’t count anymore. You’re out. You might as well be dead.”

This notion, that there are no immutable truths has entered the public debate about science in general and ecocide in particular. Ecocide is the view that a combination of human driven factors are destroying the Earth’s ability to support a thriving human component. Climate change is one of these factors, as is biodiversity loss. Deniers of climate change are often labeled as fossil fuel industry puppets being paid to say this or that. Climate change supporters are often portrayed as a cabal of researchers, making up facts and conclusion solely to comply with power structure group-think. Very rarely are debaters able to agree on objective or immutable facts.

It is true that economic necessity creates moral hazards. This is no less true in science than it is in any other walk of life. Take for instance, political affiliation. How many people adopt political views based on their perceptions of how much money these views may be worth to them? Artists, likewise, need to satisfy their patrons and often make artistic choices based on the ‘market’. Economists also must satisfy their masters. As the sayings go, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’, and ‘what side is one’s bread buttered on?’. But is that all there is to the story?

Is any worldview as ‘truthful’ as the next? Could the power structure suddenly decide that the sky is green and force us all to adopt this view as truth? I posit that the history of humanity is nothing less than a very long march towards greater and greater objective truth, often impeded by power and money-driven group-think. I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue, like Danny, that there are no immutable, or objective, scientific truths. There are many justified cause-and-effect truths, as Erika points out. It is also true that these immutable truths are subject to a certain set of conditions (i.e., water boils at different points depending on pressure, or newtonian physics fails at the nanoscale). And, it is also true that power and money driven group-think can distort our perception of just about anything, including scientific truths.

The real question is how do we know whether a certain piece of knowledge or information is the objective or the power-based kind. I think the only answer to this question is experience. It is only after a sufficient number of human beings have looked at, thought about, tested, and verified something that it can be considered objectively true. Then the issue becomes a numbers game: do the majority of people believe truth A or truth B, based on their experience.

Right now, we are in the midst of an experiential testing of the ecocide hypothesis. Many, many people have been convinced already, but many have not, or are playing a ‘tune’ for some particular piper. This knowledge impasse will be breached when one side or the other begins to sound so out of key with experience that no one can reasonably accept it as an objective truth any longer. I can live with this epistemic reality, as frustrating and as risky as it may be.

I would seek to modify Danny’s statement to read that there are both things: immutable or objective truths AND power-driven truths. I also believe that populations able to align themselves more closely with objective truths are the ones that will ultimately prevail and survive.

What concerns me is the inertial position that many have taken who have been convinced of the objective reality of ecocide, but are skeptical about our being able to do anything to stop its progress, or are overly confident in our ability to deal with any possible ecocidal eventuality. These people may be described either as fatalists or adaptists. They view the entire system as too complex and large to be impacted significantly by concerted human action. Therefore, since there is nothing we can do, we should not add to our misery by actually trying. When conditions change we should simply react and adjust as best we can. This set of views jumps to a conclusion about the fundamental scientific question of our time: can any population, in this case human beings, intentionally preserve or create for themselves an ecosystem to which they are already adapted, or is stochastic (random) complexity simply too unwieldy and predictable to allow any such effort to succeed? And its ancillary question, are there ecosystem condition changes or rates of changes to which a species cannot successfully adapt (in other words, given time, is it possible for a species to adapt to any set of conditions)?

My experience informs me that what has allowed the human species to thrive historically is precisely this type of ecosystem preservation and creation (which we could also call management). It also informs me that there are certain ecosystem changes that are so fast or drastic that entire species are eliminated. Human beings are very good at managing ecosystems for their benefit (viz. agriculture), BUT there is also a range of conditions that we require. If these conditions change then we need to be afforded enough time to evolve or adapt. If the range of ecosystem conditions supporting human life changes too quickly or drastically, though, there is no level of management which will suffice to perpetuate survival.

These seem to me to be immutable and verifiable truths. I hope that humanity can accumulate sufficient experience to validate them, overcome the power-money impasse, and to act accordingly. Ecosystem management is what humans do and shall continue to do, albeit not in the same way as our ancestors!

