Morning Fog

Geothermal Heating - What's The Long Term?

Over the past year and more, there's been a lot of buzz about geothermal heating as the next big thing that's going to save us billions in energy costs in the future.  The latest article to jump on this bandwagon, "Looks Like a Hot Deal" by Christopher Gearon, just turned up in the Washington Post today.

The science behind geothermal heating is that whatever the vagaries of weather on the earth's surface, the temperature of the earth just a few feet below the surface remains remarkable stable throughout the year.  By running a sort of variant on heat-pump technology (drawing and concentrating warmth from a lukewarm medium), it's possible to heat buildings.  Sounds very clever, doesn't it?  I'm impressed by the idea, and it's not just theory; Gearon, the writer of this piece, has converted his home to geothermal at a net cost to him of about $10,000, with the promise of no future heating bills.  Further, there are a number of organizations out there touting the benefits of the technology.

The process is accomplished by various means, but the most common and feasible is to run two or more closed-loop pipes into the stable-temperature subsurface, either horizontally (in which case they can take up most of the ground around the house) or vertically (in which case they may go as deep as 325 feet). 

Has anyone, I wonder, considered the effect of all this heat exchange going on just below the earth's surface?  It's OK for one or two houses but if geothermal became the norm, or was widely used in certain parts of the country, common sense tells me there's a good chance that the temperatures of that below-surface soil would start to change over time, with potential unknown effects on wildlife, agriculture, and even our climate.  It's possible, of course, that the saving in heat generation gained by not running a fossil-fuel burner could offset some of these effects.  But someone ought to consider it.

Other means of setting up a geothermal system (see the Washington Post article, they're outlined there) involve water as the heat exchange medium.  Using a pond or lake would seemingly raise the same question of gradual warming; while using an open loop that would suck up groundwater and circulate it through a system before returning it to the ground seems to have even more potential for warming, and for polluting groundwater -- besides, don't we have enough demands on our aquifers already, without draining off more (even temporarily)?  Incidentally, the pipe used in all these systems is PVC, but we've already seen some problems of deterioration with HDPE or PVC pipe in some plumbing installations...will it really last or will it need to be reinstalled every 10, 20, or 30 years?  So I'm cautious.  The idea is worth exploring, even worth constructing some test systems as Gearon has, but there are some longer term ramifications to be considered. 

Other "new science" has evoked similar concerns about later fallout  -- for example, the idea that we counter global warming by pumping the upper atmosphere full of sulphur particles or dusk (seriously!) without thinking of how that might affect our climate or even our mood.  On a more mundane level, many developed societies years ago mandated low-flow toilets as a means of reducing water consumption.  I'm not sure it accomplishes that (often, I'm told, it requires multiple flushes, so where's the gain?).  Even if it did, did anyone think about whether the new technology creates enough flow to wash sewage all the way down and out to the sewer (or septic field), or will we be confronted, in another ten years or so, with the need to clear or replace clogged sewer lines?

Missing The Obvious: Ford's New In-Car Computer

Media of all sorts are abuzz over Ford's recently revealed plan to put what it calls "driver connect" technology -- i.e., a computer with a couple of 4-inch screens -- right in the dashboard of its new models beginning as early as this year.  This technology promises to integrate a lot of existing dashboard functions through voice commands, while also adding others such as GSP and even the ability to watch movies in the front seat.  The company says some of these functions would be disabled while driving. 

I applaud Ford's reclaiming a mantle of innovative thinking in the U.S. auto industry; it's great that the company seems to be shaping its own future without the need of a government bail-out.  But the obvious point they're missing here is:

This is a bad idea, guys!  

The first thing that occurs to any objective observer is that this is a big safety problem.  Drivers are distracted enough; it's far too common these days to be behind or next to a driver that can't seem to stay in his lane, or slows down inexplicably in traffic, or sits obliviously at a light that turned green 30 seconds ago.  These people are on the phone; they are dangerous; and they don't need more distractions, especially in the front seat.

Let's be open-minded:  As noted, Ford says "some" functions would be disabled unless the car is in park.  That's certainly a plus.  Let's hope, for example, that the driver can't watch a DVD, or the television broadcast of today's football game, while actually driving.  Still, I'm pretty certain that not enough functions will be disabled.   To combine certain functions into voice commands, rather than dashboard buttons, might provide a very minor improvement in overall safety.  But it's been demonstrated in many studies (and it's also just plain common sense) that the issue in distraction is not whether your hands are occupied elsewhere, but whether your mind is. 

