Sgt Hulka Uncut

uncensored opinion and technical information on stuff

Archive for category Climate Change

New Year’s Resolution’s

Jan 5

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change | Comments off

Probably, BP has spent enough time on the wall-o-shame, not because they have changed their ways in any demonstrable way, but rather that no one is much interested in the oil spill any more.

I am not really into arbitrary start or end points, but I’m talking to my buddy from Minnesota the other day, and I am reminded that I am a lame arse, and haven’t updated my blog since it got banned from the Company website. Well, sometime close to there. And then I did get kinda busy doing some billable work, but not so much that I couldn’t have a rant now and then, but then just never wrote anything. Maybe I was saving up energy for the big writing I did near the end of the year. Whatever.

It certainly wasn’t due to the fact that nothing annoying and deserving of even a lengthy rant have not occurred, even in Australia, where generally we have few complaints.

So, I am committed to writing regularly this year, and we will see how it goes. Perhaps nothing will come up that sets me off? Hmmmn, not likely. Probably I will also put up some techo crap on current subjects of interest, such as coal seam gas production (CSG), and underground coal gasification (UCG), and some opinion on whether either is a good idea. I will try to keep it as short as possible.

Also, I have read recently about an innovation in carbon capture and storage I need to investigate to find out if this change make CCS a possibility, or if it remains a pipe-dream and significant waste of government support.

Other topics chosen upon response required to comments.

Hulka out

Why we hate BP

Jun 4

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Evil Motherfuckers, Good Ideas, Other Topics | Comments off

Update on my post from yesterday is as follows. I have submitted my suggestion to BP through the process defined by them. However, they made it so difficult and bureaucratic, that I nearly gave up.

First, they wouldn’t allow anything but a US phone number in their electronic form, and with all the bells and whistles they had turned on it, it couldn’t be read by anything other than the latest version of acrobat.

Second, their form assumed I wanted to sell them something, despite being named a suggestion form. There were boxes for me to give all kinds of details on the parts or service I had, but no space for just a free form dump of the free and constructive suggestion I had.

So, I hacked their electronic form, got the email addy they could have just posted online, and now I will just sit back and “Wait for a response on your suggestion from BP, as we have received over 4000 and each will take some time to technically review”.

OK, thanks I will do that, you evil cocks

What is a dynamic plug?

Jun 3

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Good Ideas, Other Topics | Comments off

I have been wanting to post on the BP catastrophe for some time, but had to clear the decks of work first.

What I am going to start with is a proposal for a fix. I reckon if the US government can get a movie director in for ideas on how to plug the well in the short term, perhaps they could use a suggestion from an engineer. I am not sure my fix will work, but I think it has a chance. In another post, I will deal with fixing the bigger issue with BP itself.

OK, so to start, I would try to stop the flow with what I will call a dynamic plug, a valve that will only activate after being inserted deep inside the well, and activated by a column of drilling mud at plug flow (or in a flow regime with a sufficiently high Reynolds number that it the velocity in the cross sectional flow is uniform, literally like a cylindrical plug of liquid coming down the tube)

To build the dynamic plug, I would start with something they have already tried somewhat successfully, the siphon tube. Before they tried the top kill, they stuck a flexible tube down the well bore and were sucking out an amount of the oil flow to pump to the surface. I would do that again, but this time I would attach to the tube a couple of expandable cones to the shaft of the tube, about a metre back from the end of it. It would look like this:
plug collapsed
The front expandable positioning (EP) cone would be flow through mesh, or just a cage that would position the siphon tube in the centre of the well casing. I would expand this when I was ready to make the attempt, after starting to pump mud down the hole, but before the mud reached the dynamic plug assembly, like this:
positioner open
Then, just as the plug flow of mud reached the dynamic plug, the rear expandable cone would be released from its closed position and would snap into place to seal the well and the dense mud flow behind it would hold the well closed until the well could be permanently plugged with cement above the dynamic plug. A tube with an inflatable end (like used in an angioplasty) might also work.
plug open
The key is that the plug it self doesn’t have to be strong enough to stop the flow of oil, but instead ust form the seal for the mass of mud that will hold it in place.

I would insert the tube down the well head through the blow-out preventer (BOP) and far enough into the well that I could pump mud down behind the siphon tube at a fast enough rate that the mud would reach plug flow, and also far enough down the well that the mass of mud behind the dynamic plug would be able to hold in the pressure of the reservoir:
insertion

Climate Change For The Lazy

May 28

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, Science | Comments off

So, I once again have found myself pretty busy at work and have not been able to post as much as I like. However, today I have come across something worth sharing. I get in trouble with the censors if I play the man instead of the ball, so I won’t. But I will point out a phenomenally good evisceration of one of the most entertaining of the climate change deniers, Christopher Monkton, Lord Somethingorother.

