The doctors of Sept-Iles, a city of 25,000 or so, have threatened to quit if uranium mining is permitted at a nearby uranium source.
I ask a simple question: Given that Sept-Iles has a death rate of approx. 34 people per year due to cigarette smoking[1], why haven't these concerned doctors resigned over the fact that tobacco is sold all around the Sept-Iles area?
[1]ref: http://www.smoke-free.ca/health/pscissues_health.htm
45,000 Canadians per year die from smoking related causes - with Sept-Iles' population, that works out to approx. 34 people per year.
2009-12-15
CBC: please release "The National Dream" and "The Last Spike"
I recall Mr. Broscomb at Elmwood Elementary sending notes home with us to our parents to make sure we were allowed to stay up and watch The National Dream, the dramatization of Pierre Burton's popular historical treatment.
It was well presented and only had one brief commercial interruption (Bank of Montreal).
CBC: please release "The National Dream" and "The Last Spike" on DVD.
It was well presented and only had one brief commercial interruption (Bank of Montreal).
CBC: please release "The National Dream" and "The Last Spike" on DVD.
2009-05-23
Debt and Economics
Recently a story has been circulating around the web. It goes something like this:
A small, isolated town in the country has never been rich but has always drawn tourists to its bucolic setting. But, in the recent economic downturn, things got a little, well, depressing. Everybody was borrowing from everyone else.
Finally one day, a tourist comes along and visits the hotel. He's told a room for the night will be $100. He puts a $100 bill into the hands of the hotel owner and heads to his room.
Immediately, the hotel owner runs down the street to his most important supplier, the butcher, and pays off the $100 dollars that he owes to him.
The butcher gets in his truck and drives outside the town to a farmer, and pays him the $100 he owes for meat he bought the week before.
The farmer drives into town and visits LuLu, a whore, and pays the $100 he owes her.
Finally, closing the circle, LuLu goes to the hotel and pays the hotel owner the $100 she owes for the several times she has rented rooms by the hour.
The tourist comes out of his room, grabs the $100 from the hotel owner saying that he's not satisfied with the room, gets in his car and leaves. All debts are satisfied. So goes the story.
Now a friend of mine jokingly suggested that the tourist wasn't needed for the story. Had the townspeople spoken together they could have swapped debts until all was settled.
So, let's see how that works:
The hotel owner has in his hands an IOU from LuLu the whore for $100.
He takes that note and goes to the butcher. The butcher agrees to erase the hotel owners debt in exchange for the note. [ for simplicity, we'll not discount the IOU .. yet ].
In turn the butcher goes to the farmer and the same transaction occurs: the farmer erases the butchers debt but now holds the $100 IOU.
Happily (and I know you could see this coming) the farmer goes off to see LuLu to erase the $100 he owes her by giving her the IOU.
This is why trading IOU's is "discounted". Here is the final story:
The hotel owner possesses an IOU of $100 from LuLu, a whore, who occasionally rents rooms in the hotel by the hour when she sells her trade in the hotel bar.
The hotel owner despairs of ever collecting $100 from LuLu and the butcher is demanding payment. The hotel owner goes to the butcher and hands over the $100 IOU. The butcher is only partly satisfied, takes the IOU and reduces the hotel owners debt to $33.
The butcher then drives out to see the farmer, and a similar transaction takes place. The butcher's debt is reduced to $33 as well in exchange for the $100 note.
The farmer goes to visit LuLu. LuLu agrees to take the IOU but at discount! So the farmer still owes LuLu $33!
In the end:
The hotel owner has no money, no receivables and a debt of $33. ( -33)
The butcher has no money, a debt of $33 and receivables of $33. ( 0)
The farmer has no money, a debt of $33 and receivables of $33. ( 0)
The whore has no money, no debt and a receivable of $33. ( +33)
Who is richest?
The whore of course. She has $33 in receivables AND more inventory to sell.
The oldest profession just keeps the economy going, doesn't it?
< . . . >
A small, isolated town in the country has never been rich but has always drawn tourists to its bucolic setting. But, in the recent economic downturn, things got a little, well, depressing. Everybody was borrowing from everyone else.
