Flashback – Critical Thinking

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

 

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year! 

 

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that  80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!”  Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

Energy Stupidity

Perhaps stupidity is too strong a word. Perhaps it’s a combination of ignorance, impatience, an inability to foresee all consequences and a tendency to let emotions override critical thinking. This is not an example from America, but a powerful lesson.

 

US News reports, last weekend in Luetzerath, Germany "hundreds of anti-coal activists staged protests in and around a mine in western Germany.” This is part of an ongoing series of demonstrations against coal mining and the use of coal power plants. “Environmental groups oppose the German government's decision to allow the mining and burning of coal in the country until 2038.” They believe that would be too late to meaningfully affect climate change.

 

This activity is just the latest of many protests against both mines and power facilities. Here is a headline that one outlet labeled the top environmental story of 2017: “Thousands protest German coal use.” I also found news items about similar demonstrations from June and December 2019 and earlier this year. There is no doubt that this recent protest will not be the last.

 

So far it seems reasonable. Coal burning pollutes the air. Phasing it out will clean the air and remove greenhouse gases. Maybe they have a point, except…

 

In 2011 in the wake of the Fukushima accident and with 70 percent of the population opposed to nuclear power, Angela Merkel announced that Germany would close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022. At the time a science reporter for Time wondered how Germany would meet “increasing energy demands while also tackling climate change” as they “shun any low-carbon energy sources, no matter how troubling.” (Nuclear energy is not low-carbon; it’s zero-carbon.)

With the plan in place “to curb greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time...shut down all of its nuclear power stations, which in the year 2000 had a 29.5 per cent share of the power generation mix,” Although Germany has been moving heavily toward renewables, where does the power to fill the need between now and 2038 come from?

The Asia Times earlier this year noted, “Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources” with thousands of wind turbines and over a million photovoltaic installations. “Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on ‘bad days’ it can fall to nearly zero.” That leaves 65% or more unaccounted for.

Forbes lists a few problems with this rapid transition. It imposes increased direct and indirect costs on German businesses and consumers, who already pay “among the highest electricity costs in the world.” The “landscape is being ruined by unsightly wind turbines” virtually everywhere, and the supply from these sources “varies dramatically in the course of a day or week.”

 

Finally, a McKinsey report from last year, that one German newspaper described as “disastrous,” stated that the current “transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation's economy and energy supply.” At times the country’s grid was close to a total blackout and had to be stabilized by short-term imports. The implementation lags its completion goal by eight or more years.

 

Germany has major problems with all aspects of their renewable energy transition, made worse by the added gap from closing their nuclear plants, plus protests against a coal power industry needed to take up the slack. What else are they supposed to do in the interim, attach generators to exercise bikes and ask citizens to generate their own electricity?

 

Unfortunately, instead of learning from the German experience, other European countries, including France, with 58 nuclear power reactors producing nearly 72% of their electricity, plan to follow their lead. 

 

Critical thinking has taken a backseat to emotional reactions. Nuclear power has always been a safe and pollution free energy source. “The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining.” Modern technology is superior to the plants built years ago. And engineers in France are recycling spent fuel to avoid the need for massive radioactive waste sites. If fluke accidents drove decision making in other arenas we would be riding horses and be forbidden to have a swimming pool or a bucket of water in the backyard (among many other things).

 

In short, the German people have turned their back on a viable pollution-free alternative and then launched protests against the only industry able to take up the slack during the transition – maybe not stupid, but certainly not smart.

Words Matter

I don’t watch many ads on TV, but I happened to see this one near the end of a football game last week. It was one of those public relations ads from Exxon Mobile telling what a wonderful job they were doing developing biofuel from algae. Someday this fuel will be used to power planes, ships and trucks “and cut their emissions in half.”

Wait a minute; something is not right here! Biofuels are carbon-based. When they burn, they emit mostly carbon dioxide. The only way to cut emissions in half is for the same amount of fuel to produce twice the energy as traditional diesel or jet fuel. That involves a factor called energy density.

Now biofuel is generally good. It comes from plants that extract CO₂ from the atmosphere. When biofuel burns it releases the same CO₂ back into the atmosphere, so it is considered to be carbon neutral. 

The downside is that first generation biofuels, such as ethanol, are produced from edible crops. They require a lot of space to grow and a lot of energy to plant, harvest and transport.

Biofuels processed from algae are a second-generation biofuel, similar to fuel made from the inedible and discarded part of a food crop, such as cornhusks or switch grass. The advantage is that food and fuel do not compete with each other, as when ethanol is made from corn.  And the production consumes “small amounts of energy while producing considerable fuel output.”

