This post was originally going to be an analysis of Al Gore's energy challenge speech and some of the criticism of it.
If you view the speech as a logical or rhetorical argument, it has its share of problems. For example, when talking about the falling price of silicon for solar cells, Gore says, "the same thing happened with computer chips--also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months--year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row." This conclusion doesn't follow: the price per unit of performance for computer chip drops because transistors keep getting smaller, but making the features on a solar cell smaller will quickly run out of steam because you're fundamentally limited by the amount of sunlight per unit area. Even if you increase efficiency by 50% every 18 months, and in a few years you get darn close to 100%, you still hit the limit imposed by the sun. That's not to say that solar cells won't get cheaper, but microchips' cost per unit performance is not the right model. Also, Gore has the annoying habit of not citing his sources, even in the transcript, which makes the speech very hard to fact-check.
The criticism is worse. It opens by saying "Al Gore wants you to do as he says, not as he does" and spends fully a third of its length calling Gore a hypocrite. But that doesn't follow either: the validity of Gore's contention that we need this energy challenge, and the underlying reasoning he presents, have nothing to do with his personal energy consumption habits. It could just as easily come from, for example, T. Boone Pickens. The next third of the criticism is devoted to an argument that says, essentially, it's impossible because we're not doing it now: renewables are a tiny percentage of our current energy production, therefore it is unreasonable to expect that they could reach 100% in ten years. But at its core, this argument is a simple assertion that change is impossible, which we know by experience to be false. Finally, two thirds of the way down, the criticism brings up a scientific paper that denies human impact on global temperature change, which is at least fodder for debate. (More background on that paper here and here.)
But you know, my heart just isn't in the analysis. Deep down, the reason is that I missed the last Apollo project and want one I can be a part of. And this is a cause I can get behind. It's big, it's inspiring, it'll create some fantastic spinoff technologies, and it'll produce great results. Even on the (exceptionally remote) chance that the IPCC is wrong and the paper the criticsm cites is right, that anthropogenic global temperature change is an illusion, it's extremely hard to deny that much of U.S. foreign policy is driven by a dependence on foreign oil, that even if we tap all our domestic sources they won't meet our demand, and that shifting to domestically produced renewables would give us a ton of new flexibility in foreign policy. So, yeah, I hope this thing takes off. And if it does, I want in.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
redundancy and unexpected interdependency
A couple weeks ago, the office network went down. Not surprisingly, we couldn't print or get to any electronically filed documents. Maybe a bit more surprisingly, the phones also went out because we've moved to fancy new Cisco network-based phones, and they took voice mail--which is now e-mail-based--with them. And so did the fax machines, because when faxes come in they get scanned and e-mailed to us. The net result was that we were almost dead in the water. Fortunately, the Blackberries stayed up, so we could use cell phones and could still send e-mail through the Blackberry server.
These sorts of unexpected interdependencies are cropping up more and more often as we begin to link one network to another, and as traditional network technologies shift around. I've already written about how my (now former) cell phone's alarm clock stopped working when the phone couldn't reach the cell network. There was a radio discussion today about an issue with digital TV: many people put battery-powered analog TV sets in survival kits so they can get news if there's a natural disaster, but (1) the set-top converter boxes that we'll need to use once HDTV becomes standard require wall power to run, which would make those analog battery powered TVs useless, and (2) many radio stations no longer have a news department, acting more as satellite feeds for a central office, so your transistor radio may not be able to pull in anything useful, either. Oh yeah, and many folks are moving away from conventional land-lines at home and going to VOIP phones or cell phones exclusively.
The classic way to deal with system failure is through redundancy: if the TV network goes out, you still have radio, which can get you much of what you need, or maybe you still have telephone. And so forth. The problem is that redundancy only works where you can stop a failure in one system from propagating to other systems. That's one reason most software doesn't have a redundant design: it's very hard to predict how far the effects of a failure will propagate through software, so it's generally not cost-effective to make it redundant. As our networking capabilities become more sophisticated, we're getting to the point where it's becoming harder to figure out what effect a failure of one network will have on the other networked systems we use.