Finally one day, a tourist comes along and visits the hotel. He's told a room for the night will be $100. He puts a $100 bill into the hands of the hotel owner and heads to his room.
Immediately, the hotel owner runs down the street to his most important supplier, the butcher, and pays off the $100 dollars that he owes to him.
The butcher gets in his truck and drives outside the town to a farmer, and pays him the $100 he owes for meat he bought the week before.
The farmer drives into town and visits LuLu, a whore, and pays the $100 he owes her.
Finally, closing the circle, LuLu goes to the hotel and pays the hotel owner the $100 she owes for the several times she has rented rooms by the hour.
The tourist comes out of his room, grabs the $100 from the hotel owner saying that he's not satisfied with the room, gets in his car and leaves. All debts are satisfied. So goes the story.
Now a friend of mine jokingly suggested that the tourist wasn't needed for the story. Had the townspeople spoken together they could have swapped debts until all was settled.
So, let's see how that works:
The hotel owner has in his hands an IOU from LuLu the whore for $100.
He takes that note and goes to the butcher. The butcher agrees to erase the hotel owners debt in exchange for the note. [ for simplicity, we'll not discount the IOU .. yet ].
In turn the butcher goes to the farmer and the same transaction occurs: the farmer erases the butchers debt but now holds the $100 IOU.
Happily (and I know you could see this coming) the farmer goes off to see LuLu to erase the $100 he owes her by giving her the IOU.
This is why trading IOU's is "discounted". Here is the final story:
The hotel owner possesses an IOU of $100 from LuLu, a whore, who occasionally rents rooms in the hotel by the hour when she sells her trade in the hotel bar.
The hotel owner despairs of ever collecting $100 from LuLu and the butcher is demanding payment. The hotel owner goes to the butcher and hands over the $100 IOU. The butcher is only partly satisfied, takes the IOU and reduces the hotel owners debt to $33.
The butcher then drives out to see the farmer, and a similar transaction takes place. The butcher's debt is reduced to $33 as well in exchange for the $100 note.
The farmer goes to visit LuLu. LuLu agrees to take the IOU but at discount! So the farmer still owes LuLu $33!
In the end:
The hotel owner has no money, no receivables and a debt of $33. ( -33)
The butcher has no money, a debt of $33 and receivables of $33. ( 0)
The farmer has no money, a debt of $33 and receivables of $33. ( 0)
The whore has no money, no debt and a receivable of $33. ( +33)
Who is richest?
The whore of course. She has $33 in receivables AND more inventory to sell.
The oldest profession just keeps the economy going, doesn't it?
< . . . >
2009-03-12
Automobile technology that will really save lives and energy
Hybrid-shmybrid.
A couple weeks ago a driver in Ontario got caught doing 250 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone. (For you yanks that's about 155 mph in a 65 mph zone).
Wow. $10,000 fine.
Question is, if Canada's top speed limit is I believe 120 km/hr, why are street legal vehicles able to exceed that by over 100%?
Here in Quebec, cruising at 120 km/hr in a 100 zone is very unlikely to result in a ticket. Let's say that 120 is a reasonable top speed.
So, first thing that automobiles should be required to have when delivered at the dealer is a throttle cutoff at, say, 140 km/hr. Period.
Pushing this a little further, highways could have transmitters that broadcast the top legal speed of the road. In a 100 km/hr zone, the car would not be able to exceed, say, 120.
And as a benefit to highway maintenance and construction crews, orange zones would transmit appropriately lower limits with only a small overspeed allowance. (if the zone is 80, then the top speed cars would go would be 85).
Tamper with the device and the car is seized and destroyed at the owners expense.
Now that we've got the idea going, let's take it a step further: tax the fuel hog - reward the miser. Here's how it works.
1) Every car has a province issued transponder (a digital two-way radio). Whenever you pull up to a gas pump the transponder and the gas pump have a conversation. The car reports the car model, mileage since the last fill up and the number of litres at that fill up.
2) The gas pump assigns a tax according to the efficiency of the vehicle. The less efficient, the heftier the per-litre tax. The more efficient, the less tax. For the really efficient a tax rebate is given.
