Sunday, February 28, 2010

How Well Did the Tsunami Warning System Work

I was curious to see how well the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center worked in the aftermath of the Chilean eathquake yesterday. As you might recall the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting tsunami killed 230,000 people. Many of whom would not have died if the Indian Ocean had an effective tsunami warning system.

I went to the website site of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in to check what time the bulletins went out after the tsunami. The Chilean earthquake happened at 6:34 UTC. The first tsunami warning went out from the warning center at 6:46 UTC. That means they will issue a warning 12 minutes after the initial earthquake. Actually issuing the warning 12 minutes after the earthquake seems like a pretty good response to me. Here is a link to their initial warning.


As the day progressed the warning area was expanded, until four hours later when it actually when it was expanded to a Pacific wide warning.


I was curious when I noticed that the Pacific wide alert went out at 12:45 AM Honolulu time. I talked to friends of mine in Hawaii and emergency sirens didn't go off till 6 AM that morning. I did some investigation and apparently there was nothing sinister involved. The Hawaii civil defense people were on the job, but didn't see any reason to get people out of bed when the tsunami wouldn't be hitting Hawaii until 11 AM.


It seems kind of silly for anyone to worry about an earthquake that happened 6600 miles away but 61 people were killed in Hilo, Hawaii by the tsunami from the 1960 Chilean earthquake. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was actually created as a response to a 1946 tsunami that hit Hilo killing 160 people.

Another interesting aspect to the Chilean earthquake is that the earthquake was hundreds of times more powerful than the earthquake that happened earlier this year in Haiti with the death toll was hundreds of times less . There are actually several news articles analyzing this.



Thursday, January 28, 2010

New York Times Article on Radiation Therapy Problems

There is an interesting article on issues with radiation therapy machines in the NY Times.


You may need to register to read it, but is is free (for now).

Most of the issues came down to poorly trained people using new machines with confusing software.

The story has extensive anecdotal evidence, but little sense of how extensive such problems are. Indeed one of the thrusts of the article, was that the current patchwork of regulations and non-regulations make it difficult to determine how big the problems are. The video that goes with the article implies the error rate is lower than other medical procedures. I didn't find this totally reassuring. There are also issues with some types of radiation therapy being regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and other types being regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I was disappointed, but not surprised by references to software problems with the therapy machines in some cases. The FDA passed extensive regulations on medical software after the Therac-25 accidents back in the eighties. I read the standards that the FDA published and they required extensive documentation of the design and testing process for software. As with ISO9000, there seems to be a part of the bureaucratic mentality that assumes that you will get a quality product if you document it enough. Indeed, their operational definition of quality seems to be how much paperwork is generated. I'm a little surprised that the NY Times didn't mention the Therac-25 for historical background. Many people were injured and at least two were killed by the Therac-25. There was a software bug, where the machine would sometimes dose people with a 100 times the radiation prescribed. Previous versions of the Therac had the same bug, but there was a hardware interlock that prevented the failure.


Thursday, January 14, 2010

The End of Magical Climate Thinking

This is just a heads up to go read a very good article in Foreign Policy called "The End of Magical Climate Thinking".

This paragraph sums up the article:

In this, Obama was following two decades of magical thinking among both greens and liberal Democrats about energy technology. In this view, energy efficiency pays for itself, solar and wind power are already nearly cost competitive with fossil fuels, and both can quickly and cheaply reduce emissions. This Pollyanna view of fossil fuel alternatives and efficiency, which makes going green seem cheap and easy -- little more than the cost of "a postage stamp a day" -- has provided the justification for green-policy advocacy that has overwhelmingly focused on pollution regulations and carbon pricing while ignoring serious investment in energy research and development.

This article tends to confirm my belief that the whole Waxman-Markey fiasco was a non-sequitur as far as actually actual substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The trouble is that Congress is populated by people who not only don't understand the basics of climate science, but don't have the educational background to understand the explanations. Law school just doesn't equip you to make intelligent decisions on scientific topics.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

The Big Bang Theory TV Show Map


View Big Bang Theory Locations in a larger map

This is kind of silly, but when I'm watching the show, I try to figure out where the locations they mention are, so I put them in a Google map. I try to limit myself to locations close to Pasadena. I can't find a Bob's Big Boy or a Shoes 4 Less close to Pasadena, but they do exist in the LA area.

Please put additions or correction in the comments. If you aren't into The Big Bang Theory or maps please ignore. Click on the link above to view the map full size.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Comparing GISS, HADCRU and UAH Temperature Records



I happened to download the monthly temperature anomalies records from the University of Alabama in Huntsville the other day and plotted it in Excel. I then did a linear trend that through the data and also did a 12 month moving average. I thought it might be interesting to do the same thing with the data from the Hadley climate research unit and also with the GISS data and plot them on the same graph.