Ford could make a strongly positive contribution if all the functions people now seem to expect to do in a moving vehicle (GPS, telephone, and the outlet that runs plug-in electrical gadgets) were disabled when the vehicle is moving.  That would remove a lot of distraction -- remember that advice, to use the phone, pull over and stop?  As an alternative, large flashing warning lights on the outside of the car would be a big help whenever these features are being used:  "Caution! Distracted Driver!"  But I doubt Ford will do either, because no one would buy the car if they did. 

That's the second reason this is a bad idea.  It just doesn't seem to be attractive technology in today's marketplace.  With smart phones everywhere and Apple set to unveil an iTablet, why will people want to use a system that's rooted in their car, rather than one they can use in the car, and also take with them to the office, and home?  Regardless of any safety issues, this seems to me to be the big "if" that will determine whether the "driver connect" concept becomes a Mustang or an Edsel.

More Planets

It's always kind of exhilarating to me to see some of the science reporting that manages to squeeze its way into the news amid the stories of corporate corruption, political pandering, and celebrity salaciousness.  How amazing that there is still so much being discovered, and yet to be discovered, about our world and our universe.

A case in point is the search for new planets now made possible by the Kepler telescope.  New planets with a variety of characteristics have been identified, but none yet with the right combination of conditions to support life as we know it.  Can Earth be unique?  I doubt it - something like us must be out there, and we can suppose it will be found (though I doubt strongly that I'll ever live on it).

Sometimes, though, I wonder why we bother to expand our understanding, to increase our knowledge, to seek out facts -- when the trend on our own planet (well, in the U.S. anyway) seems to be toward an ever-more-common denominator of ignorance, an unwitting shamble into a new Dark Age.  Here are a few of the things I have heard in conversation recently, from people with university education:

70% of all IRS employees don't pay their taxes (well OK, they may pay withholding, but if they owe more, they never pay it).
A British scientist who argues against climate change was beaten up by UN police because of his beliefs.
Interpol has carte blanche to operate "above the law" in the U.S.
You should not even think about answering all the questions that will be posed by the U.S. census this year - "just say no."

Sometimes, it seems as if the planets must be whirling around in people's heads rather than out there in space.  We're used to the exaggerated lie from politicians seeking to sway voters by any means (witness Sarah Palin and her death panels).  But now, we're seeing more frequent and even less factually-based claims from all manner of "ordinary" people.  

Of course, it's evident that these sorts of assertions, believed wildly and blindly by those who express them, come from that modern-day font of all knowledge, the internet, or its close cousin, talk radio.  They're picked up, believed, and repeated by many who ought to know better.  I have no doubt that the stories about new planets will give new vigor to all sorts of paranoiac theories about our being spied on by aliens.  Here is my own humble contribution:  A guy from the gas company came today to replace a battery in the gas meter (which reports usage without requiring someone to come into the house).  Naturally, I am absolutely certain this means that the gas company (and maybe others) can now listen to every conversation my wife and I have. (NOT!)

Maybe we'd better put aside our telescopes and focus a bit more on educating ourselves right here on Earth.  I have no doubt that the freshly announced initiative for science and math education is needed and useful, but it looks as if we need to focus more on some of the humanities:  civics, history, logic, evaluating and using sources of information.  Or, should we believe that the cause is lost, and accelerate that search for another planet that sane people might move to? 

Prize Season - Literature And the Sciences

Amidst the furor that's likely to develop over the announcement that the Nobel Peace Prize goes to Obama this year, it's worth noticing also some of the other Nobels, as well as other internationally recognized awards.

Literature Prizes

If the Nobel Peace Prize is subjective (as it certainly is), then the Nobel Prize in Literature is übersubjective.  Though occasionally coming up with a winner who has an established readership beyond specialists in his/her own country, the Nobel has more often gone to a hitherto unnoticed writer.  This year's winner, Herta Mueller, is a case in point, described as "little-read" outside her native Germany. 

The Nobel has been criticized in the U.S. (and sometimes elsewhere in the world) as too Europe-centered, but the truth of that is self-evident.  Individuals like Nobel, or corporations like Booker (now, apparently, Man Booker), by virtue of providing prize money, get to decide, if they wish, the qualities they want to see in a winner.  Even if they don't, the committees and organizations that award these prizes will, over time, develop a certain bias toward certains kinds of works.  