The right way to do this, from an engineering perspective, is to take these sorts of problems into account when designing the systems, and then to periodically test them to make sure we got it right. That's not going to happen, at least right now, for social and economic reasons. The second-best approach would be to invest time and money into developing the design and evaluation tools necessary to either constrain the effects of a failure, so they don't propagate to other systems, or to at least be able to predict the likely failure modes and how far they'll propagate. We might eventually do that, but it'll take time. What's most likely to happen is the same thing that happened in structural engineering a hundred years ago: we may well see a series of unexpected, unforecasted failures, and they'll likely continue until we implement one of the first two approaches above.
These sorts of unexpected interdependencies are cropping up more and more often as we begin to link one network to another, and as traditional network technologies shift around. I've already written about how my (now former) cell phone's alarm clock stopped working when the phone couldn't reach the cell network. There was a radio discussion today about an issue with digital TV: many people put battery-powered analog TV sets in survival kits so they can get news if there's a natural disaster, but (1) the set-top converter boxes that we'll need to use once HDTV becomes standard require wall power to run, which would make those analog battery powered TVs useless, and (2) many radio stations no longer have a news department, acting more as satellite feeds for a central office, so your transistor radio may not be able to pull in anything useful, either. Oh yeah, and many folks are moving away from conventional land-lines at home and going to VOIP phones or cell phones exclusively.
The classic way to deal with system failure is through redundancy: if the TV network goes out, you still have radio, which can get you much of what you need, or maybe you still have telephone. And so forth. The problem is that redundancy only works where you can stop a failure in one system from propagating to other systems. That's one reason most software doesn't have a redundant design: it's very hard to predict how far the effects of a failure will propagate through software, so it's generally not cost-effective to make it redundant. As our networking capabilities become more sophisticated, we're getting to the point where it's becoming harder to figure out what effect a failure of one network will have on the other networked systems we use.
The right way to do this, from an engineering perspective, is to take these sorts of problems into account when designing the systems, and then to periodically test them to make sure we got it right. That's not going to happen, at least right now, for social and economic reasons. The second-best approach would be to invest time and money into developing the design and evaluation tools necessary to either constrain the effects of a failure, so they don't propagate to other systems, or to at least be able to predict the likely failure modes and how far they'll propagate. We might eventually do that, but it'll take time. What's most likely to happen is the same thing that happened in structural engineering a hundred years ago: we may well see a series of unexpected, unforecasted failures, and they'll likely continue until we implement one of the first two approaches above.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
switching antivirus software
For a couple years, now, I've been using AVG Free edition. And for the last month or two, they've been pressuring me to upgrade to version 8. When I install new software, I often skim the End User License Agreement. In this case, here's what I turned up in the EULA for AVG Free 8.0:
Net upshot: I'm giving Avast Free Edition a try, instead. I've been running it on a desktop machine that I use occasionally for games, but this'll be the first time on the laptop I use frequently. The only difficulty I ran into is that Avast doesn't automatically uninstall AVG, so you need to do that manually via Add/Remove Programs (off the Control Panel). Also, Avast has a spinning logo in the tool tray, which is cute (the logo spins while it's doing its thing), but I find the movement distracting. However, the EULA was clean. Now we'll see how the program works.
I'm not too thrilled with the idea of my antivirus software communicating personally identifiable information back to the manufacturer based on a privacy policy they can change at any time. Based on the language in this agreement, I don't see any restrictions that would prevent them from changing the privacy policy in such a way that they could return any contents of my hard drive that they chose to. I also don't really like the idea of a toolbar redirecting DNS and Error 404 pages. The intent is probably to allow them to redirect to a "we didn't find your web page, but here are several similar pages" search engine that provides revenue to AVG, but (a) they don't make that explicit in the agreement, and (b) I don't know what effect such a redirection would have on Firefox, especially in odd situations like running a search while there's no wireless network connection, something that happens fairly frequently when our wireless cuts out.