Other advantages are that algae production is efficient, in that, it can be grown “in almost any climate thanks to the open- or closed-tank approaches that are available today. As long as we can provide this natural product with enough sunlight to create photosynthesis, then it has the capability to grow quickly.” It is a renewable energy source that can be refined into a variety of products, and it can yield almost five times more fuel per acre than sugar cane or corn.

Two major disadvantages according to the same source are that it currently requires about 20% more energy to grow than it yields and production cost is still higher than the alternatives.

Exxon Mobile confronts the skeptics by citing partnerships with several major universities and a private firm to use gene technology and other research to build on the advantages and overcome many of the disadvantages. It looks promising, but they still “face some significant technical hurdles before biofuels production from algae will be possible at a significant commercial scale.”

The question remains about the claim of half the emissions. All fuel from wood and manure to jet fuel has a characteristic called energy density. “Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume or mass.”  Gasoline has an energy density of about 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). “Ethanol produces 30 megajoules/kilogram.” For that reason, a car will go farther on a gallon of pure gasoline than it will on a gallon of ethanol or any mix of ethanol and gasoline. Adding ethanol at the pump reduces MPG.

This 2011 paper from Stanford gives the energy density of algae-based biofuel at 20-25 MJ/kg, about half that of gasoline. Even if the research at Exxon Mobile’s partners could double it to equal that of gasoline or diesel, it would still be far short of their claim of cutting the emission of planes, ships and trucks in half. 

Deeper reading at the Exxon Mobile site gives the answer: “If key research hurdles are overcome, algal biofuels will have about 50 percent lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-derived fuel.” The saving is not in emissions but in the energy expended during the entire production and delivery process.

The claim in the ad is inconsistent with that explanation thus is really inaccurate. Perhaps the advertising firm misunderstood, or the company just dumbed it down for football fans. In either case, I love it when I’m right!

Climate Change: Overlooking the Details

You can’t really call it a lie, but when people who should know better spread misinformation, it feels like the same thing. The latest example came a few days ago on the national news when a reporter said the Paris Climate Accords “set global standards” for emissions. This is clearly incorrect. The agreement consists of a compilation of NDCs, Nationally Determined Contributions. They are not a global standard but targets set by each individual country, i.e., nationally determined, with no enforcement mechanism for those who fall short and no authority to reject a proposal as inadequate. (Follow this link to access all of the individual NDCs. See this link for a Washington Post article praising the “few countries” that are meeting the standards they set for themselves.)

This is a common misunderstanding of the agreement that leads to unnecessary handwringing over the fact that the United States is no longer a signatory. Despite that withdrawal, according to the EPA the green house gas emissions by the US are decreasing and are lower today than they were in 1996.

Meanwhile, while everyone is worrying about carbon dioxide, criticizing all the SUVs on the roads, a far more powerful greenhouse gas is flying under the radar of public interest. The BBC warns, “It's the most powerful greenhouse gas known to humanity, and emissions have risen rapidly in recent years.” Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a gas used by the electrical industry in the switching equipment in power stations, wind turbines and sub-stations to prevent short circuits, fires and other accidents. “In terms of warming potential, SF6 is 23,500 [times] more powerful than CO₂."

It is intended by design to remain contained within the insulator, but problems arise when leaks occur and evidence shows that they are occurring regularly as the global use of the gas “is expected to grow by 75% by 2030.” BBC puts the amount of leaking in the UK alone at the equivalent of an “extra 1.3 million cars on the road.” And the reason for the growth is a need for more of the switching equipment driven by the increase in sustainable power, such as wind and solar.

Here in the US, the EPA is aware of the problem, and Pacific Power & Gas is one of the utilities with plans to solve it. Fixing a single SF6 leak has an average cost of $25,000, so they are looking for alternatives and expect to have the problem solved in their business region by 2030.

Make no mistake; with so many more sources, carbon dioxide is still a far larger problem than SF6. But where is the balance? Why do we hear about the benefits of wind and solar while the drawbacks are ignored? Why do we hear the “dangers” of nuclear power while its remarkably  safe history is glossed over? Why are we urged to panic over unsigned Climate Accords when the truth is far more nuanced? 

Can’t Stand the Heat?

Early last week the Energy Star program people released recommendations on home heating and cooling. The reaction was swift and negative.