Professor John Abraham from the university of St. Thomas, Minnesota has done a particularly good job of examining every claim made by Chris Monkton, including getting in contact with every one of his named sources to confirm with them if the references used are both technically accurate and also whether they accurately represent the position that the source cited intended to make in context.

“The number of errors Chris Monckton makes is so enormous it would take a thesis to go through every single one of them.” So then he basically does present what would be a thesis paper on the multiple ways in which untruths and misrepresentations can be passed off as “fact” by a good showman.

The presentation is excellent, and I do mean presentation, since he has posted it in Powerpoint form with voice over. If you have 83 minutes, I would give it a listen and then do what I always encourage people to do – look into the issue yourself with the references provided. That is, unless you are so lazy you can’t even listen.

I bet the Vatican runs on coal

Apr 15

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, Economics, International | Comments off

The cost of producing power by burning coal is currently the cheapest of any fuel if you look strictly at material cost per heat unit.

But unfortunately, it needs to be examined more holistically, based on recent evidence in combination with my previous research. Currently, coal burners for power production are not required to internalise the costs of things such as:

HSE Performance and possible criminal prosecution
Our Australian coal companies have nothing to do with the recent coal mining disaster in the USA. But keep in mind that our coal producers have to compete with the likes of Massey Energy Company, and we know they all compete on keeping “operating” costs low. In the case of Massey, the deaths of 29 workers in early April were likely the result of the cost containment efforts of Massey in the areas of installing necessary HSE controls and even in paying fines in full and on time. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration has issued more than $900,000 in fines for the Upper Big Branch mine in the past year, according to federal data compiled by Bloomberg News. Massey is appealing more than $250,000 of the largest fines, among them one in January for ventilation systems that are supposed to prevent the buildup of methane gas and coal dust that can cause explosions, like the one in the current incident. Massey has a history of disputing U.S. findings of safety violations at its mines, including one in Virginia in where 25 people were killed in 1970, records show. Of $1.77 million in safety-related fines that the Mine Safety and Health Administration lodged against the Upper Big Branch mine since 2006, Massey has paid $364,886, or 20 percent, according to agency data.

Note that someone does pay theses cost avoided by Massey at present however, the government and families of those killed.

Great Barrier Reef grounding
This month in Australia, we also have another unintended impact of the coal sales, with the grounding of the coal ship, Shen Neng 1. Whatever the outcome of the court case, the evidence this far is damning. This boat was off course in a no-go zone, and had no responsible pilot on board to guide it on a correct path through a part of one of the great wonders of the world. In the period it was stuck and hung up on the reef, dragging in the current, then anchored and moving in the current on the reef until it could be refloated. It spilled only a few tons of its 900 tons of oil on board, but it also left behind a large amount of its anti-fouling paint on the reef as it went. And anti fouling paint is one of nature’s quiet killers. I won’t go into great detail, but please look into these yourself through your favourite scientific search engine. This paint contains chemicals that can kill instantly, and are also what are called endocrine disruptors when exposed to chronically, so they also leave behind negative mutations.

Financial damages include all emergency response costs, damage protection and clean-up costs, as well as log-term monitoring and repair of environmental damage from the direct impacts of the ship, and the poisons it left behind. Coal traffic out of the Rockhampton loader that this ship departed from are projected to increase 67% this year, all of which should be directed by competent pilots from AMSA, in my opinion.

I wonder if the cost of coal fully incorporates these types of charges, as well as the cost of the court case itself, as I don’t see wind or solar generators ever being in a similar circumstance, product liability-wise.

Health issues in the Hunter Valley
Then, as of Monday, the drumbeat continued, as the ABC’s Four Corners program began an examination of the health effects of the open cut coal mining in the Hunter Valley. The program detailed a number of acute and chronic cases of asthma and related respiratory ailments suffered by residents in and around Singleton, as well as possibly identifying a cancer cluster. But we will know more about that as the government completes a study, that it refused to do until the day after the Four Corners story broke. Up until now, it has been one GP doing a study on his own.

Whether a full study reveals an acute or chronic health problem from the mining activity or not, who pays? The government and communities currently assume all health costs, as far as I can see.

Energy efficiency and greenhouse implications
The very important issues above are possibly reasons alone for discontinuing the burning of the magic dirt from making electricity. But then let’s not forget last week’s “dead” issues, energy efficiency and greenhouse emissions. The public may be tired of hearing about it and want to move on, but the facts remain. Burning coal for fuel is the most inefficient means of making power with respect to waste emissions and thermodynamic power losses.