3) Every year or so, the mileage requirement to get a rebate increases. The tax for the fuel hogs increases. The rebate for the efficient goes up more and more (since the returns will be slimmer and slimmer, you have to reward more for those who push the limits).
4) Now the above is a bit harsh on some vehicle operators such as car pools, schools, businesses and so on. So a method to soften the blow needs to be built in.
Summary: the above is the way to go if you really want to reduce fossil fuel consumption at the pump.
A couple weeks ago a driver in Ontario got caught doing 250 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone. (For you yanks that's about 155 mph in a 65 mph zone).
Wow. $10,000 fine.
Question is, if Canada's top speed limit is I believe 120 km/hr, why are street legal vehicles able to exceed that by over 100%?
Here in Quebec, cruising at 120 km/hr in a 100 zone is very unlikely to result in a ticket. Let's say that 120 is a reasonable top speed.
So, first thing that automobiles should be required to have when delivered at the dealer is a throttle cutoff at, say, 140 km/hr. Period.
Pushing this a little further, highways could have transmitters that broadcast the top legal speed of the road. In a 100 km/hr zone, the car would not be able to exceed, say, 120.
And as a benefit to highway maintenance and construction crews, orange zones would transmit appropriately lower limits with only a small overspeed allowance. (if the zone is 80, then the top speed cars would go would be 85).
Tamper with the device and the car is seized and destroyed at the owners expense.
Now that we've got the idea going, let's take it a step further: tax the fuel hog - reward the miser. Here's how it works.
1) Every car has a province issued transponder (a digital two-way radio). Whenever you pull up to a gas pump the transponder and the gas pump have a conversation. The car reports the car model, mileage since the last fill up and the number of litres at that fill up.
2) The gas pump assigns a tax according to the efficiency of the vehicle. The less efficient, the heftier the per-litre tax. The more efficient, the less tax. For the really efficient a tax rebate is given.
3) Every year or so, the mileage requirement to get a rebate increases. The tax for the fuel hogs increases. The rebate for the efficient goes up more and more (since the returns will be slimmer and slimmer, you have to reward more for those who push the limits).
4) Now the above is a bit harsh on some vehicle operators such as car pools, schools, businesses and so on. So a method to soften the blow needs to be built in.
Summary: the above is the way to go if you really want to reduce fossil fuel consumption at the pump.
2009-02-25
Junk Heat
Some industries use a lot of energy to heat cold water for use in various processes.
Some industries reject heat as a by product of their operations. One of these is the server farm. A server farm consumes a lot of electrical power and generates enormous amounts of heat. This is typically 'rejected' to the atmosphere by large coolers (basically radiators: a coil with a fan).
Quebec is an ideal place for server farms. Lot's of relatively cheap electricity and very high speed optical networks.
Further Quebec has many industries that heat water for use in many processes.
As a means to getting more out of our electricity (freeing up more to be sold to the US, for example), we should co-locate server-farms with industries that take in cold water and then heat it for use in their processes.
In this way the enormous heat generated by a server farm could be used to pre-heat the cold water for the co-located industry. This would reduce the energy consumption of that industry while providing a heat sink for the server farm.
The server farm would charge the industry for that heat, say 2 cents per kWh. This is much cheaper than what the industry is paying for the same amount of heat (whether electric or natural gas). In turn, less 'new' energy is consumed, costs are less and the carbon footprint is reduced for both companies.
As an example, a 1000 server farm consumes about 500,000 W for annual cost of about $175,000. That same 500 kW can be sold as heat to the adjacent industry at, for example, 2c / kWh. That would be a return of about $87,000 per year.
Further, the need for air conditioning would be avoided - in effect the cool water used by the adjacent industry would be the air conditioning for the server farm.
Don't junk heat - recycle it.
Some industries reject heat as a by product of their operations. One of these is the server farm. A server farm consumes a lot of electrical power and generates enormous amounts of heat. This is typically 'rejected' to the atmosphere by large coolers (basically radiators: a coil with a fan).
Quebec is an ideal place for server farms. Lot's of relatively cheap electricity and very high speed optical networks.
Further Quebec has many industries that heat water for use in many processes.