6. Miscellaneous.
. . .
b. Privacy.
i. You acknowledge that AVG Technologies collects certain information regarding the users of the Software, including certain personally identifiable information. You hereby consent to AVG Technologies' collection and use of such information, and agree that AVG Technologies' collection and use of such information will be governed by AVG Technologies' Privacy Policy, currently published at www.avg.com, as AVG Technologies may revise the same from time to time.
ii. BY PROCEEDING TO INSTALL THE TOOLBAR, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPT THAT, UPON ITS INSTALLATION, THE TOOLBAR WILL MODIFY VIA THE SETTINGS OF YOUR BROWSER THE "DNS ERROR PAGE" AND "ERROR 404 PAGE". . . .
Net upshot: I'm giving Avast Free Edition a try, instead. I've been running it on a desktop machine that I use occasionally for games, but this'll be the first time on the laptop I use frequently. The only difficulty I ran into is that Avast doesn't automatically uninstall AVG, so you need to do that manually via Add/Remove Programs (off the Control Panel). Also, Avast has a spinning logo in the tool tray, which is cute (the logo spins while it's doing its thing), but I find the movement distracting. However, the EULA was clean. Now we'll see how the program works.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Off-Shore Oil Drilling
I've been sick for the last few days, which has left me with the dangerous combination of being grumpy and having some time on my hands. Which brings me to the topic at hand.
President Bush has called for drilling in the outer continental shelf. Specifically, he has said the following:
The reason there's no significant impact on prices is that OCS drilling would increase domestic oil production by about 7%, but oil prices are set on an international basis. In other words, the amount of increased production domestically wouldn't be enough to have a significant impact on global oil supply. Let's assume that oil would increase supply and therefore lower prices in the U.S.. In that case, the oil companies would have the choice of selling at a lower price in the U.S. market or at a higher price to the international market. Past behavior suggests that the executives directing those companies would feel constrained by a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and would therefore sell on the international market. As a result, the domestic prices would rise to meet the international prices. Now, we could impose laws that prevent the oil companies from selling that crude overseas, which might artifically drive down domestic prices, but those sorts of trade restrictions seem out of character for Mr. Bush's administration. So the most likely result is that a goodly sized chunk of any oil drilled here will feed China's demand for it.
Earlier in the speech, Mr. Bush said, "In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies." It is not clear what time frame "the long run" represents, but there are already interesting developments on the alternative energy horizon, particularly in storage of electricity. For example, Zenn Motor Company and EEstor have announced plans to ship an electric car in late 2009 that will go 80 MPH and have a range of 250 miles and that a properly equipped charger could recharge in a few minutes. Similarly, A123 Systems is currently selling a new lithium ion battery technology with dramatically better energy density. (You can currently buy their stuff in certain lines of Dewalt cordless power tools while they work on the long battery life necessary for plug-in hybrids. They are also currently selling plug-in conversions for the Toyota Prius, though at $10K they're currently a little pricey for my budget.) It's also possible--today--to produce biodiesel from algae (rather than, say, corn), something you don't need arable land to do. (Hmm. I wonder how much land you'd have to devote to algae production to remove a billion tons of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere, since bamboo ain't gonna cut it.)
In the meantime, higher fuel prices are having an impact on demand. Amtrak ridership continues to set records, and high gas prices are sending it way up. And Ford is scaling back production for gas guzzlers due to decreasing demand.
Bottom line? Maybe drilling the OCS is not an effective answer either to Mr. Bush's short term goal of increasing supply (beyond insignificant levels) or to his long term goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil.
President Bush has called for drilling in the outer continental shelf. Specifically, he has said the following:
In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. . . .What's interesting about this statement is that the Department of Energy ran a study on drilling in the OCS just last year. The study looked at the current restrictions, which expire in 2012, and mapped out the cases where drilling is allowed and where the restrictions are renewed and no drilling takes place. It found that
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years.
access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.So if we suppose that Congress ends the restrictions in 2008, a good first guess is that'd accelerate the timeline by about 4 years across the board: no production sooner than 2013 and no significiant impact on prices before 2026.