Rumination: Hydrogen Sulfide Capture and Reuse

A. Cherson — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:56:49 +0000

Hydrogen sulfide is one of those often overlooked industrial emissions from the point of view of symbiotic, reuse technologies. Much effort has been addressed, for instance, at using CO2 emissions for beneficial purposes, but not that much, at least as far as I am aware, of using H2S in the same way. H2S is a waste product from petroleum refineries, coke ovens, paper mills, and tanneries, and it is also a waste product from natural gas cleaning. So there appears to be an ample and growing supply.

Meanwhile, the past several decades have seen the discovery of a whole zoo of chemotrophic organisms that can take H2S and make perfectly wholesome carbohydrates like this:

CO2 + O2 + 4H2S >>>>>> CH20 + 4S+ 3H2O

Furthermore, genomics researchers are speedily finding ways of taking natural occurring microbial metabolisms and souping them up for industrial purposes.

So, put 1 + 1 + 1 together and we have the idea of processing waste H2S plus CO2 to create carbohydrates, elemental sulfur (another useful product), and water.

Please post hyperlinks to relevant research below.

Rumination: Ecologically Sustainable Taxation

A. Cherson — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:50:40 +0000

In the US there seems to be a perennial battle over taxation. Who should be taxed? What should be taxed? How much? Every point of view on this subject is tinged with a heavy self-interested bias. I now ask the question, ‘what is the ecological approach to taxation?’ I propose that the emphasis of taxation systems from the ecological sustainability angle should be on the taxation of income rather than wealth. For this discussion, wealth is the equivalent of accumulated savings and income is any addition to this amount produced from labor, capital appreciation, or investment. Wealth is therefore the equivalent of conservation and income, the equivalent of consumption. Ecological economics, being as it is, about conservation, about sustainable consumption, is therefore on the side of controlling consumption behavior and of encouraging conservation behavior. Let me try to give a hypothetical, schematic illustration. Supposing small logger A in Equatorial Guinea decides to apply a form of super efficient irrigation that allows him to enjoy a very large profit in Years 1-5. Each year he pays off some of the cost of the irrigation system and takes saves some of the profit. In Year 6, his savings provide him with enough income to allow a reduction in the size of his woodland, therefore allowing a portion of the woodland to return to wilderness. Eventually, he is able to live entirely from the income generated from savings and convert the entire woodland into wilderness. In effect, logger A has exchanged livelihoods. He used to earn his livelihood from the timber market and now it is earned from the capital market. In fact, his accumulated wealth is no different than his former timber land: it is an asset being applied towards generating income, the only difference being in the transformation of a certain amount of land from timber use to wilderness.

This illustration shows why I am in favor of a universal consumption tax to replace all other forms of taxation. The way this tax works is as follows: 1) all forms of income are considered the same (wages, capital appreciation, and investment), 2) all income is taxed in the year accrued, 3) any income that is saved is exempt from taxation (in other words, if an individual earns 50 in wages and is able to deposit 10 of that in the bank, he is taxed only on 40; likewise, 50 in interest is taxed only to the extent that the 50 is withdrawn (consumed), 4) any withdrawal from savings is considered consumption and is taxable (if in year 2, the individual then withdraws the 10 he saved in year 1, then that amount once again becomes taxable).

The US revenue system already has a policy instrument that leads the way towards the consumption tax: the Individual Retirement Account. At the moment this account allows individuals to deposit a portion of their earned income and avoid paying any tax on that income until withdrawn at retirement. My suggestion builds on this concept. The Consumption Tax would create an Individual Wealth Account (IWA) that works in much the same way: 1) individuals could deposit any form of income into the account and thus avoid being taxed on that income until withdrawn, 2) individuals could withdraw funds from the IWA at any time, but any amount withdrawn is subject to the Consumption Tax, 3) any income not deposited into the IWA is also subjected to the Consumption Tax, 4) tax rates would be adjusted according to the revenue needs of the polity and could be made as progressive as desired by the polity, 5) all other forms of tax: property, sales, corporate, and inheritance, are ABOLISHED!