The data is based on satellite data that has been collected since December 1978 through November 2009. I set up the other two data sets to start and end on the same months. You can see the resulting graph above. Please click on it to view it at full size.

Each data set uses a different time period to compute the offset for their anomalies, so each data set is offset from the other two. You will notice that all three data sets tend to resemble one another, but the UAH data shows that sharper transitions even when we are looking at the moving average.

You can generate different slopes depending on what start year you use. If you use 1992, which was a year after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, you end up with a much stronger positive slope. If you select 1998, which was a year of the El NiƱo, you can actually produce a negative slope. 1979 seems like a pretty mediocre year so it seemed like a good year to start with and it lets me use all of the satellite data.

I thought it might be interesting to take all three temperature data sets and project their trends forward to the year 2100 to see how much difference in temperature each one would predict.


It is interesting to note that all three temperature data sets agreed to less than half a degree centigrade in terms of predicting the temperature for the year 2100.

2010 to 2100 Temperature Change
GISS 1.611
HAD 1.422
UAH 1.143
Range 0.468

It is interesting to note that the worst "prediction" from these three data sets is a warming of 1.6°C for the year 2100.


Here is where I downloaded the data from:

I also uploaded the data in a spreadsheet, so you can download it and draw your own graphs with minimal work. Doing it yourself for the UAH and HADCRU is easy, but I had to massage the GISS data a little to get it into the same format.
Link to Spreadsheet:

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Greenhouse Gas Footprint for Cheese



I was discussing with a friend of mine the other day the environmental impact various kinds of meat. I read an article in Scientific American that showed the greenhouse gas produced in the production of various kinds of food. Half a pound of beef created 7.4 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases, while half a pound of chicken only produces point .55 pounds for a difference of 13 to 1. This is mainly because cattle produce huge amounts of Methane which is 23 times stronger than Carbon Dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Argentina, which is a cow intensive country may be getting 30% of its greenhouse gas emissions from cattle.

Chickens are apparently amazing protein factories. A broiler chicken can be produced in as little as six weeks while beef cattle take from 1 1/2 to 2 years to raise. I therefore concluded that chicken should be the meat of choice for an environmentally responsible carnivore and beef should be eaten only on special occasions. She listened to what I said and replied, "What about cheese?" I was dismayed by this, since I don't eat beef that often anymore, but I use a lot of cheese, so I decided to find out the greenhouse gas footprint of cheese.

I didn't find any link giving me the number for cheese. It is only recently that scientists have started trying to account for Methane output from food production.

First I found a number for how much milk a cow produces in a year. The number I found was 8,992 kilos of milk. It apparently takes 12 kilos of milk to produce 1 kilo of cheese which works out to 749 kilos of cheese per cow per year. The Swedish study lists the cheese on a Big Mac at 14.5 grams per slice. That works out to 69 slices per kilo or 51,681 slices per cow per year. If you get 440 pounds of meat at 14.8 pounds of Carbon Dioxide per pound, then one beef cow is equal to 6,512 pounds of carbon.

I wasn't sure how the GHG footprint of dairy cows compares to beef cattle, but the EPA seems to think that dairy cows produce 4 tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases per year, since their regulations kick in at 100 tons per year and they want a license for 25 dairy cows. They estimate 2 tons per beef cattle which comes out to 1.6 years to raise a cow for beef, which is about right.

If you use, 1652 pounds of cheese per year per cow, that that works out to 4.8 pounds of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per pound of cheese as compared to 14.8 per pounds of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per pound of beef or about 1/3 as much GHG emissions. This is worse than pork which is 3.8 pounds. Of course, very few people eat cheese by the pound. At 14.5 grams per slice, that would work out .15 pounds of GHG compared to 3.7 pounds for the 4 oz patty. The fat free singles I buy weigh 19 grams and work out to .2 pounds of GHG.

It looks like putting a slice of cheese on your sandwich is not a major environmental sin.

References:

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming:

Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat production

Energy Use in the Food Sector:A data survey

Cow Backpacks Trap Methane Gas

How much milk do cows produce?

EPA Proposes "Cow Tax"

How many hamburgers can you get out of one cow?

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Electric Highway Part 1


I read an interesting article about running electric cars without batteries. Here is a quote.

The Korea Advanced Institute of Technology (KAIST) has developed a revolutionary electric vehicle that neatly side-steps the looming political/economic issue of scarcity of advanced battery materials, as well as the practical limitations imposed by battery weight and life, by dispensing with batteries altogether! The OLEV (On Line Electric Vehicle) draws power from cables buried in the road-bed, differing from existing electric train and bus technology in that the power is transferred by magnetic induction without physical contact of any kind. KAIST claims to achieve 80% efficiency of power-transfer across a 1cm gap, and 60% efficiency across a 12cm gap!