The reason there's no significant impact on prices is that OCS drilling would increase domestic oil production by about 7%, but oil prices are set on an international basis. In other words, the amount of increased production domestically wouldn't be enough to have a significant impact on global oil supply. Let's assume that oil would increase supply and therefore lower prices in the U.S.. In that case, the oil companies would have the choice of selling at a lower price in the U.S. market or at a higher price to the international market. Past behavior suggests that the executives directing those companies would feel constrained by a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and would therefore sell on the international market. As a result, the domestic prices would rise to meet the international prices. Now, we could impose laws that prevent the oil companies from selling that crude overseas, which might artifically drive down domestic prices, but those sorts of trade restrictions seem out of character for Mr. Bush's administration. So the most likely result is that a goodly sized chunk of any oil drilled here will feed China's demand for it.
Earlier in the speech, Mr. Bush said, "In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies." It is not clear what time frame "the long run" represents, but there are already interesting developments on the alternative energy horizon, particularly in storage of electricity. For example, Zenn Motor Company and EEstor have announced plans to ship an electric car in late 2009 that will go 80 MPH and have a range of 250 miles and that a properly equipped charger could recharge in a few minutes. Similarly, A123 Systems is currently selling a new lithium ion battery technology with dramatically better energy density. (You can currently buy their stuff in certain lines of Dewalt cordless power tools while they work on the long battery life necessary for plug-in hybrids. They are also currently selling plug-in conversions for the Toyota Prius, though at $10K they're currently a little pricey for my budget.) It's also possible--today--to produce biodiesel from algae (rather than, say, corn), something you don't need arable land to do. (Hmm. I wonder how much land you'd have to devote to algae production to remove a billion tons of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere, since bamboo ain't gonna cut it.)
In the meantime, higher fuel prices are having an impact on demand. Amtrak ridership continues to set records, and high gas prices are sending it way up. And Ford is scaling back production for gas guzzlers due to decreasing demand.
Bottom line? Maybe drilling the OCS is not an effective answer either to Mr. Bush's short term goal of increasing supply (beyond insignificant levels) or to his long term goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
I tawt I taw a bomber
While cooking dinner, I happened to glance outside just now and saw an airplane silhouette that looked, well, unusual. A quick check with binocs confirmed it: round tail, four engines, big, and not moving all that fast. A B-17 maybe? A few minutes later, it turned and flew over the house, making that distinctive, rumbling big radial engine sound that only World War II warbirds make. And an H-tail. Not a B-17, but a B-24 Liberator. Probably taking people out for rides on a beautiful flying day. Pity there was no camera handy.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Park and Supergenius Criminal Masterminds
So I've started reading The Park, about a trailer park full of people with superpowers. The idea's got a ton of potential, maybe even for some social commentary. And it looks like the villain just showed up.
Which has got me thinking: why is it that so many supergenius criminal masterminds want to rule the world? "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world." I mean, say you do take over the world. What do you get? The massive headache of running the whole friggin' world, that's what. And guess who everyone's going to blame the next time there's a war, or a recession, or some government agency muffs disaster relief?
So I'm thinking the really clever supergenius criminal masterminds--you know, the ones a cut above the Wile E. Coyotes of the world--they're not in it for the money or the girls or the private 747 with the jacuzzi tub and reporters and NORAD interface, 'cause there are a lot easier ways to get those things. And they're probably not in it for the recognition, either. Let's face it: a good PR firm will take you a lot further for your dollar than world domination will.
So what is it? Resume padding? The sheer challenge of the thing? The belief that they can run things better than anyone else?
Hmmm. Considering how well things sometimes run, maybe there's something to that last possibility.
Which has got me thinking: why is it that so many supergenius criminal masterminds want to rule the world? "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world." I mean, say you do take over the world. What do you get? The massive headache of running the whole friggin' world, that's what. And guess who everyone's going to blame the next time there's a war, or a recession, or some government agency muffs disaster relief?
So I'm thinking the really clever supergenius criminal masterminds--you know, the ones a cut above the Wile E. Coyotes of the world--they're not in it for the money or the girls or the private 747 with the jacuzzi tub and reporters and NORAD interface, 'cause there are a lot easier ways to get those things. And they're probably not in it for the recognition, either. Let's face it: a good PR firm will take you a lot further for your dollar than world domination will.