The bias of the Nobels seems to have drifted toward the cleverly written novel of endless obscure literary references and vapid story lines (A.S. Byatt comes to mind), the kind of thing that in the U.S., engages the interest only of professors of English.  (I haven't read Ms. Mueller's work - does she qualify?)  Anyway, with that sort of focus, it's little wonder that the Committee's choices seem Europe-centered; that's where that sort of writing is concentrated.  Today's Washington Post has a very useful cheat sheet about these various literary prizes, with capsule descriptions of their typical focuses. 

Science Prizes

Leading up to the literature and peace prizes, there is usually a string of announcements of Nobel prizes in science.  I think it's a shame that these don't get more attention.  Perhaps they get more in other countries, but here in the U.S., the single, quick announcement is about the extent of the coverage.  No analyses, or long articles attempting to ascertain what the judges may have seen in the work of the awardees. 

That's natural to some extent; science is specialized, it doesn't have a large following (doesn't draw those valuable eyeballs and clicks!); and it's hard, in the since that most journalists are liberal-arts types who can't grasp or describe the concepts.  Still, they're worth our attention.  While there are many prestigious, internationally recognized awards in literature, in science, the Nobels are really the only game on the globe.

Lucy In The Sky With ... Dust?

Today, something fascinating from the world of science!  In "Shading the Earth," the National Geographic Magazine outlines a concept scientists have developed that could mimic the effects of a major volcano by filling the atmosphere with tons of small sun-blocking particles.  The model is the eruption of Mt. Pinaltubo in the Philippines in 1991, which was measured to have reduced the earth's average temperature by about a degree for nearly a year. 

Why would we care to do that?  It could be a sort of band-aid for global warming.  If the dire predictions about warming (rising seas, warmer climate, decimation of species, etc.), and if mankind is unable to get together to head off these problems before they can occur (which seems almost certain), scientists say we might be able to buy time by filling the sky with particles that would shield us from the sun and reduce temperatures by a degree or two.  Cool! (Literally).

As with so many grand ideas about changing Mother Nature, there are some concerns.  The accelerating pace of warming is pretty clear evidence that we imperfectly understand the interrelationships among various natural factors on earth.  Does it make sense for us to gin up a huge scheme which (assuming it can be done at all) would have unpredictable effects?  What if cooling was greater than expected; could we be plunged from warming into another ice age?  There's also the problem of keeping the sky filled with reflective material over a period of years; once we start, can we stop without frying ourselves?

My main objection to "shading the earth" is on a little baser level.  In politics, we never seem to be able to do anything until a major crisis forces the issue (see "Health Care , Is Compromise in the Air?."  That's no less true in cataclysmology.  The existence of a seemingly viable means of keeping our planet livable without sacrifices will just encourage further procrastination in dealing with painful choices, such as how we use fossil fuels, reducing our carbon footprint, and the like.  In that environment, I suspect it would be well nigh impossible to convince the deniers that our current mode of operation need change in any way.

So please, let's just keep this concept behind the curtain; work to perfect it and plan it, but keep it for a real emergency, and let's keep working on a long-term fix, which will certainly include changing the way we think and act.  Maybe in the meantime, all the space debris from our rockets and satellites will form its own umbrella.

A Word On Information Privacy

Facebook just bought Friendfeed.  If you haven't heard of Friendfeed, give this interesting article a look.  If you haven't heard of Facebook, and don't have an account, you may be among the lucky ones who could still preserve a modicum of privacy in tomorrow's world.  

So, what does the Facebook-Friendfeed deal mean?  Writer Chadwick Matlin begins his piece with one baldly intimidating statement: "Facebook just bought the rights to nearly everything you do online," and ends his piece with another:  "[Facebook bought Friendfeed]...so it could own you."  In between, he speculates breathlessly about Facebook's plans to become the aggregator of all social media.  The promise is user convenience, not having to track or manage separately all your links, posts, and feeds to and from a proliferating array of blogs, Facebook, Digg, Twitter.  The threat, about which no one seems particularly concerned just yet, is to individual privacy.