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1034778_korean-ev-runs-without-batteries-by-induction-charging


It occurred to me that the two biggest limitations with Plug In Electric Vehicles are the limitations on range from current battery technology and the lack of stations to recharge their vehicles.

What if we made our whole freeway system into an electric road? Electric cars would only run off of batteries on surface streets. Once they got on the freeway, they would use power from the roads and recharge their battery at the same time. We could set up an e-pass like system at the entrance and exit ramps to read the vehicle ID and battery state and bill automatically for the electricity consumed. You could drive coast to coast and never use a KWh from your batteries.

My next thought is how do you build such a thing without it costing 10 trillion dollars? I started visualizing a large machine that would move down a lane on the freeway at a mile per hour and cut a slit a couple of inches deep in the pavement, lay the cable and seal the trench behind it. We probably need different machines for concrete or asphalt. Every five or ten miles you connect the road to the grid. If one section goes out, then cars only need to go five or ten miles on battery to get to the next section. If you operate the machine outside of rush hour you could run it 10 to 15 hours a day. On rural interstates you might be able to operate it close to 7/24.

How much would it cost?

The next part was doing a back of the envelope calculation about how much building such a grid would cost. I made a guess of 10,000 dollars an hour or 10,000 dollars per lane-mile to operate the machine. I figure double the number to account for grid connections, so I’m up to 20,000 per lane-mile. Next I check Wikipedia and it says we have 75,000 miles of freeway. Multiply by 4 and I’ve got 300,000 lane-miles. I know some freeways have more than 4 lanes, but I’m just trying for a ballpark number. That comes out to 6 billion to electrify all the freeways. This sounds low, but unless they use the same guys who did the Big Dig in Boston, it shouldn’t go over 24 billion. Once you figure in four lanes, then you end up with 320,000 dollars a mile. This actually seems plausible, if you contract the whole thing out at once, instead of piecemeal. Of course, every road construction company in the United States will scream bloody murder, but it doesn’t make much sense to do it any other way, since the construction machines will probably cost over 100 million per unit unless other countries jump on the band wagon and buy them. Also you hook all the lanes to the grid at the same time, which should reduce the cost.

How long would it take?

You would have a lot of development time up front. You have to design the whole infrastructure up front and make sure all EV makers design their cars to hook up to the system. You have to figure out a billing system that will work anywhere you can drive in the United States and the transponders it will need. You have to design the construction machines and build them. I’d say at least 10 years. I’ve got the total freeway system in the United States up to 300,000 lane-miles. I assume each construction machine handles 10 miles a day and I’ll assume we spend 1 billion dollars and buy 10 machines and electrify 100 lane-miles a day which would come out to 3000 days or 8.2 years.

Of course, it doesn’t actually happen this way, since the construction machines don’t all get built at the same time. Also it makes sense to build out the local area until you reach the critical mass where a lot of people want them. Keep in mind that electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines and if you don’t need a big battery pack, they may cost less to purchase as well as operate. The reason a Prius is expensive is that you are buying an electric motor and an internal combustion engine and stuffing them both under one hood. Once you have the local grid built out, then a lot of families will want an EV as their second car. Once the grid is totally built out, then they will want one as their first car.

Anyway , assume the first machine goes to Los Angeles and starts electrifying the Southern California freeway system and maybe they put several machines on the West Coast and work their way East and then put some more on the East Coast and work their way West. Unless, of course, it looks like a close election, and then Florida and Ohio get the machines. In any case, figure 15 years to build out on the whole freeway system.

So we are up to 2035 and the whole freeway system is electrified. Obviously we don’t quit at that point and we start electrifying the major surface streets. The E-pass doesn’t work for this, but by the time we need it, we can figure it out. Maybe we put meters in each car that keep track of where the car is and how much electricity it is using from the grid. Maybe we put sensors every 50 yards to figure when you enter and leave the grid. In either case, you might consider walking, if you plan on going anywhere where you don’t want your wife or the police to know about.

By now, we are up to 2045 and most of our cars are electric and the rest are running on Biodiesel from algae. Our electricity is from nuclear power, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is going down. For Part II, I'll calculate how much power such a system would use.

References:

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/16/view/7271/kaist-korean-electric-vehicle-project.html

http://www.kaist.edu/english/01_about/06_news_01.php?req_P=bv&req_BIDX=10&req_BNM=ed_news&req_VI=2056&req_PC=20&req_CG=&sCATE=&sCHAR=