tingilinde

stalking methane leaks

Natural gas is being hailed as a clean fuel and a bridge to a world where much less carbon is emitted to the atmosphere.  It does burn cleaner than oil or coal (roughly 30% less carbon dioxide than oil and 50% than coal) and other pollutants are lower.  But a problem is half as much as coal is still far too high - it may be fine for short term replacement for coal, but creating new infrastructure that uses it is a problem as power plants tend to last for five or more decades.

I said may be fine.  It turns out there is a fly in the ointment.  While burning natural gas is cleaner, not all of it is burned.  Some escapes to the atmosphere.  Natural gas is mostly methane which happens to be a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.   It varies with the type of coal burned, but if natural gas leakage is greater than about four percent the end result is greater green house gas emissions than coal.

Leakage exists, but it is poorly monitored.  Estimates are in the two to three percent range for the US - meaning natural gas may be worse for global warming than burning oil.  Some measurements have been very high - figures in the high single digits have been recorded at some fracking sites, but it should be stressed very little has been done in the form of actual measurements.

NPR recently profiled atmospheric scientist Ira Leifer who made a trek taking some measurements.  Great stuff, but we need an instrumented infrastructure measuring this.  My guess is there are industry and political pressures that would make the expense difficult.  The next best thing would be solid amateur measurements - inexpensive instruments that could be easily calibrated would be a nice development.   Then again a few percent waste is money that just blows away...

 

 

how to use a telephone

Shown around the US in theaters in 1927 (via archive.org)



It wasn't a "talkie" and didn't convey color information, which became important later as the user interface  evolved.

 

The movies continued as shorts before the main attractions. Here is a history as seen by AT&T from 1935 (also from the archive)

investment advice from susan:-)

The NY TImes has a short piece on Susan Crawford.  

A caveat is I'm a friend.  I'm in 99% agreement with her ..    I'm not keen on her endorsement of Tom Wheeler for FCC chair.  I'm not as optimistic, but perhaps she knows something and there is always political expediency. 

snip

...

Ms. Crawford, with a smile on her face, says the outlook is grim.

“We are in this position as a country because we assumed that the magic of the marketplace would provide competition and provide world-class communications,” she said. “But history has demonstrated that left to their own devices, companies will gouge the rich, leave out the poor, cherry-pick markets and focus solely on their profits. It isn’t evil, it’s just the way things work.”

...

 

 

mark doesn't like google

there are issues when the end user is the product and taste is an issue...

(hat tip to Josh)

 

a costly service downgrade for sandy victims

from Verizon...  and AT&T is doing some interesting things

There is no real competition in most of the US.

 

(hat tip to Alan)

 

a huge carbon bubble?

In the past few months increasing attention has been given to the notion of a carbon bubble.  The idea is that to keep gobal temperatures from rising past a specified number you are limited to burnng a certain amount of carbon based fuels - a cap exists.  But if you look at the development of carbon resources by compannies and countries, the amount is much greater than any reasonable cap - large amounts of money are being spent for nothing.  At some point you have a huge inventory of stranded assets.  But how can a market possibly be wrong?  After all, it is impossible for a home mortgage bubble or a banking crises  to exist isn't it?

There may be some very serious investment risks and ruined economies down the pike.  Perhaps another externality of a carbon based economy as it tries to avert disaster.  Of course there is always the possibility that we will figure diaster is ok.

One of many papers on the subject - this one has the following forward by Lord Stern:

This report shows very clearly the gross inconsistency
between current valuations of fossil fuel assets and
the path governments have committed to take in
order to manage the huge risks of climate change.

If we burn all current reserves of fossil fuels, we will
emit enough CO2 to create a prehistoric climate,
with Earth’s temperature elevated to levels not
experienced for millions of years. Such a world would
be radically different from today, with changes in the
intensity and frequency of extreme events, such as
floods and droughts, higher sea levels re-drawing the
coastlines of the world, and desertification re-defining
where people can live. These impacts could lead to
mass migrations, with the potential for widespread
conflict, threatening economic growth and stability.

Governments have started to recognise the scale
of the risks posed by unmanaged climate change
and have already agreed to reduce annual global
emissions to avoid global warming of more than 2°C.
In late 2015, governments are expected to gather

in Paris at the annual United Nations climate change
summit to sign a treaty that will commit everyone
to action that will achieve this aim.

Carbon capture and storage technology could, in
theory, allow fossil fuels to be burned in a way that
is consistent with the aim of reducing emissions.
However, this report shows that even a scenario for
its deployment that is currently considered optimistic
would only make a marginal difference to the amount
of fossil fuels that can be consumed by 2050.



Smart investors can already see that most fossil fuel
reserves are essentially unburnable because of the
need to reduce emissions in line with the global
agreement. They can see that investing in companies
that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing
reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky
decision.

But I hope this report will mean
that regulators also take note,
because much of the embedded
risk from these potentially toxic
carbon assets is not openly
recognised through current
reporting requirements.

The financial crisis has shown what happens when
risks accumulate unnoticed. So it is important that
companies and regulators work together to openly
declare and quantify these valuation risks associated
with carbon, allowing investors and shareholders to 
consider how best to manage them.

If these valuation risks are made more transparent,
companies that currently specialise in fossil fuels
will be able to develop new business models that
take into account the fact that demand for their
products will decline steeply over the next decades,
and to consider their options for diversifying in order
to maintain their value. Investors will also be able to
consider whether it is better to stay with high-carbon
assets, or instead seek new opportunities in those
businesses that are best positioned gain in a low
carbon economy.

This report provides investors and regulators with
the evidence they need that serious risks are growing
for high-carbon assets. It should help them to better
manage these risks in a timely and effective way.

Professor Lord Stern of Brentford, Chair, Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment, London School of Economics and
Political Science 

 

 

Of course this presuposes that humanity has enough sanity to eventually agree to limits,

a short history of typeography

20 years

CERN released www to the public domain 20 years ago today.

 

bike sharing in nyc

Bike use in NYC, although very low by European standards, has increased dramatically in the past few years.  Soon a bike sharing system will go live and probably push usage a bit higher.  What hasn't happened is the blending of pedestrian, bike and vehicle traffic that the Europeans have sorted out.  Some of it is the nature of the bike lanes and some of it is the actions of the cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.  The NY Times reports on the tensions.  There are many existence proofs these issues can be worked out, but it is clear you just can't have an increase in cycling and expect things to just sort themselves out.

wolfram looks at facebook

From Steve Wolfram's blog - lots of datavis...  lots of stereotyplical assumptions confirmed, some interesting observations and qualatative results - at least for his samples and assuming the analysis is solid. (he and his company have a reputation for being careful, but I'm guessing social analysis is new to them)

Neat stuff!