Crazy things my kid do! Please share!
Voici la question qui me guide dans mes recherches...
The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato
vendredi 14 mars 2014
Crazy things my kid do! Please share!
dimanche 2 mars 2014
February 28th 2014, I posted this on Twitter...
You want to be #GREEN, use #plastic bags... forget about those "green" bags that use resources: http://t.co/Mt7A9d3Xlh
— Simon Filiatrault (@SimonFili) February 28, 2014
And got this response
@SimonFili I'm so confused... next you'll be telling me ethanol is not Green fuel but #nuclear is. #paradigmshifts
— Atomik Rabbit (@Atomikrabbit) March 1, 2014
This warrants a bit more explanation than just 140 chars twitter feeds contains.
The news I linked to is this:
Plastic bags can be recycled into diesel fuelHere's some excerpt from this new:
- Given that each year an estimated 100 billion shopping bags are thrown away in the US alone, this is great news indeed.
- we can recover almost 80 percent fuel from it through distillation.”
- The process works by heating the plastic bags in an oxygen-free chamber to obtain the oil.
- through pyrolysis into different petroleum products, and have achieved their goal of producing a fuel that meets the standards for ultra-low-sulfur diesel and biodiesel fuels.
One may ask...
Does this become a renewable resource?
This is a complex question... like Atomik Rabbit commented... on Ethanol and Nuclear.
The important concept here to understand is about physical economy. Physical economy has nothing to do with money or maybe a little bit, since money is a mean to exchange work. But let's not get into this now.
Humans consume resources, that we understand. What is less understood is that for each resources we use and "consume", we need energy to transform it. I put consume in quote here because we don't really consume resources in the sense that the resources is gone (apart from energy), we only transformed it.
Take for example your toast in the morning. You used energy to grow, extract, transform wheat in the form of bread, need energy again to cook it. Then you consume the toast. Did we loose that resource, the original wheat? No, we simply transformed it. We did loose part of the energy in the process, because we probably used a mix of energy from fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro to do the transformation. Part of the energy used was also transformed, like burning fossil, you create CO2 which is used by plants through photo-synthesis to grow. The more they have the happier they are.
Other source of energy like hydro, you simply moved water around in a endless cycle. For nuclear, you use the energy stored in unstable atoms by a fission process and created new elements, this is another type of transformation, but the energy used in the process, is lost in a sense, you cannot simply re-used once the work is done. You may have added energy in form of heat to the system, but in the end, this will be lost in space.
So the question is, what type of energy make sense to use and which process/type is better for the whole physical economy of the planet ? This seems a complex question, but in the end, you can boil it down to a simple "black box"! Energy in - Energy out.
- An input of energy
- To create the system: Metal, concrete and other basic elements
- To feed the system: Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Fossil sources
- And output of energy
- In the form of resources (heat and elements) and electrical energy
You also need to take into account the following:
- Availability of the resource to feed the system
- Impact on other system (humans, nature, , etc)
So from a physical economy point of view, the more dense you are the better. This graph tells it all. I needed an exponential Y axis to compare all sources since the difference is so great!
So to get back to the original question, is it good that we can recycle plastic.. I would say, sure it's good, but at what cost. We have for now plenty of Fossil resources, but for how long? So from a storage perspective, it's probably better to recycle plastic if the cost is not prohibitive, but it would not make sense to use energy from fossil fuels (low density) to recycle plastic... If we could use the high density electricity from Nuclear to recycle all the world plastic cheaply to use in transportation where we don't have a good solution yet on the electric side... that would make sense.
There's also the pyrolysis process that can recycle about anything... A plant is in operation in Ottawa, Canada from the company Plasco Energy.
For the question about ethanol... For sure, this has been proven many time that using corn (that uses large amount of fossil) to produce ethanol does not make sense in any way... it's been called a crime against humanity by the UN food program.
You will find on this blog many article about energy, nuclear and other types... Again, we need to have the best ratio of IN/OUT in any human endeavor. Having a ratio close to 1 for solar/wind, does not make sense. The ratio is greater for coal and gas, but why would you want to burn a limited resource where you can use a higher density one like nuclear. Unfortunately, the anti nuclear and all the regulations have push the price point of nuclear over that of cheap shale gas... but this cheap shale gas will not stay cheap and available for ever. So like any greedy wall street banker can tell you... there's money to be made now on the shale gas, but from a physical economy point of view, we should keep this resources for all other usage outside electricity generation.
About the reusable bag thing... Here's an interesting information from wikipedia:
One reusable bag requires the same amount of energy as an estimated 28 traditional plastic shopping bags or eight paper bags. "If used once per week, four or five reusable bags will replace 520 plastic bags a year" according to Nick Sterling, research director at Natural Capitalism Solutions.  A study commissioned by the United Kingdom Environment Agency in 2005 but never published found that the average cotton bag is used only 51 times before being thrown away.So you need to use your reusable bag, 28x. And people use it only 51 times! So if you recycle those plastic bags and recover 80% of the energy to be re-used in diesels transport, than not sure you save a lot with re-usable bags.... Again, the whole IN/OUT black-box need to be calculated to see what makes more sense... But for sure, I like better the re-usable bags... Can put more stuff in them and better handles!
So here's my quick answer to a simple 140 char comment!
Comments are welcome.
lundi 17 février 2014
Voici la carte de la région
B: Banes (montagneux et parsemé de petit villages) - mon parcours préféré.
C: Holguin (plus roulant et droit)
Voici une vue agrandie du point A
Détail de la route vers Banes sur Garmin Connect
Bon vélo... et n'oubliez pas, apporter des pièces de vélo, soulier, vêtements pour vos amis cubain... plusieurs jeune vont offrir leurs services de guide à vélo...
mercredi 25 décembre 2013
According to the "union of concerned scientist" who sees dire scenarios everywhere... YES. but it all depends on how you interpret the data.
Here' what they publish that the public accept without questions.
Look at the details of this nice graph.
- They used "Science connections"
- This look very serious, based on science...right!
- They made sure to add CLIMATE CHANGE
- How is this working exactly... not clear here, but the general public will think automatically that the more "human CO2" we put in the atmosphere, the more wild fire there is... the graph show it clearly! Right?
- They then state "Western US".
- This is the first cherry picking of the data
- What about the whole US
- Then they say: Average number of LARGE wildfires per year
- This is the second cherry picking of the data... LARGE overt 1000 acres.
- What about all wildfires
- What about the numbers of firefighters, the money they have to work or any other reasons.
- Then you compare 3 time periods. First and second is 9 years, third is 2 years... This is statically false, you cannot do that. In high school, you would fail an exam for doing this. This is the UNION of SCIENTIST doing this, nice job!
- They should have split the data set in 3 equal part, from 1989 to 2012 or 3 equal parts of 7.7 years or so. At least go by months.
- Then they talk about average length of season starting in 1970!
- Why in the 1970 when the other data starts in 1980 and up? Cherry picking again?
As you see, you need a lot of cherry picking and data manipulation to draw a conclusion and even there, what are you saying? Increase Human CO2 causes more fires? We need to cut our consumptions of fossil fuels to cut CO2? All this is not said on the published graphs, but its CLEARLY the message that is pushed forward here.
So how much more warm is the US since 1980? The closest I can find related to this "study" is the RSS TLT for continental US. This shows a temperature change of 0.175K/10 years or around 0.5 K for the 32 years covered. But when look closely at the average monthly temperature, we have today around the same "swing" of high and low as in 1980. So for temperature, not much change that would explain this.
What about More WET or DRY... again, not much change here on data available
Ok what about DROUGHT? From available data... not much correlation.
Now, what if we check the data source and plot all fires size and number of acres burned. I had to extract the data from here and plot it myself, since it was not available. The other thing is, that data starts in 2004 up to today. So from this, you can see that there's a down trend on both Acres burned and number of fires.
From the NIFC, we can find the same data used by the union of concerned scientist on large fires but only from 1997. Sorting through this and calculating trend, you can see this the following. So yes there seems to be a upper trend of total Acres Burned, but only on large fires and over that time frame, from 1997 to 2012. When you look closely, you see that the 2012 bar is around the same as 2004, 2006, 2007and the 2011 bar is lower that 2002. Not sure we can come to any clear conclusion based on this data and even less certain that we can link human CO2 to more forest fires.
Always be very skeptical when you see "organization" jump to conclusions. Check the data, ask yourself lots of questions. And above all, always remember that correlation does not mean causation.
For sure, forest fires are bad, people lose their properties, people are killed. Many have their lives changed forever. We definitely need more resources to this issue but jumping to conclusions that climate change is responsible for this and that we only need to cut fossil consumption and everything will be all nice and good, is not only misleading but irresponsible and only serves some agenda.
Remember this related to human CO2 (from my twitter feed)
#CO2 residence time is only 5 years. Amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is max 4% http://t.co/tVi79X60Im So Human CO2 is 16PPM only
— Simon Filiatrault (@SimonFili) December 15, 2013
samedi 28 septembre 2013
Climate scientists are 95% confident that humans are responsible for at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s." source
There's some much to be said about this report, but let me start by a couple of graphs.
First this one:
The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. sourceRoss McKitrick here:
The IPCC must take everybody for foolsHere's some other graphs and sources on how the models are way off from reality.
So who is the IPCC anyway? The best video I have seen on this subject is embedded below (source)
What are the real life observations are showing? You can play with the numbers yourself by clicking here. This graph shows the whole of the HADCRUT 3 unadjusted global mean temperature data set. We can see that for the past 15 years 1998-2013 we have seen no increase in global temperature while the CO2 (blue line) kept increasing in a linear fashion. So if CO2 is driving the temperature rise, why have we seen a ZERO increase for 15 years?
It's interesting to see the real temperature swing. Here's an example from Quebec City from 1978. Can you see a temperature trend? Compared this monthly average of around -15c to +15c or 30 degrees C with the above graph range of -0.2c to 0.6c or 0.8c (anomalies) for the same period.
that this station is near a big city that probably saw the "heat island effect"
Another thing you have to consider, is the question of how much human made CO2 is in the atmosphere. here's a quick video on that subject.
So has you see from the tip of the iceberg view on the climate debate... it's not that clear cut.
More sources of information
- Judith Curry blog: 95% ?
- Watts of with that
- Blog of Donna Laframboise on here continues investigation of the IPCC.