Welcome to TiddlyWiki created by Jeremy Ruston, Copyright © 2007 UnaMesa Association
We have a new Prime Minister today - and remarkably, it's the one that we knew we'd have as long ago as 1994. I can't really comment on Gordon Brown himself, since we know so little about him, but his unchallenged assumption of power is difficult to comprehend.
They used to say that a //week// was a long time in politics. So how is it that in 13 turbulent //years//, no-one else has come along who can challenge Gordon? The glacial pace of change at the top of our political system, when set against the zooming pulse of change in wider society, is somewhat disheartening.
We have major issues to face - some of which are all over the headlines ([[energy|Why Energy?]]), and some of which are broadly invisible ([[digital freedom|Freedom - through software?]]) - are they're obviously not going to get the attention they deserve. No-one in our current political elite is remotely radical, no matter how much they drone on about global warming / the wealth divide / world stability / whatever. So who is going to offer us a //real// change? Where are visionaries, preparing to burst onto the scene and properly stir things up?
Few people have missed the fact that oil is now over --$125--135/barrel, and still rising daily. Just a few short months ago, at the start of 2008, the experts dismissed the long-awaited blip to $100 as a temporary aberration caused by [[rampant speculators|http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db2007116_060737.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily]]; but now we're up another 30% on levels already considered impossible.
The Saudis are not interested in pumping more oil to help stabilise prices - of course, they still have //''plenty of oil''// to pump, don't they? Their reserves are //''still enormous''//, aren't they? You could always ask them - but you [[won't get an answer|http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/27/carbonemissions.energy]]. But everything's just fine - no really, it is. There's //nothing// to worry about - nothing at all - surely?
Perhaps the scariest aspect is the number of people who still don't get the seriousness of the oil situation, and demand that governments (the same governments that base their entire long-term strategies on [[ludicrous assumptions|http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/03/do0311.xml]]) act to 'rescue' them from their crumbling, unsustainable lifestyles. One hundred giant clues are not enough to convince them that times are now changing forever.
It's going to be an exciting ride - ''wake up and smell the empty(ing) oil wells!''
So what will this shiny new year bring for the world? Firstly, a whole low of so-called "resolutions" - not just from ordinary folk, but from politicians and "important" people. Most of these will have been forgotten within weeks - the grand, sweeping ones perhaps being the first to fade.
But it may also bring revolutions of various kinds. Dangerous revolutions in unstable countries; revolutions in the global financial sector as it is slowly forced to operate on principles more closely aligned with reality; revolutions in the world's eating habits, as ''//peak food//'' follows closely behind peak oil; and plenty more.
What will be missing, of course, are revolutions in technology - which somehow feels as if it has over-promised and under-delivered in recent years - and a revolution in our unsustainable, consumption-obsessed lifestyles. We will only enact //that// when we're forced to, either by catastrophic events or by politicians.
Our politicians - all over the world - need to resolve to be revolutionary, in order to tackle the current confluence of mighty challenges. But my safest prediction for 2008 is that they won't.
So ''Microsoft'' is finally trying to buy ''Yahoo!'' If this deal goes ahead, another of the Internet's early icons will be swallowed by the ultimate evil empire. More importantly, the choice, freedom and pioneering spirit that has characterised the web will be dealt another death blow.
Perhaps Yahoo! is less relevant than it once was. But if it is subsumed, the battle for control of search, and so much more, will be in the hands of just two players of significance. The other, of course, being Google. Whilst Google is no saint, and many questions have been raised about its own thirst for dominance, it may soon be our only hope in standing against the dangerous excesses of Micro$oft's power games.
Remember that these two companies are much close competitors than most people realise. Microsoft is no longer a mere //software// company, and Google is vastly more than just a //search// engine; both want to be at the very heart of how we find, use and manage information and communications. It's extraordinary to recall that Google - much of whose operations are run on [[Linux|What is Linux all about?]] - didn't exist just 10 years ago: but right now, we'd all better hope that Google is up to the challenge of constraining (I'd love to use a stronger word!) Microsoft, and that it doesn't in turn become the next troublesome monopolist.