Just because we can dig it out of the ground for what appears near to free, doesn’t mean it is. If you also agree that the costs of doing the changeover from all or part of our coal burning is not as expensive as predicted by doomsayers, then the arguments for not getting off coal ourselves, and slapping a great big carbon excise tax on any that we do sell overseas, start to make a lot of sense. Just as big rich countries have the right to tie their financial aid to poor countries efforts to adopt climate change goals, so should we cause heavy users of our coal to internalise the full costs of using the product in order to advance their economies.

Not Dead Yet

Apr 7

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, Politics | Comments off

Well, I noticed yesterday how easy it is to miss a month of writing anything for the blog. Yeah, not one rant for a full month. Sure, I did get a bit busy with work and that is one good way to shut me up, but in reality there really wasn’t anything to have a rant about that I had not either covered already, or was significant enough to talk about. Sure, a few minor things have occurred, and yesterday I found out about a couple things which are significant, but probably not in a good way.

The first is that the full report of the review of the scientists of the University of East Anglia is out. And surprise surprise, it shows exactly what I stated in my article on the subject in the week after the issue came to light. But you have to look pretty hard to find the story, and you almost certainly didn’t hear about the death of that conspiracy theory on your evening news.

The second item came last night when I found out that Malcolm Turnbull has decided to quit politics and won’t stand for re-election at the next election. So, climate change is sliding into obscurity and becoming a non-issue in the public forum. Those who stand for science and reason lose support, and lies once exposed go unnoticed, as is true in so much of politics these days.

But I don’t intend to go quiet, and will still write on matters of fact with respect to the issue, although my writing will become more sporadic on the subject of climate change, as apparently it isn’t happening. I will just bide my time and try to come up with better zombie plans and stock up on things to sell people that forgot to develop a good zombie plan so that I can personally do better as things turn to shit. Because apparently, that is what it is all about, right?

Why the yanks are unreliable partners on climate change

Mar 9

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, International, Science | Comments off

If you want a good reason why Australia should and must think for ourselves and act for ourselves on climate change, look no further than a current court ruling from America:

“Nine judges of the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear a climate change nuisance case bought by Hurricane Katrina victims”

Now don’t get me wrong, I have sympathy for the plaintiffs, a large group of Mississippi residents, many of whom are likely lower middle class. They probably lots most of what they physically owned in Katrina, and the preparation and response to that natural disaster could have been far better, I think most reasonable people could agree. But unless the court is actually taking the case in order to set a precedent so that later cases can be won on their merits, I don’t see why they would rehear the arguments on this. This is because the plaintiffs have argued that emissions from the operations of several energy and chemical companies have contributed to global warming, causing a rise in sea levels and adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.

The merits of the argument, while seemingly logical, do not take into account the chaos generated by the global warming phenomenon, and so tying the emissions of any one company directly to any specific hurricane, or its path or ferocity, is not logical. You cannot make extremely specific predictions (or tie causality) to individual weather events based on general input of CO2. Who is to say who’s CO2 emissions pushed the cycle of hurricane ferocity or frequency to a worse position, or into a positive feedback loop? No one can, at this point. General emissions of CO2 drive average temperature rises in the atmosphere and higher moisture content in the air, and higher ocean levels that in some areas can exacerbate local weather events. But problems (like hurricanes) don’t manifest themselves as averages, they come as extremes, and they come as chaos. No one can reliably predict the occurrence of, or path of a hurricane or tornado, any more than we can predict an earthquake.

Second, the issue of Katrina’s ferocity is of issue. The claim is that the higher sea levels gave support to Katrina’s ferocity leading to the damages sustained, because at the end of the story, that’s where they want to go, right? The money. They (and their litigators) want to make a whole bunch of money out of this disaster, and being able to establish that the severity of damage is worse than otherwise would have been is key to their argument. Katrina was a Category 3 when it made landfall in Louisiana, making it the 6th strongest hurricane in the Atlantic history. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but only in the top 20% of recorded storms. So, making the case that it was particularly ferocious is a bit tough. And while tying the worst of the damage to the storm surge has some validity, one could argue that the particular path had as much to do with the severity of the storm surge as sea level rise.

But all of this is just the detail. The real problem to me seems to be the fact that these people have to attempt to get through expensive tort what they should be getting through reasonable regulation. And virtually any regulation seems to be anathema to the Americans. Unless we in Australia, and the rest of the world, want to become a place where suing someone is the means by which we primarily gain social justice, then we should proceed to get ourselves in order with respect to climate change legislation, so that in addition to the savings on energy efficiency alone, we can also say that we aren’t the major source of the problem, and we won’t be a good target to sue.

Cats, bad news for mice and the environment

Mar 5

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, International | Comments off

Hey, while I am pretty much 100% convinced in anthropogenic global warming, I am willing to listen to well put counterarguments. Finally, after the littany of Sydney Morning Herald columnists and the Loony Lord sideshow from the UK, finally I find a piece of work that makes me scratch my head and go “hmmmm”.
Screen shot 2010-03-05 at 11.42.30 AM

[Bloom Box], Things which are probably bullshit . . .

