c9: (Star Trek)
In sci-fi, it's common to create a link with the reader's "reality" and the reality of the book, or the "in-book universe", through mentions of how a familiar thing has changed over the time/space involved. The one that comes to mind most often for me is when a character is talking about great scientists in history. They will say something like, "This is amazing! We will join the ranks of Einstein, Hawking, and D'al-Aqqwttl'a!" That last name being, of course, made up to show that there were famous scientists between the reader's time and the book's time.

To be honest, those sentences stick out like such a sore thumb to me, but I get why they're there.

I bring this up because today I encountered one of those sentences in *reality*! The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada -- home of the Blackberry! -- today is announcing the funding of a new position at the institute.

...the first of five endowed chairs Perimeter’s director, Neil Turok, wants to establish. (The others will be named after other historic discoverers, Maxwell, Bohr, Einstein and Dirac.) The stated goal is “to attract five of the most influential theoretical physicists of our time.”
I have no idea who Dirac is. Time to waste the day on Wikipedia!

Read more: Ideas You Can Take From The Bank

Learn about who this Dirac character is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
c9: (Global Warming)
(Courtesy of The Walrus -- a magazine I regularly find to be worth my time.)

First, what's Peak Oil?

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2005 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2030 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

So why do we need to worry? Well, very few people are willing to honestly discuss how much oil, gas and coal are left.

The energy industry depends on everybody believing their product is going to be around for a long time (otherwise we would switch to other products), so they have an incentive to inflate their reserve estimates. Governments depend on everybody being stable, quiet, and well-behaved taxpayers, so they have an incentive to soften bad news. Additionally, they have to win elections, so they have an incentive to focus on the short-term.

But worst of all is us. We don't like hard problems, we don't like change, and we don't like the idea of not having STUFF. And everything -- EVERYTHING -- around us is made out of or with oil/gas/coal. Plastic. Electrical power. Cars. Roads. Subways. Planes. Food. Phones.

Canada is quite bad too. We like to pretend we're pretty special, but we're not. We're the 36th-most-populated country, but we use oil like we're #9.

The next three excerpts are from the actual article I'm finally getting around to recommending, An Inconvenient Talk:

[In 2008 the International Energy Association released] the latest edition of its annual World Energy Outlook, which predicts a global oil production peak or plateau by 2030. In a video that appears online soon after, the Guardian’s George Monbiot requests a more precise figure from the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol. The official estimate, he confesses, is 2020. Monbiot also inquires as to the motivation for the IEA’s sudden about-face, and Birol explains dryly that previous studies were “mainly an assumption.” That is, the 2008 version was the first in which the IEA actually examined hard data, wellhead by wellhead, from the world’s 800 largest oil fields. Monbiot asks, with understandable incredulity, how it was that such a survey hadn’t been conducted previously. Birol’s response: “In fact, nobody has done that research.”

But what about Canada's tar or oil sands? (More on the name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands)

The historical Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) for conventional oil is 100:1. This refers to the kind of crude that gushes up in the opening credits of The Beverly Hillbillies, the kind that first flowed out of the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia when it was tapped in 1948. Invest a barrel’s worth of energy drilling and refining in a spot like Ghawar, then and forever the largest single crude oil deposit on the planet, and you used to get 100 barrels of energy-dense, easily transported fuel in return. These days, conventional EROEI for such places is closer to 25:1.

The EROEI on more recent “new conventional” deposits, which Dave cites mostly by their discovery and extraction methods (“deepwater oil, horizontal wells, 3-D seismic”) is also around 25:1. In Alberta’s tar sands, the surface-mined bitumen comes to market at an EROEI of 6:1. “In situ” bitumen — sludge buried too far under the boreal forest floor to excavate, which comprises the lion’s share of the most breathless estimates of Canada’s energy superpower–scale oil production — rings in at 3:1. Corn ethanol, that darling of America’s farm states, is somewhere between 1.3:1 and 0.75:1. Shale oil, another unconventional source held by its boosters to be capable of indefinitely extending the age of oil, has never been converted into fuel at a net energy profit, at least as far as Dave has been able to ascertain.

A barrel of oil is pretty cheap these days, all things considered. But what if, sort-of-hypothetically-and-sort-of-not, what if we had no way to generate energy except ourselves?

As he drives, Dave indulges in a little academic exercise. He’s comfortable with numbers, quick with calculations. A barrel of oil, he tells you, contains about six gigajoules of energy. That’s six billion joules. Put your average healthy Albertan on a treadmill and wire it to a generator, and in an hour the guy could produce about 100 watts of energy. That’s 360,000 joules. Pay the guy the provincial minimum wage, give him breaks and weekends and statutory holidays off, and it would take 8.6 years for him to produce one barrel of oil equivalent (boe, the standard unit of measure in hydrocarbon circles). And you’d owe him $138,363 in wages. That, Dave tells you, is what a barrel of oil is worth.

Worth the read. http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.06-energy-an-inconvenient-talk/
c9: (Earth)
Living in North America, it feels a bit like HIV and AIDS are old news. Not completely -- being connected with the queer community means you're still seeing discussions, news, and People With AIDS regularly, but it's been shunted off into a "manage it with drugs, no big whoop" column quite a bit. I have friends who have lost their friends to HIV, but I've never gone through that myself. Even a play I saw recently (Sky Gilbert's "I Have AIDS" - interesting and challenging!) approached it from this angle, not the 80s or early 90s angle.

Living somewhere else in the world, of course the situation is much different. This gripping 10min talk from TED is worth watching.

c9: (Banging my Head)
Found in a large corporation's project plan just now:

"Deliver customer sessions in FY08Q4/Q5"

This is the sort of elegant shorthand that could be 100% clear and really be a nicer way of saying "end of this year, maybe the very beginning of next" but I can see people adopting this and then someday nobody will remember what the Q used to stand for.

I try not to be such a prescriptivist*, but god.

* Linguistic prescription means "this is the rule in English and it must never change". I bitch and whine about spelling and apostrophes a lot, for example.
c9: (Default)
Paul Wells posted some interesting numbers on tuition recently. Unfortunately the original article that triggered it is gone in the new Maclean's revamp, but the data is all out there with statscan.

What's better: higher tuition, or lower tuition? Why?

This is a no-brainer for the "typical" left-wing (or right-wing) person. Especially when they're young and still freshly wounded from tuition rates. However there's an interesting puzzle here: Quebec has the lowest tuition and the lowest university participation rate. Nova Scotia has the highest tuition and the highest rate of university participation.

Hmmm.

August 2015

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 03:46 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios