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.]

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!

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.

Green Energy

When I saw the CBS story:  “Most Americans are willing to pay a little more each month to fight global warming - but only a tiny bit, according to a new poll,” I thought it was time to do some investigation.  The story went on to say that if the electric bill went up by $1 a month, 57 percent of Americans would support it.  A $10 a month increase got only 39 percent support.  “At $20 a month, the public is more than 2-to-1 against it. And only 1-in-5 would support $50 a month.” Last time I looked the cost of wind and solar was very much higher than fossil fuel generated electricity – two to three times, in some cases.  On a nationwide average bill of about $110, we are talking about much more than $12 a year, closer to $50 a month or more.

But my research surprised me.  I found that over the past few years the cost of electricity renewable sources has become more competitive and continues to drop.  (See the chart showing the wholesale costs per kilowatt-hour and not necessarily the price on your bill.  The next column shows projected “leveraged cost,” different units but comparable within the same column across options.)  More government restrictions on coal and subsidies for wind and solar farms, bring the relative cost of renewables down, but do it in part by bringing fossil-fuel costs up, which will affect bills by more than a dollar a month.  How much more is still unknown.

Power Plant Type	Cost cents/kW-hr	Leveraged Cost by 2020
Coal	9.5 - 15	95.1
Natural Gas	7 - 14	75.2
Nuclear	9.5	95.2
Wind	7 -20	73.6
Solar PV	12.5	125.3
Solar Thermal	24	239.7

In any case in August President Obama said:  “We'll take steps to meet the goal we set with Canada and Mexico to achieve 50 percent clean power across North America by 2025.”  This brings up another interesting point, variability.  Wind and solar are not available at all times, calm nights for example.  They are not always consistent and you can’t easily turn them on and off, or store electricity produced today until tomorrow.

There was an Economist article about three years ago addressing this problem in Germany, a leader in renewable energy.  The wholesale price of electricity actually goes negative on bright and windy days because of the unusually high supply, which threatens to overload the grid due to their inability to quickly and efficiently adjust their coal, gas and nuclear plants.  In places where utilities are required to buy solar- and wind-generated electricity first and where those systems provide a high percentage of the generating capacity (40%+), utilities can lose profits, money for future investment in delivery systems.  That may seem like a minor problem until the next hurricane or snow storm when we lose power longer due to that lack of investment in lines, and fewer crews available to make repairs.

This chart shows the degree of that variability for wind turbines in Germany in 2013.  Solar variability is similar, and the peaks may occur at the same or different times.  Their total need is around 52,000 MW, which is twice as high as the highest wind peaks.  All this demand must be consistently met by filling the gaps with power from the back-up sources like coal and gas that can be controlled by the people running power plants, not by the whims of nature.

As mentioned earlier, one way to solve this problem would be to store renewable energy for later use.  This could be done with traditional battery systems or some other mechanism, like a huge very low-friction disk powered by a motor to store it as kinetic energy until needed.  Nothing is yet available at the scale needed.

This was an interesting investigation.  Despite favorable cost movements, much more work needs to be done to implement a practical large-scale conversion to renewable energy.  To fall in love with a 50% number, when we already know 40% causes such problems in parts of Germany, while at the same time making it more difficult for the more reliable, traditional sources to operate, is a bit naïve at best and possibly dangerous.*

*The dangers of tinkering with an electrical system that we are so dependent on in our modern world move beyond the inconvenience of the lights going off.  We depend on electricity for heating, food preservation and the smooth operation of hospitals, emergency rooms and other emergency services.

The Light Bulb Dilemma

I hate waste and I hate high electric bills.  I know if I replace burned out light bulbs with more efficient bulbs, I will be reducing waste by using less electricity and will be paying lower electric bills.

Every so often, though, the question has popped into my head whether I should throw out perfectly good incandescent bulbs and replace them right away instead of waiting for them to burn out.  That seems like a needless waste.  On the other hand, would the reduction in electricity make up for the fact that I have discarded a working light bulb? 

Knowing that compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) are more efficient and last longer but cost more than the traditional incandescent and that the newer LED bulbs are even more efficient, last even longer but are even more expensive is not enough to decide.  I needed numbers.  So I went to the National Resource Defense Council website for answers.  It has tables showing the cost of a new bulb, its life expectancy and its average energy usage.

A 60-watt bulb, for example, costs about half a dollar, but uses about $8 of energy per year and lasts only about one year.  The equivalent CFL costs about $3 by the table (I just bought 3 for $6 so the price continues to come down.) and uses $1.74 of electricity per year.  If I throw out an incandescent bulb the waste is less than fifty cents, since I’ve already partially used it up.  I recoup the cost of the new bulb (on average) in less than 4 months ($2.00 cost divided by the expected energy saving, $8 - $1.74 = $6.26, equals less than one-third of a year).  Sounds like a good decision even if the CFL didn’t last as long as they claim, especially considering that continuing to burn the old bulb is costing considerably more.  (LED prices for the same amount of light have dropped too, but taking the next step from CFL to LED is more difficult to justify since the energy savings is only 40 cents per year.)

Now I know the answer to my occasional question –another victory for a little research and critical thinking!

Someone Else's Electric Bill

What does “economic understanding” mean?  Simply put, there is no magic money tree, no source of funds that somehow doesn't affect each of us as a consumer or a taxpayer.  Corporations spend money they get from customers.  Governments spend money they collect through taxes – or money they borrow based on the promise of future tax collections.  (Those federal funds that contribute to or pay for so many local projects are not free money.)

Another timely example comes from the Indianapolis airport where they have completed a large solar farm.  Panels collect sunlight and convert it into electricity, which is sold to the local utility.  It is expected to generate enough power “to supply the electrical needs of about 1,800 average-sized houses.”

Here’s the catch.  “The sun-generated power will cost three to four times more than IPL can sell it for, so the utility will subsidize the difference by raising rates to its customers, a utility official said. The increase in electric bills to subsidize the solar farm amounts to several cents a month on the average customer bill, the utility has said.”  It's right there in the article for all to read:  The utility will spread the cost of the higher priced power across the bills of all its customers.  Those who live near the privately-owned solar farm should remember as they drive by that they are helping to build and run it every time they pay their slightly-higher electric bill.

The article goes on to say:  “Solar farms also benefit from federal tax credits.”  That really means that those who live in other parts of the country and never benefit from this three-to-four-times-more-expensive electricity also have contributed through their tax dollars.

Perhaps this (Taiwanese-owned) solar farm is a good idea in light of concerns about pollution and other disputes about wiser, more sustainable sources of electricity, but never forget that theses decisions are made with our money but without our input.

Economic understanding allows us to recognize, and sometimes question, the link between public or corporate spending and our wallets.  Too often we take these things, especially the benefits, for granted and expect them to continue and grow without having to personally worry about the cost or where the money comes from, but ultimately we are all contributing.