The government has suddenly acknowledged the existence of an 'energy crisis', following another round of half-hearted fuel protests, which neatly coincided with some electricity blackouts. The response to the latter problem can be summarised as "''build lots more nuclear power quickly''", but the response to the former is even more bizarre:
* ''The Problem(s)'': in essence, we - both the UK and the planet - are using vastly more oil than we will shortly be able to produce and refine. Oh, and diesel prices are astronomical, but that may be a blessing in disguise, rather than a real problem.
* ''The Challenge'': we need to adapt our economy use less oil, a //lot// less, starting __right now__.
* ''The Government's Response'': let's urgently drill for more North Sea oil!
This ill-conceived response will do //nothing// to solve the immediate "problem" of crippling fuel prices, may prolong our self-destructive oil addiction, and will thus discourage us from throwing all our efforts into adapting for a new and different future.
Oh, and one more point. The ''total'' production output of these proposed new North Sea oil fields is 50 million barrels. How much is that? Enough to meet current global oil demand for ''14 hours'' - yes, //hours// - that's how much. Now //there// is something to think about....
We recently joined the satellite navigation party at last. It struck me that this nifty pocket-sized piece of wizardry neatly encapsulates human technological achievement at both the smallest and largest scales.
At the small scale, the device is basically a miniaturised 400 ~MHz [[Linux|What is Linux all about?]]-powered computer, with a 3D graphics engine and more memory than a typical PC of a decade ago. But its nano-scale processor is fuelled by data beamed from hefty communications satellites, which were blasted 36,000 km above the earth by rockets the size of tower blocks.
~SatNav represents an extraordinary coming together of the microscopic wonders of silicon chips and the awesome potential of mankind's gradual conquest of space.
Millions of people run ''Office 2003'' on their computers - you may well be one of them. If you are, watch out when the latest 'service pack' arrives (~SP3) from Microsoft Update. This update has an [[unrequested, unannounced feature|http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291853,00.htm?r=22]], in that it disables access to all documents in earlier Micro$oft formats.
In other words, it quietly locks you out of ''//your own//'' documents, unless you've been diligent enough to re-save them all in the latest incarnation of Micro$oft's ever-changing proprietary formats.
Did you really need another lesson in the danger of such formats? Well, now you have it. If this dastardly behaviour bothers you, which it certainly should, then make this the day on which you finally switch to ''~OpenOffice'', which uses [[free and open file formats|No - I will not supply my CV in Word format!]], as well as doing everything you could possibly ever need, for zero cost.
''Windows 7'' is released today. It will be a welcome step up from the disappointing disaster of Vi$ta, and is surely Microsoft's best Windows release ever? Quite possibly: but it's still Windows. It's still a walled garden, and still a honeytrap to lock you into several more years of proprietary, [[restricted computing|A surreptitious lockout]]. Don't be fooled by a vaguely pretty interface.
As it happens, another significant software release also occurs today. The release candidate of the latest ''Ubuntu Linux'' installment. If you want to taste the future, you'll be opting for this over Windows 7. Whilst Microsoft sometimes leaves you with 6-year release cycles, Ubuntu settles for 6 months - //every// six months. Twice a year, you get the latest and greatest operating environment, ready with a vast array of quality software tools just a click away. You don't get 'revolutionary' changes; you get continuous, evolutionary improvements. You get the newest concepts wrapped up in an ever-improving yet familiar shell. And it's all ''free'' - free as in price, and [[free as in freedom|Freedom - through software?]].
Windows 7 may well be the 'best' Windows, but it could also be the //last//. The monolithic, heavyweight operating system model is becoming obsolete as fast as Microsoft's old-school corporate ethos. If you want a //real// upgrade, choose Ubuntu or one of its many cousins, and enjoy the power and agility of free software.
I'm a random netizen based in Gloucestershire, UK, with a penchant for sounding off about various unconventional matters. I have certain views and interests that are, perhaps, uncommon, so the time has come to start sharing them on a blog that essentially no-one will read. That way, I'll be in the company of (apparently) 147 million others.
!!Personal
I'm a proud child of the 1970s, who has been happily married to a wonderful girl from Malaysia since 2001. No kids yet - we've been enjoying the [[DINKY|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINKY_(acronym)]] lifestyle too much! I grew up around the Cambridge / Uttlesford / West Suffolk area, but have a very international family, so I've travelled a lot. I went to school in Canterbury, university in Bristol and Cranfield, and I've now moved back to the West Country, for reasons of...
!!Work
...I'm an engineer who spent too long working in the dismal field of IT, and I've recently embarked on a career change into the energy industry. On completion of my ~MSc at Cranfield, I had always planned to join the renewable / alternative energy industry to use my skills at last, make a difference, and work on some fascinating technologies. And now, here I am, and I'm loving it!
!!Philosophy
I never follow the crowd, and instinctively find my own ways through life's bizarre maze. I believe in God, but probably not in religion, or anything else that creates boundless strife. I believe in working hard and achieving what you're born to, but I've never been someone to put career ambitions ahead of people and a healthy work-life balance. Fun requires friends, space to chill out, good food (preferable), alcohol (sometimes, if you're English) but //not// necessarily money.
I have been a dedicated [[Linux|What is Linux all about?]] user for 6 years now, and I've really never looked back. The slow, dismal, plodding world of Window$ simply holds no appeal, in comparison with Linux technology that improves in leaps and bounds each year. One paltry release in Window$ history (e.g. the 6-year gap between XP and Vista) represents several generations in the Linux world.
Like many people, I've ended up with the [[ubuntu|http://www.ubuntu.com]] distribution, which provides an excellent compromise between power, robust engineering, usability and convenience. But its rapid-fire 6-month release schedule seems to have resulted in a curious alternation cycle. Every second release is a good one; the intervening ones are relative duds.
In my experience, 6.06 LTS was solid, 6.10 was flakey and introduced several showstopping bugs; 7.04 was brilliant again, and the best release so far; 7.10 was another turkey; and I'm eagerly awaiting 8.04, the next LTS release. Hopefully, it will provide my first chance to go 64-bit once and for all; the current release seems even worse than in 64-bit than in 32-bit guise.
An Irish company claims to be working on what sounds like a perpetual motion energy system, based on "time variant magneto-mechanical interactions". They call it ''Orbo'', and having built up a tsunami of hype and intrigue, the company is apparently demonstrating its technology in London from today, at the Kinetica Museum. How I would love to get down there and see it.
As a budding energy engineer, the idea of creating clean and limitless free energy is appealing. Inventing a technology to achieve this would make me very rich, and would quite possibly save the world, making me very popular as well. But unfortunately, I suspect that our old friends, the [[laws of thermodynamics|http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html]], will get in the way once again. They can be summed up as:
# You can't get anything without working for it.
# The most you can accomplish by work is to break even.
# You can't break even.
In energy generation - and every other aspect of life - thermodynamics is the ultimate dastardly game that we're all forced to play: we can't win, we can't break even, and we can't get out. Free energy would represent //Game Over// for thermodynamics, so I'm [[justifiably skeptical|http://news.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/july07/steorn2.JPG]]!
Wind power is growing at a rapid clip all over the world - even in the UK, despite the enormous hurdles presented by our lamentable planning system. This is happening because wind power is the most commercially viable technology for generating primary renewable electricity, and the most mature. It works: every large turbine we build //will// generate millions of clean units of power each year. But //not// necessarily just when we want them.
Wind variability is rarely an issue at current levels of penetration, but it will become one. If wind power is to provide a substantial share of our electricity, then we need a very strong focus on complementary sustainable technologies - primarily those involving energy storage. There is no shortage of ideas around. Those that we already //know// to work, such as pumped hydro storage, are limited by geography. Others, such as balancing the grid using millions of future electric car batteries or hydrogen electrolysers, depend on vast infrastructural changes that will take years.
So which will come first? The torrent of green electricity, mainly wind-derived, needed to bring about our low-carbon, [[electrified society|Electric futures]]; or the array of new and unproven infrastructure needed to accommodate it smoothly? Therein lies a chicken-and-egg problem for our age.
/***
|Name|AutoOpenTiddlersPlugin|
|Created by|SaqImtiaz|
|Location|http://tw.lewcid.org/#AutoOpenTiddlersPlugin|
|Version|0.21|
|Requires|~TW2.x|
!!!Description:
Open a user defined number of recent tiddlers automatically when the TW loads.
You can also specify a tag and only load tiddlers that have that tag.
To change the number of tiddlers automatically opened, or define a tag to use, ed the config.autoOpenTiddlers part of the code below.
!!!To Do
*add an option to exclude tiddlers with a particular tag
!!!Code
***/
//{{{
//edit this section to change the default settings
config.autoOpenTiddlers =
{
count: 6, //number of tiddlers opened.
tag: undefined //change if you want to open tiddlers with a specific tag, eg: 'DefaultTiddlers'
}
config.autoOpenTiddlers.handler = function()
{
if (this.tag == undefined)
var newTiddlers = store.getTiddlers("modified");
else
var newTiddlers = store.getTaggedTiddlers(this.tag,"modified");
var newTiddlers = newTiddlers.reverse();
var max = Math.min(this.count,newTiddlers.length-1);
for (var i=max; i>=0; i--)
{ story.displayTiddler(null,newTiddlers[i].title);}
}
window.old_lewcid_autoOpenTiddlers_restart = restart;
restart = function ()
{
window.old_lewcid_autoOpenTiddlers_restart();
config.autoOpenTiddlers.handler();
}
//}}}
One month - yes, one whole //''month''// - that's how long it can still take to get a phone line activated, here in the UK in the 21st Century. There is clearly no technological reason for this. But we're all beholden to BT, which still maintains a monopolistic strangehold on the local loop. Unless you're lucky enough to live in London, or somewhere else where unbundling actually works and provides real choice, you're mostly stuck with needing a BT line, even if you don't use their services.
To be fair to BT, on the day they finally arrived, they came first thing, as promised, and got our phone line installed and working immediately. But the problem still lies in the fragile communications chain between you the consumer, your service provider, and BT, the underlying infrastructure owner. The system doesn't work reliably, and creates plenty of stress.
Meanwhile, it seems that the Post Office should stick to physical mail: they have managed to provided a functioning broadband line, but the idea of running e-mail servers is clearly too much for them.
''MARCH UPDATE'': one //month// on, I was just starting to receive some mails on my experimental Post Office mailbox, though I've still yet to be able to //send// one single e-mail outbound; their SMTP server just rejects all connections. I've never come across this stunning level of ''technical incompetence'' at any other ISP. Anyway, I have now signed up with a web hosting service that actually, erm, hosts web pages, as well as providing mail services. So this blog is now brought to you with the help of [[123-reg|http://www.123-reg.co.uk]].
Biofuels seem to be everyone's favourite new topic - whether they love them or hate them. The issues have been dredged up a million times in the press recently, and I won't address them here. But there's lots of hype, and lots of misinformation. Here are some //facts//:
* ''Not all biofuels are bad'' - yes, it //is// possible to produce 'good' biofuels that encompass major carbon footprint reductions, even with "first generation" versions, and which don't compete with food production.
* ''No biofuel is carbon-neutral'' - if you examine the complete, end-to-end field-to-wheel lifecycle. But the same applies, of course, to nuclear power.
I could go on, but it's largely irrelevant. Because the really ''//enormous//'' fact is simply this: biofuels, good or bad, will never even remotely replace what we're going to gradually lose during the decline of petroleum fuels. Within 10 years, we would need to be producing 30+ million barrels //per day//, which still seems comically infeasible.
Biofuels //will// have a role in the future, but that role will //not// be to replace oil, with its multitude of uses, or to enable our transport-profligate global economy to continue as 'normal'.
Like many countries, the UK suffered from a proliferation of grim concrete buildings during the 1960s. Some of these have become regarded as 'fine' examples of the 'Brutalist' architectural style, and have duly been //listed// (gulp - wouldn't some photos be a sufficient memento?); the remainder, thank goodness, are being pulled down in cities across the land.
But what are we building in their place? The UK's mini skyscraper boom is producing an astonishing assemblage of ugliness. I'm all for modern architecture, and a quick glance around the world reveals a stunning collection of new landmark towers with inspired, soaring forms and clever detailing; but it seems to have passed us by.
Our new generation of 'Brit-sculpt' architects are creating glass blockhouses that are every bit as hideous and soulless as their concrete forebears. And don't even get me started on the energy aspect of these high-solar-gain, low-thermal-mass glazed boxes....
Here in the UK, our National Archives is trying to tackle the problem of data longevity and file format obsolescence. They have correctly identified that this will be a major challenge: guaranteeing that you will safely be able to read digital files of national importance, in 100 years time, is a tall order.
But who have they partnered with for technical assistance? Why, it's our old friends Micro$oft of course. Yes, the company that has worked [[harder than any other|http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6291124.stm]] to lock the world into ever-changing, highly proprietary file formats. Look at the infamous problems created by these file formats in just the last //decade//; now try and imagine what it might be like in a //century// from now!
Moving towards free and open formats is an immediate priority. In recent years, standards like [[OpenDocument|No - I will not supply my CV in Word format!]] have emerged - and gained ISO recognition - to help solve this global problem. And all Microsoft has done is to fight tirelessly to undermine it, subvert its standardisation process, and foist its own [[much-criticised|http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10004805o-2000331777b,00.htm]] ~OpenXML format onto the scene instead. This is a company that can't //stand// anything it doesn't control. And now, you can even [[win a prize|http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=1623]] by fighting Microsoft back!
Partnering with Microsoft in data preservation is like partnering with a colony of termites in wood preservation.
Google's new ''//Chrome// browser'' is generating lots of hype, just as Google itself completes its 10th remarkable year as an uber-hyped Internet icon. Whilst we should all welcome anything that might unseat the damaging dominance of Internet Explorer - still the biggest and the //worst// after all these years - Google's approach is once again unhelpful. Because Chrome is resolutely Windows-centric, and versions for ''Linux'' and ''Mac OS X'' will be some time in coming.
I've [[said before|A consolidation too far]] that Google is no saint, and certainly, its "''don't be evil''" motto, and its express desire __not to become__ an "ordinary" company, now appear laughable. But this is a business whose empire is built on [[Linux|What is Linux all about?]], and which truly understands Linux's raw power and flexibility.
Therefore to return to the bad old ways of treating Linux as a second-class citizen is reprehensible. Google has a new chance to ride and grow the Linux wave, and to capitalise on disillusionment with ''Vi$ta'', but is not taking it. Instead, it is contributing to the relegation of the very system on which its foundations are built.
There's plenty of talk about "clean coal" at the moment, spreading the notion that this dirtiest of fossil fuels can be made palatable again. After all, we have huge resources of the stuff, at a time when oil and gas are becoming strained. It seems there are three key technologies that come under the "clean coal" power generation umbrella:
* ''Supercritical Steam Cycle'' - essentially raising the efficiency of the long-established Rankine cycle by going to ultra-high steam pressures, as well as temperatures. The best plants can approach 45% cycle efficiency - but combined cycle gas-fired plants are already reaching 58%.
* ''Gasification (IGCC)'' - turning the coal into a syngas, which is cleaned and then fed into a combined cycle plant. These plants are expensive and complex, and few utility-scale examples are currently in service.