So what is it? Resume padding? The sheer challenge of the thing? The belief that they can run things better than anyone else?
Hmmm. Considering how well things sometimes run, maybe there's something to that last possibility.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
the learning curve continues
We moved in last weekend and are getting the new place up and running.
Today's adventure involves the sprinkler system. Since the rains have mostly stopped, our landscape's been dying, which made getting the sprinklers working a high priority. One of the manifolds that controls one of the sprinkler stations is gushing: not merely leaking, but leaking a whole awful lot of water whenever it turns on. So one project for today was to fix or replace the manifold.
I made the mistake of taking the advice from one of the guys at Home Depot who recommended replacing it with a new one. I also learned that replacing one of these beasts involves shutting off the water, cutting the pipes that connect it to the system, and assembling and gluing in the new manifold. So I bought all the parts necessary to do that. The operation started smoothly enough: I assembled the new system, dug around the old one, and cut it off. Only then did I realize that the pipes on the old manifold are a different distance apart than the pipes the new manifold is designed to fit. So, lesson #1: be careful when taking advice from Home Depot.[1] Lesson #2: check the sizes before cutting any pipes.
That left me (us) in a quandary: I had to shut off the water to cut off the manifold, now the pipe's cut, and as long as there's no manifold I can't turn the water back on. At this point, I was in over my head. So we ran a quick web search looking for a plumber who could solve the problem. Lesson #3: plumbers don't necessarily do irrigation, even though both involve pipes. We eventually found an irrigation person, who may or may not be able to make it here before Tuesday morning. In the meantime, he recommended gluing a cap on the supply pipe. So I've done that, and now I'm waiting for the glue to set up before I turn the water back on. Hopefully it'll hold. I guess we'll find out around 3:30 or 4:00.
So much to learn.
Update: at 4:00, I turned on the water and the cap held, so the situation's stabilized until someone who knows what he or she is doing can fix the problem.
[1] The advice from the ex fireman who used to do plumbing work on his days off and now works in the plumbing section turned out to be very helpful for getting the washer and dryer working, so I'm not saying it's all bad, just that caution is necessary.
Today's adventure involves the sprinkler system. Since the rains have mostly stopped, our landscape's been dying, which made getting the sprinklers working a high priority. One of the manifolds that controls one of the sprinkler stations is gushing: not merely leaking, but leaking a whole awful lot of water whenever it turns on. So one project for today was to fix or replace the manifold.
I made the mistake of taking the advice from one of the guys at Home Depot who recommended replacing it with a new one. I also learned that replacing one of these beasts involves shutting off the water, cutting the pipes that connect it to the system, and assembling and gluing in the new manifold. So I bought all the parts necessary to do that. The operation started smoothly enough: I assembled the new system, dug around the old one, and cut it off. Only then did I realize that the pipes on the old manifold are a different distance apart than the pipes the new manifold is designed to fit. So, lesson #1: be careful when taking advice from Home Depot.[1] Lesson #2: check the sizes before cutting any pipes.
That left me (us) in a quandary: I had to shut off the water to cut off the manifold, now the pipe's cut, and as long as there's no manifold I can't turn the water back on. At this point, I was in over my head. So we ran a quick web search looking for a plumber who could solve the problem. Lesson #3: plumbers don't necessarily do irrigation, even though both involve pipes. We eventually found an irrigation person, who may or may not be able to make it here before Tuesday morning. In the meantime, he recommended gluing a cap on the supply pipe. So I've done that, and now I'm waiting for the glue to set up before I turn the water back on. Hopefully it'll hold. I guess we'll find out around 3:30 or 4:00.
So much to learn.
Update: at 4:00, I turned on the water and the cap held, so the situation's stabilized until someone who knows what he or she is doing can fix the problem.
[1] The advice from the ex fireman who used to do plumbing work on his days off and now works in the plumbing section turned out to be very helpful for getting the washer and dryer working, so I'm not saying it's all bad, just that caution is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)