By itself, the Facebook news doesn't seem like much, and Matlin may be incorrect in his speculation; but generally, the push is on for these seemingly user-friendly sites to collect more and more information about the individuals who use them.  Aggregation of all that information -- not just contact info but your interests, photos, friends, associations, and the like -- can tell anyone who cares to ask (and who can pay for it) a lot about you.  Some random observations:

• Tagged.com is one of the worst. Avoid it. It's a phishing expedition disguised as social networking, and getting involved with it (as I inadvertently did when an acquaintance sent some photos) will magically quintuple your spam e-mail within days. (They're now on my "blocked" list.)
• Facebook didn't originally seem too intrusive, and does allow you to decide what information you want to provide. But the trend to grab more is evident in a recent twist which requires a "confirmation" process involving giving up your cell phone number (something I don't do easily) and other data before you can post a comment on the pages of organizations of which you're a "fan."
• The venerable E-bay collects immense amounts of information, some of which can be justified to protect the financial and personal security of buyers and sellers. But did you know, as I discovered by accident, that as a party to a transaction, you can access other bidders' buying history on the site, seeing everything they bought or bid on, and the prices paid? Can you think of a reason for that? I can't. In fact it seems to contradict the premise of a free auction; it's not information you would have in a real auction. (Incidentally, you can't do the same on the German version of E-bay, because German law protects individual privacy far more stringently.)
• Your health insurance company may be selling your prescriptions and medical history even as you read this, to anyone who wants to pay for it. If they're not selling it, they're failing to protect that information from data miners which do.

Now, I realize none of this may concern you in the least.  As always, everyone has to make his/her own choices regarding how much personal information it's appropriate to dole out, and to whom.  Actually, I'm pretty free with my own information, except that I do keep my cell phone number pretty close because I don't want it ringing at me constantly with nuisance messages.  But one thing is certain:  the more that's out there, and the less you can compartmentalize it, the greater the likelihood of a data compromise you may not wish for.

Postal Service For The Elite

Joe Nocera's longish piece in the New York Times a couple of days ago ("It's Time to Stay the Courier") about the future of the U.S. Postal Service is worth a look.  His fundamental argument, that the USPS needs restructuring rather than just tinkering, is certainly one I share. 

On the other hand, Nocera's suggestion that we can just do without mail delivery entirely, because everybody is using e-mail these days, needs examination.  It may be that Nocera is totally wired through e-mail and a dozen other types of electronic connection.  Many people are equally fortunate.  But he's wearing blinders if he thinks everybody is in the same boat.  I know lots of elderly people who don't use e-mail at all, or use it rarely; then there are those like me who much prefer to get their magazines in the comfortably and ubiquitously readable hard-copy format. 

An even larger group (I would guess) are those who don't have a computer, and internet service, and all the accoutrements, because they can't afford them.  Such people may have "access" to the internet, if they happen to choose to go the a public library (probably also an endangered species in Mr. Nocera's world view) or some other such free-access niche, but that's a far cry from being able to be confident that they are receiving such fundamental communications as their gas and phone bills, other payment notices including taxes, notices of legal matters like foreclosure or an increase in their credit card rate. 

Where would people receive and respond to this kind of mail?  Not from private delivery services of any sort, especially if there is no "public option."  (Sounds a bit like health care, doesn't it?)  That's why "universality" has been the watchword of the postal service pretty much since the days of Benjamin Franklin.  I can imagine a lot of changes, including closing some offices, reducing the frequency of delivery, and even different frequency in different areas.  Getting the USPS out of the clutches of Congress and its totally political considerations is another, and a BRAC-like commission structure might accomplish that.

But abandoning a commitment to serve all citizens?  It's unthinkable.  Without a government-operated post office, message delivery would fall into the hands of a price-fixing oligarchy.  Just look at the cable-TV/phone/internet companies that already handle Mr. Nocera's communications, where the services available in a given area seem curiously similar, and prices increase exponentially since there are no true options.  Many people get excluded from such a "free" market.  I just don't think we're ready to abandon snail mail yet.

More Pseudo-Science

Scenario:  A couple of reporters want to show the physiological effects of eating some of the country's fattiest, saltiest, sugariest, highest calorie, baddest-for-you fast foods.  Reporter has blood, heart rate, liver function, and other vital indicators measured at some unspecified point just before eating, eats four of these badboy dishes, and then gets the same tests run again.  