I could not find a date on this posting, but I know that for many years the recommended residential temperature setting has been the same as presented there. “The U.S. Department of Energy recommends that home temperature be set to 68 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. When no one is home, adjust temperatures to cooler settings in the winter and warmer settings in the summer.” For a long time it was no big deal. Many utilities have been subsidizing the cost of a programmable thermostat to facilitate meeting this pattern of adjustment.

But for some reason when Energy Star, a program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, last week came out with the idea of setting the summer temperature at 78 degrees to save energy during the spring and summer, ABC news said it “surprised” the Internet. They went on to post numerous tweets protesting 78 degrees as too hot.

MSN expanded on the story. “The Energy Star program recommends that people increase their air conditioning by seven degrees when they are not at home and by four degrees when they are sleeping, depending on what temperature makes them comfortable.” That translates to 85 degrees when you are out and 82 degrees when you are sleeping, or trying to sleep. The story explains how it went “viral,” in a negative way, and included another set of Twitter examples.

One says: “WHO CAN STAND 80+ DEGREES WHEN THEY'RE SLEEPING I WOULD MELT TO DEATH.” Another is concerned about the dog’s comfort if the temperature is set up during the day. One example on both sites asks, “You know how hot 78 degrees is?” 

Well, the answer is yes, I do know how hot 78 is – and so do many other people. It was not that long ago that home air conditioning was not all that common. The number of houses with central air conditioning rose from 19% in 1973 to 72% in 2009. I could not find numbers for the 1960s, but a reasonable guess would be about 10% or less. According to Consumer Reports, today “more than 75 percent of U.S. homes use air conditioning, and 90 percent of new homes are equipped with central air.” 

Most of the complainers are not old enough to remember the days of no air conditioning when city folks sat out on the fire escapes at night, and others set up mattresses in the cooler basements, when breaks from the summer heat consisted of opening a fire hydrant or going to the pool or to one of the few air conditioned buildings in town, the movie theater. 

That was reality only a couple of generations ago! Somehow the majority of people struggled through. No one melted to death. Dogs weren’t dying at home while everyone was at school or work. If it was hot at night, too bad. It’s true that 82 degrees is not nearly the ideal temperature for sleeping, but having to sleep at that temperature or higher in the past, because there was no other choice, did not result in mass extinction!

Several news outlets that released the Energy Star guidelines mentioned also that July was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. This links the renewed recommendation with climate change efforts, where everyone is expected to do their share – except they don’t want to. It’s the Al Gore philosophy – express a ton of concern about the planet, then go about business as usual.

This entire episode shows why perspective is so important. Without it, gratitude is lost. Technology is moving ahead so fast that everyday life of a few generations ago seems like ancient history. Minor inconveniences become major hardships. People don’t stop to think how lucky we are to have air conditioning almost everywhere. Instead they fly to Twitter to rail on about the injustice of it all.

Those Sore Muscles

Last time I discussed a book I hadn’t read, but based on a couple of reviews, I found some positive things to say about the advice it gave about taking responsibility. (I also threw in some snarky comment about the title.)

This time I want to discuss a book that I actually did read. Published quite recently, it’s called Good To Go, by Christie Ashwaunden. The subtitle is: What the athlete in all of us can learn from the strange science of recovery. It covers a variety of tools and techniques for physical recovery after participating in a sporting event or hard practice session. Examples are taken from professional athletes, Olympic-level competitors and serious sports enthusiasts. The book is an investigation of what works, what has real scientific backing vs. what is based on marketing, hype, and urban myth. It contains many surprises, but reinforces the need for critical thinking, the need to challenge our deeply held beliefs in everything we do.

The introduction states the problem clearly. “The explosion of recovery products and services can seem ridiculous.” Although “everyone intuitively knows what recovery is and how to achieve it,” the industry has found a way to make it much more complicated, expensive and time-consuming than it needs to be or ever has been.

Promoters of these new methods usually use stories rather than scientific facts, and stories told by celebrities or sports stars are most effective. The advertised science behind them is often based on poorly constructed studies with very small sample sizes. Only the ones with positive results see the light of day with the rest (often the majority) filed away. The book investigates many of these products and services to see what really works. I will cover just a few.

One such product with little scientific justification is the sports drink phenomenon, a huge industry with many devoted fans. One expert characterized some of their studies as verging on “comical.” The author takes on the whole idea of hydration, pre-hydration and electrolyte supplements and comes to the conclusion that the best defense against dehydration is to drink when you are thirsty. Any other approach can result in waste or even harm. 

She gives the example of running with her dog. When they get home, she gives her access to a water bowl. The dog decides whether or not to drink. The author has “never needed to inspect the color of the dog’s urine or give her an emergency IV for low fluid levels.” We make it overly complicated, yet hydrate is common advice from all sides every summer.