As a means to getting more out of our electricity (freeing up more to be sold to the US, for example), we should co-locate server-farms with industries that take in cold water and then heat it for use in their processes.
In this way the enormous heat generated by a server farm could be used to pre-heat the cold water for the co-located industry. This would reduce the energy consumption of that industry while providing a heat sink for the server farm.
The server farm would charge the industry for that heat, say 2 cents per kWh. This is much cheaper than what the industry is paying for the same amount of heat (whether electric or natural gas). In turn, less 'new' energy is consumed, costs are less and the carbon footprint is reduced for both companies.
As an example, a 1000 server farm consumes about 500,000 W for annual cost of about $175,000. That same 500 kW can be sold as heat to the adjacent industry at, for example, 2c / kWh. That would be a return of about $87,000 per year.
Further, the need for air conditioning would be avoided - in effect the cool water used by the adjacent industry would be the air conditioning for the server farm.
Don't junk heat - recycle it.
2009-01-26
Auto Emissions - physical realities
As the twin evils of over consumption of fossil fuel to power cars and the resulting emissions seem to be finally (after over 20 years of insanity) getting new attention, let us review a few inescapable facts surrounding automobile design.
More fuel is used during highway acceleration at any rate than while cruising down the highway at 110 km/hr. And the more vigorously one accelerates, the worst this is.
Why? Mainly because gasoline and diesel engines are horribly inefficient in cruise and much worse during acceleration. In cruise an engine delivers about 25% conversion to mechanical energy. That is to say that for every 100 litres of gasoline you buy, 75 litres is wasted as heat, never providing a benefit. As if that were not bad enough, it is even worse during acceleration, especially if the driver has a heavy foot. During acceleration all kinds of parsitic drag act on the engine. This includes induction air resistance (which the engine has to use more fuel to overcome), accessories (alternator, air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, etc.) and a richer mixture of fuel to air required when the engine is accelerating not to mention getting the exhaust out of the engine which adds a load just pushing it through the tailpipe (erroneously called 'backpressure'. It's simply resistance).
In effect, during highway cruise an automobile only needs a fraction of its installed horsepower. In turn it is wasting energy transporting that headroom horsepower around. Funny. (and wasteful).
It all comes to roost based on a very simple high school physics equation that is a result of the second law of motion from Sir Isaac Newton.
F = ma
Force, the 'strength' that something is pushed with is equal to the mass times the rate of acceleration.
Some people like to acclerate like crazy. 0 to 100 km/hr in 5 seconds! ("a" above). Well, to achieve that a powerful and high torque engine is required. (That's the "F" above).
Some people, often in the same group as above, also like their large vehicle and to have it lushly appointed for comfort and entertainment. That's the "m" above.
So, people want a lot of "a" and they like the comfort of "m". This means a big "F" under the hood that gobbles fuel whenever "a" is greater than 0.
Could it be worse? Well of course! In the real world there is no such thing as constant speed, at least as far as the engine is concerned. Huh? Well, it's like this: in the real world the auto faces wind resistance and rolling resistance. Wind resistance follows another equation derived from the equation above. I won't write it out here. Oh, okay, since you insist. It's:
Drag = Cd D S V^2 / 2
Where Cd is a constant representing the drag coefficient, D is the density of the air, S is the surface area of the car (seen from the front) and V is the speed (^2 means "squared").
When cars are less aerodynamic (as they've tended to become over the last 10 years) then "Cd" goes up. Cars have gotten large, so "S" goes up too. (Eg: a Jeep Cherokee is quite high compared to an automobile of the same width).
Drag goes up as a square of the velocity. There is 4 times as much aerodynamic drag at 100 km/hr than at 50 km/hr. Compound that with poor aerodynamics and large area and the Drag is really high.
Back to the top. Drag means that if you take your foot off the gas, the car will slow down. When at constant speed on the highway, your foot is always on the gas. The power of the engine is working against the deceleration (-a) due to the wind and rolling resistance. The engine is always applying a force to overcome the force of drag. It is a hidden "F=ma" if you will. Funny how that crops up to use more gas.