Results:  Amazing!  Various vital signs are off the charts in various ways; heart racing, blood full of fats, etc.  Return to normal takes several hours.

What we learned about the effects of bad junk food on our bodies:  Absolutely nothing.  Are we so poorly educated in scientific method after eight years of kowtowing to ignorance, that our intrepid reporters think this demonstrates anything?  One of the keys to any test is to minimize the variables.  Here, the two tests were taken (apparently) at different times of day, one when the subject had eaten nothing recently, the other when she had just eaten a huge meal.  How can we tell what are the effects of eating bad food, and what might resultl just from eating any meal?  We can't.

Proper procedure:  Day 1, reporter eats normal lunch and gets the tests done.  Day 2, same time of day, reported eats the terrible fast food lunch and gets the tests done.  Compare results.  Then we might learn something.  University of Maryland, be ashamed.

Man And Technology

In the Washington DC area a week ago, we had a bad subway accident.  One train collided into the back of another; nine people were killed.  Evidently circuits, intended to prevent exactly that kind of accident, failed.  Afterward, experts who have studied how humans interact with technological systems are suggesting that humans may come to rely so much on the proper working of complicated systems that they "tune out" and aren't prepared to provide human input when it's really needed.  Others point out this is an issue in many other transportation disasters, like the Air France flight that plummeted into the ocean north of Brazil, or recent train accidents.  This idea seems to have wide acceptance among analysts, and has a common-sense credibility, too. 

Also within the past day or two, I read somewhere an item (which I can't find now) forecasting that self-driving, accident-avoiding cars, based on a combination of sensors, GPS, and other new technology, may be "closer than we think."  But in light of my first paragraph, I have to ask, "Why?"  Don't we already suffer from too many people doing too many other things behind the wheel other than focusing on their driving?

I have little confidence in technology that is supposed to replace the engagement of the human brain in complex situations.  I guess my uneasy feeling is best encapsulated by the insurance commercial that has a driver, unperturbedly following the instructions of a voice from his GPS system, when the voice says "turn left" and he crashes head-on into a storefront.  Increasingly "smart" technology in various applications can be a boon, but it's foolish to become too reliant on it.

Brothers In Arms, Or Babes?

In the past week or so I've heard several times from different people how great it is that our servicemen and -women in combat zones can be so in touch with their families by means of modern communications technologies such as satellite, video, e-mail, social networking pages, and the like.  There's no doubt that these systems have drastically altered how our troops overseas communicate with their loved ones.  

But is the new age of instant communication universally "great?"  Maybe not in every case.  For many younger servicepeople, the military experience is the first complete break with family, their first chance to get out and make their own decisions.  It's an escape, but also a formative process.  I would guess that's why so many men, decades after their service, often seem to recall their military experience more vividly and positively than many other things they did later.  "Mother" (rhymes with "smother"!) has no place in it; this is where babes in arms become brothers in arms. 

Thinking back to my own service days, we had a technology called letters.*  These primitive communication devices might take a week or ten days to reach their addressees, depending on how remote you were and how often a supply chopper came through.  I sent off a letter home every week or so, and probably received one about as often.  That seemed plenty, if not excessive.  It wasn't that I was so focused on perfecting my military skills (hah!); it was just that the family seemed not to fit into the picture. 

Forty years later, I also have to wonder how concerns from the home front distracted us from our duties and detracted from mission effectiveness.   In an environment where alertness and focus are key to staying alive, who needs to be preoccupied with what's going on back home?  I was not personally in an especially "hot" combat situation but it seems to me the more active the fighting, the less welcome distractions would become.  They call soldiers "warriors" these days.  It's a good term that reflects our shift to an all-volunteer force.  It also suggests a focus that's far removed from mom's cancer operation next week, or a sweetheart who's marrying somebody else.

Don't get me wrong.  Mostly, I think the new-and-better communication is a good development.  From the point of view of parents, there's no question.  Also, with widespread call-up of Reserves and National Guard units, there are more family men and women at war now than there used to be; and for this group, unpredictably ripped from their civilian lives, better communication is indubitably a big plus.   Others, though, especially younger single males, may see it differently.  Are there any who make the choice of not using all this new technology, and are they understood at home if they don't?

* "Letter," a written or printed message intended for the perusal only of the person or organization to whom it is addressed (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (7 Jun. 2009).