This, in a nutshell, is the most ecologically sustainable system of taxation.

Rumination: Why should different faiths (religions) in the world bother about climate change?

A. Cherson — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:55:47 +0000

I saw this question asked recently on a scientific discussion forum and here is the answer I posted there:

‘Please permit to rephrase your question and add two premises. The first premise is that climate change will cause an increase in human suffering and hardship and that climate change is, at least partially, caused by human action. If you do not accept this premise then no one except climatologists should bother and there is nothing we humans can do to prevent it anyway. The second premise is that all religion is, at least partially, concerned with the problem of human suffering. If you do not accept this second premise then the obvious answer to your question is that religion should not be bothered because climate change is a subject matter outside the realm of religion. My rephrased question then is this: Is climate change (= human suffering caused by climate change) good or bad for ‘religion’? The only reason anyone or anything should be bothered about something else is if it is going to have a good or bad impact on their existence, correct? If human suffering caused by climate change is good for religion then religions should not be bothered about climate change and in fact may want to encourage it to happen faster. If human suffering caused by climate change is bad for religion then religions would want to prevent its expansion.

The answer to your question depends on whether one takes the view that human suffering (in this case caused by climate change) is good or bad for religion. Allow me to suggest an analogous question that should help clarify the issue: Is illness and injury good or bad for medicine? I think it is clear that if there were no illness or injury then there would me no, or little, need for medicine. Looked at in this way, illness and disease are good for ‘medicine’ and should be encouraged for the benefit of ‘medicine’. However, there is something about this logic that seems fallacious, perverse, and false. It is the result of thought distortion. Which goal is the correct one? The reduction of illness and injury or the promotion of medicine? Which goal is the correct one? The reduction of human suffering (in this case caused by climate change) or the promotion of religion? So while it is true that illness promotes medicine and suffering promotes religion, it would be a false conclusion to say we should have more illness and suffering so that we could have more medicine and religion. You can also see how promoters of medicine and religion might be tempted to stimulate illness and suffering since this causes a higher demand for their remedies. (By the way, this is also relates to one of the main critiques of profit-driven health care: the economic incentives make the system lean towards keeping people sick—a perverse outcome.)

So you can see that there is a hazardous tendency for religion to not be bothered by, or even to encourage the acceleration of, climate change because, if anything, climate change will likely increase the amount of human suffering and therefore increase also the demand for religious consolation. I hasten to add that there are many true advocates of religion (and medicine) who fully understand this paradox and do see the true priority of good health and wellbeing even when this goes against the self-interests of the medical or theological arts. One may of course argue that a certain amount of illness and suffering is unavoidable, and I would agree. However, my premise is that climate change is at least partially preventable. In support of this contention I offer but one example: since we have stopped using leaded gasoline in our cars, the amount of lead in our air and water has fallen measurably. Our actions can clearly affect our climate/environment.

However, there is also another level of observation and conjecture. Supposing you are ill and go the doctor for many years, trying this and that remedy, this and that new treatment, and yet you still remain unwell? Wouldn’t you begin to doubt the knowledge and ability of that doctor to heal your illness? This effect may also occur with religions. After the Nazi holocaust, to give but one example, many Jews became atheists because they asked, ‘How could our God allow this to happen to us?’ There is a point at which too much suffering can open to question the value of religion. This dynamic could also come into play as a result of climate-change-induced human suffering. If one’s family members are swept away by flood waters and one’s lands are flooded beyond habitability, for example, then one might surely begin to question what is the protective value of religious practice. This has long been recognized as one of the main threats to religion: when bad things happen to good, religious people. From this point of view, both the medical and religious arts are incentivized to use their powers to give better health and wellbeing to their people. Since climate change poses the threat of causing excessive suffering to religious adherents, religions should be bothered, out of self-interest, to prevent this threat from being realized.

Religions should be bothered about climate change since 1) the true goal of religion is to palliate human suffering, and 2) there will be fewer apostates from religion if excessive suffering is avoided. We, as thoughtful citizens of the world, must be wary of the faulty reasoning that could lead to some inhuman and non-religious thoughts about climate change.’