Clearly, other than reducing speed (say 100 instead of 120, you do the math, remember to square) a large improvement can come from improving the aerodynamics of the car, esp. by reducing the frontal area of the car and making the rear tapered so it doesn't pull a roiling mass of air behind it (notice that airliners have pointy tails?).
Next, consider rolling resistance. This is the tires against the road. Tires are soft compared to the road so energy is lost in continuously reshaping the tire as it rolls. (This is why the temperature of the tires rises as you drive). The faster you go, the more resistance. The softer the tire, the more resistance (as there is more deformation/reformation as well as more tire in contact with the road.) The larger the car, the larger the tires and even more is in contact with the road. (Trains are about 3x more fuel efficient than trucks in part because they have very high wheel pressure on the rail)
This is where things compound and make cars horribly inefficient.
As vehicles get larger they obviously get heavier. As cars get heavier, they need larger engines. Larger engines mean larger transmissions, drive trains and support structures. Larger cars have larger wheels, larger tires and larger brakes.
All of those "largers" also mean more weight. More "m" from the first equation above. And to make it worse, we seem to want a lot of "a" meaning bigger engines and the consequences of that.
Clearly it is past time to put childish things asside.
Smaller cars with moderate acceleration requirements mean a lot less surface area to resist the wind, a lot less rolling resistance against the road, a lot less weight to accelerate and stop and smaller engines that require less fuel to accelerate the above. It is a compounding effect.
The wrong use of recent engine efficiencies.
Ironically, engine efficiency has improved remarkably over the last 30 years. Electronic fuel injection, microprocessors, variable valve timing, aluminum block engines, advanced induction and exhaust systems and more have combined to get more power out of the same sized engine. However, while the power to weight ratio has improved, the consumption per hp has not improved as much.
Car makers have taken advantage of the higher power to weight ratios to push around heavier vehicles even while giving them the "desired" performance in acceleration.
One has to ask the question: since power to weight ratios have improved, why not keep power constant and make the engines smaller, lighter and cheaper? That would result in improved fuel efficiencies as it would contribute to lighter transmission and driver train, smaller wheels and brakes. Instead, led by the former "big 3", Mercedez and BMW, automobiles post records for more and more power every year with scant (if any) improvements in fuel efficiency.
Turbochargers.
Turbochargers could help, however they are most efficient as a function of exhaust gas flowing through them (called volumetric efficiency). This means that they are very good at increasing the horsepower of an engine, but that is only a benefit during acceleration. And during an acceleration the turbocharger only helps the engine use more fuel. (Note that on piston powered aircraft turbochargers have only a beneficial effect: they allow operation at high altitude where the density of the air is lower, hence less drag [same equation above applies]).
Next: let's discuss electric vehicles for Canada. It's not a clear cut case.
More fuel is used during highway acceleration at any rate than while cruising down the highway at 110 km/hr. And the more vigorously one accelerates, the worst this is.
Why? Mainly because gasoline and diesel engines are horribly inefficient in cruise and much worse during acceleration. In cruise an engine delivers about 25% conversion to mechanical energy. That is to say that for every 100 litres of gasoline you buy, 75 litres is wasted as heat, never providing a benefit. As if that were not bad enough, it is even worse during acceleration, especially if the driver has a heavy foot. During acceleration all kinds of parsitic drag act on the engine. This includes induction air resistance (which the engine has to use more fuel to overcome), accessories (alternator, air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, etc.) and a richer mixture of fuel to air required when the engine is accelerating not to mention getting the exhaust out of the engine which adds a load just pushing it through the tailpipe (erroneously called 'backpressure'. It's simply resistance).
In effect, during highway cruise an automobile only needs a fraction of its installed horsepower. In turn it is wasting energy transporting that headroom horsepower around. Funny. (and wasteful).
It all comes to roost based on a very simple high school physics equation that is a result of the second law of motion from Sir Isaac Newton.
F = ma
Force, the 'strength' that something is pushed with is equal to the mass times the rate of acceleration.
Some people like to acclerate like crazy. 0 to 100 km/hr in 5 seconds! ("a" above). Well, to achieve that a powerful and high torque engine is required. (That's the "F" above).
Some people, often in the same group as above, also like their large vehicle and to have it lushly appointed for comfort and entertainment. That's the "m" above.