Similar advice goes for sports nutrition. She gives the example of Usain Bolt, the fastest man in the world, filling up on chicken nuggets during the Olympics. They may not have been the most nutritious meals, but “when your muscles are hungry for fuel, they don’t care where the energy comes from.... What should I eat after exercising? The easiest answer is: whatever your body is hungry for.” 

She also discusses the promotion of such ideas as infrared saunas, explaining that heat is heat, and any magical powers attributed to infrared, such as reducing inflammation, boosting growth hormones, clearing toxins or boosting the immune system are unsupported and have received negative attention from the FDA. Yet marketers and pro athletes push overpriced infrared saunas, cold lasers, massage beds and pajamas, based on the “sciency” sound of it all.

Subsequent chapters talk about sleep and supplements. Sleep is vital for recovery. Keep it uncomplicated; our body helps us figure out how much is enough. I have addressed the problems with supplements many times in the past. (See here and here). They are unregulated, can be dangerous and are poorly researched. They have a reverse approval process compared to prescription drugs. No one has to prove they are safe and effective. The FDA only gets involved when they prove to be harmful, as in the case of ephedra, where a hundred people died taking it to increase energy. “Yet it took the FDA ten years to ban it.”

There is much more to learn from this book. But I found it an excellent example of applied critical thinking with a host of interesting surprises.

Being Afraid of the Wrong Things

A few days ago, a headline appeared in Science Daily: “Why do we love bees but hate wasps?” It’s an interesting question and the reason seems totally emotional.

“Both bees and wasps are two of humanity's most ecologically and economically important organisms. They both pollinate our flowers and crops, but wasps also regulate populations of crop pests and insects that carry human diseases.” But their survey showed that almost everyone sees bees as the good guys and wasps as scary and unwelcome. Although, both are known to sting humans, bees are associated with honey and wasps only with stinging. The researchers assert that this universal antipathy “is most likely due to a low-level interest in nature and a lack of knowledge about the benefits wasps bring to our planet's health and function.”

One example of the pest control aspect was a hornworm I found on one of my tomato plants the other day. It was no longer eating leaves because it had become a meal for many wasp larvae. Wasps are our friends.

Wasps are one example of things we should not be afraid of, but the fear of wasps doesn’t have a devastating effect on the future, beyond the fact that all pollinators should be encouraged to thrive in the interest of our future food supply. But there are other examples that are far more crucial.

One is nuclear power. People are scared of nuclear power. They hear of a nuclear power plant and picture a mushroom cloud, a Chernobyl-like meltdown or a disaster from an earthquake or tsunami. This attitude put the brakes on the development of nuclear power in the US 40 years ago. The German government decided to shut down nuclear plants and revert to coal in the face of “mass anti-nuclear protests…in the wake [of the] Fukushima event. Hence, Germans are giving up a source of non-polluting energy with a much smaller physical footprint than wind or solar. Back at home, as Americans have seen firsthand major technological advances in computers, telephones, transportation, and so many other areas, they have been stuck on the assumption that nuclear technology would have been stagnant since the 1970s. Had we adopted a different attitude then, it’s quite likely that the majority of our energy problems today would have been solved.

Another example is GMOs. Last month I wrote about the effects unreasonable fears of GMOs have on the world’s food supply. Americans are demanding labeling on packaging, so they know what they are eating. In Europe the government agencies confirm the safety of GMOs, while public opinion prevents their spread. People are starving in poorer countries for lack of food while the rich and middle class in the richer countries fuss about imaginary dangers.

Finally, add the idea of irradiating food for safety. From the FDA: “Irradiation does not make foods radioactive, compromise nutritional quality, or noticeably change the taste, texture, or appearance of food.” The technology “improves the safety and extends the shelf life of foods by reducing or eliminating microorganisms and insects.” It doesn’t make food glow in the dark; it makes it safer to eat. 

But when people hear anything that sounds like radiation, they panic; unaware perhaps, that all the sunshine they were soaking up on vacation a few weeks ago is also radiation. The vast majority wants it labeled, just in case. Then, when people avoid it and it doesn’t sell, we are all exposed to less safe food!

All these fears stem from the same source, captured in the above article about wasps, “a low-level interest in” science in general “and a lack of knowledge.”

The real cause for concern as we move further into the 21^st Century should be how public opinion will continue to work against public welfare. When we allow the "activists" and fear-mongers to keep winning, where does it lead?