Mar 2

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Economics, Good Ideas, Other Topics, Snake Oil | Comments off

. . . as our friends at Hungry Beast say. But hey, nobody does a launch of an 18 year old technology like the yanks. A former NASA scientist (to make it sound more sexy, no doubt) has brought us the trendily named Bloom Box, claiming it to be the big thing after ten years of development. Ah, unfortunately, not.

Oh, he has got a planar design, solid oxide fuel cell in those fridge size boxes, to be sure. The problem is, they aren’t new, having been first begun commercialisation in 1992 by companies such as Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited here in Australia, or UTC in America. These companies actually sell now what this bloke is saying you can have soon for $800k and hopefully for $3000 in a few years. Hell, the Australian company had their piece of kit doing demo work on top of the old office I had in the technology park back in 2000.

I don’t know exactly what CFCL sells their piece of kit at, and to my knowledge they are still only selling them to small companies, with a consumer product to be available “sometime in 2010”. My guess is that CFCL would probably offer their unit at a cost a bit less than what Bloom is saying for a similar sized application for small businesses. The big difference is that if you call CFCL or UTC, they actually have something to install when they take your money.

In my opinion, Bloom’s entrepreneur is most likely a hype merchant so insignificant I won’t even look up his name. My suspicions were raised when I first heard his release where he says he has some “proprietary software” that is the key to his Bloom Box. Uh huh, and mine has magic beans.

According to reputable news agencies on science and technology (National Geographic News), based on the information the company has made public, the Bloom Box technology is not revolutionary. They quote Friedrich Prinz, a fuel cell expert at Stanford University, the design of the Bloom Box appears to be fairly standard and that there was nothing obviously revolutionary about it. “They didn’t reveal any new physics or any new principles, but I don’t think they need to do that,” he said.

Note the end of the professor’s statement. What he means by “they don’t need to do that” is that solid oxide fuel cell technology is exciting and very interesting. It’s essentially “burning” something, but not in the physical sense, more in the chemical sense, through a reactor that can be coated onto thin plates. It’s basically a chemical engineer’s wet dream, so I will go on, or you can do your own research elsewhere. The heart of the fuel cell is a high rate chemical battery that produces the electricity

Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

You feed it the same type of stuff you feed an internal combustion engine (methane and air) and it produces electricity (only in DC form as opposed to AC) and it also produces waste heat you can recover at high temperature for other use (like heating water for your house). But the cost of the fuel cell to manufacture is pretty high, because the methane you use to feed it is just a good source of what you really want to feed it – hydrogen. So you basically have to put a miniature stripper and reformer on the front of the rig. Plus, coating the anodes and cathodes of the reactor and getting them spaced out exactly as you require is expensive assembly work.

However, the real current manufacturers (CFCL and UTC) of solid oxide fuel cells do intend to get their equipment down in cost for home application in the next year. And then let them work the kinks out of the technology at their demonstration plants and then we will see whether I will be buying one for my back yard.

But you know, probably I will anyway just to mess around with it. Either that, or I am starting the home nuclear reactor this year. Besides, all the cool kids will have one. I thought so enough at the depth of the financial crisis that I started buying stock in the company. There’s your free stock tip for the day, for those tuning in that made it this far.

Of Climate Change and Pinkbats

Feb 25

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change | Comments off

It is unfortunate that in the attempt to do something (direct action, anyone?) about climate change, this government has administered a program that has been a victim of cowboy installers, and its own impatience to do some good. However, while much of what is alleged by the opposition is not proven about the scheme, there is no overlooking 4 bodies.

The law, I believe it says, is that the safety of a worker is a shared responsibility between the worker and his employer. In the case of these deaths, it looks to have been shared between younger, uneducated workers in conjunction with their irresponsible employers who were participating in an industry expanding rapidly, and too often new to the business of insulation installation.

The Minister for the Environment, and his Department, has apparently taken a risk assessment on board too slowly, and the modifications to the controls applied to the companies in the program have not been heeded, or failed, to achieve the desired result. It is very possible that personnel within the Department should be reprimanded, and if so perhaps the Minister should pay with his job. I think Peter Garrett is a great man, and a knowledgeable and capable manger of things, and he will be back if he goes for now.

This reminds me of another conversation I was having with a business partner about the close out of corrective actions from audits he has performed recently. There are apparently dozens of them laying there, identified, rated for risk, assigned . . . and forgotten. Any number of these could contribute to a serious incident. It is no good to close out an investigation, audit or inspection and identify the things you should do, but then not hold yourself to completing them.