So, people want a lot of "a" and they like the comfort of "m". This means a big "F" under the hood that gobbles fuel whenever "a" is greater than 0.
Could it be worse? Well of course! In the real world there is no such thing as constant speed, at least as far as the engine is concerned. Huh? Well, it's like this: in the real world the auto faces wind resistance and rolling resistance. Wind resistance follows another equation derived from the equation above. I won't write it out here. Oh, okay, since you insist. It's:
Drag = Cd D S V^2 / 2
Where Cd is a constant representing the drag coefficient, D is the density of the air, S is the surface area of the car (seen from the front) and V is the speed (^2 means "squared").
When cars are less aerodynamic (as they've tended to become over the last 10 years) then "Cd" goes up. Cars have gotten large, so "S" goes up too. (Eg: a Jeep Cherokee is quite high compared to an automobile of the same width).
Drag goes up as a square of the velocity. There is 4 times as much aerodynamic drag at 100 km/hr than at 50 km/hr. Compound that with poor aerodynamics and large area and the Drag is really high.
Back to the top. Drag means that if you take your foot off the gas, the car will slow down. When at constant speed on the highway, your foot is always on the gas. The power of the engine is working against the deceleration (-a) due to the wind and rolling resistance. The engine is always applying a force to overcome the force of drag. It is a hidden "F=ma" if you will. Funny how that crops up to use more gas.
Clearly, other than reducing speed (say 100 instead of 120, you do the math, remember to square) a large improvement can come from improving the aerodynamics of the car, esp. by reducing the frontal area of the car and making the rear tapered so it doesn't pull a roiling mass of air behind it (notice that airliners have pointy tails?).
Next, consider rolling resistance. This is the tires against the road. Tires are soft compared to the road so energy is lost in continuously reshaping the tire as it rolls. (This is why the temperature of the tires rises as you drive). The faster you go, the more resistance. The softer the tire, the more resistance (as there is more deformation/reformation as well as more tire in contact with the road.) The larger the car, the larger the tires and even more is in contact with the road. (Trains are about 3x more fuel efficient than trucks in part because they have very high wheel pressure on the rail)
This is where things compound and make cars horribly inefficient.
As vehicles get larger they obviously get heavier. As cars get heavier, they need larger engines. Larger engines mean larger transmissions, drive trains and support structures. Larger cars have larger wheels, larger tires and larger brakes.
All of those "largers" also mean more weight. More "m" from the first equation above. And to make it worse, we seem to want a lot of "a" meaning bigger engines and the consequences of that.
Clearly it is past time to put childish things asside.
Smaller cars with moderate acceleration requirements mean a lot less surface area to resist the wind, a lot less rolling resistance against the road, a lot less weight to accelerate and stop and smaller engines that require less fuel to accelerate the above. It is a compounding effect.
The wrong use of recent engine efficiencies.
Ironically, engine efficiency has improved remarkably over the last 30 years. Electronic fuel injection, microprocessors, variable valve timing, aluminum block engines, advanced induction and exhaust systems and more have combined to get more power out of the same sized engine. However, while the power to weight ratio has improved, the consumption per hp has not improved as much.
Car makers have taken advantage of the higher power to weight ratios to push around heavier vehicles even while giving them the "desired" performance in acceleration.
One has to ask the question: since power to weight ratios have improved, why not keep power constant and make the engines smaller, lighter and cheaper? That would result in improved fuel efficiencies as it would contribute to lighter transmission and driver train, smaller wheels and brakes. Instead, led by the former "big 3", Mercedez and BMW, automobiles post records for more and more power every year with scant (if any) improvements in fuel efficiency.
Turbochargers.
Turbochargers could help, however they are most efficient as a function of exhaust gas flowing through them (called volumetric efficiency). This means that they are very good at increasing the horsepower of an engine, but that is only a benefit during acceleration. And during an acceleration the turbocharger only helps the engine use more fuel. (Note that on piston powered aircraft turbochargers have only a beneficial effect: they allow operation at high altitude where the density of the air is lower, hence less drag [same equation above applies]).
Next: let's discuss electric vehicles for Canada. It's not a clear cut case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)