* ''Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS)'' - why yes, the big one. When combined with either of the above, it seems to be everyone's holy grail. Except that it's still pre-commercial technology, unproven, and very expensive. Oh, and it significantly reduces the cycle efficiency of the plant again....
One wonders whether //any// of these really belong on the path to our vital clean energy future. Certainly, the cost and complexities will further raise the relative attractiveness of renewables. But inevitably, when things get //really// sticky, we are going to use what we have - which is coal. The //least// we can do is use it __efficiently__, and that means good old-fashioned ''CHP'' in addition to new-fangled 'clean coal' technologies.
The UK is about to embark on the '''Great British Refurb''', which aims to bring millions of old, cold, costly-to-heat houses up to modern standards of energy performance. This is driven by carbon reduction targets, but will obviously offer benefits in comfort, quality of life, running costs and saleability, whilst supporting plenty of jobs. It's generally a Good Thing - but there is one ''//huge// problem'' for the Brits. It involves //changing// things.
The Victorians, and some of their predecessors, gave us many great things - but energy efficient houses were not among them. We can't improve these ubiquitous buildings by magic; it actually involves altering them (and [[it really works|http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3122165]]), which might, unfortunately, change their internal or external appearance. The programme requires major changes to planning priorities and even cultural values. But for many people, doing things other than as they were done in 1870 is too much to swallow. There is a surprisingly large group for whom heritage - //all// heritage, everywhere - comes [[above all else|The Heritage Police]] in the hierarchy. They will very vocally reject the Great British Refurb, because the past comes before the future.
Do they have a choice? Well yes, they do. Should they decline the chance to improve their homes, they could carry on paying the __soaring bills__, or they could just __be cold__. We were 'cold' for thousands of years before central heating became widespread, so this would be nothing more than a return to the past. Which, perhaps, is //exactly// what they truly want.
You know things are starting to go crazy when disparate parts of your strange and twisted lifescape come together in the most unexpected of ways.
Today, a collision of worlds that I would never have predicted sees the entertaining psuedo-wisdom of ''Jeremy Clarkson'' make it to pole position in [[LATOC|http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2008/December09.html]]'s doom-mongering headlines. This means that [[my question|Peak Clarkson?]] has been answered, a mere 9 months after I posed it.
It's hardly cheerful stuff, but it leads me to suspect that Clarkson is following my own philosophy in these troubled times: carry on having a blast (though perhaps not in a Vauxhall rep-mobile) until the party ends. After all, being a doom-monger helps you sell newspapers but it doesn't make you many friends.
Another week, another government data blunder. The fact that it was caused by an external contractor matters little; the fact that a pile of sensitive data was left lying on a USB stick matters //a lot//. And once again, encryption ''was not used''. Why the heck not?!
Encryption is one piece of the security puzzle that [[really works|http://www.schneier.com/essay-199.html]], and that is widely available to all of us. It seems puzzling that //everyone// isn't using it routinely by now, but it is __downright unforgivable__ that people in important places seem not to have heard of the concept.
I'm not qualified to judge where the true problem lies, within what is a dizzyingly complex machine (i.e. the government and its never-ending chain of agencies, quangos and contractors); but certainly, //someone// who knows what they're doing with technology needs to get themselves into a position where they can beat a whole lot of other people with the encryption 'clue bat'. As ever, don't hold your breath.
Am I the only one who feels that inflation figures are a con? The official measures consistently tell us that inflation is below 3% - but when the cost of everything from chewing gum to car insurance to houses soars by double-digit percentages //every// year, who are they kidding?
The most obvious items to buck the trend are techno-gadgets, such as computers and digital cameras. But are we to believe that rocketing prices for essential items - such as food and energy - don't matter, as long as we have cheaper iPods?
Those of us who have to live out our lives in the real world are all too well aware that everything is getting more expensive, and that wages are stagnant, so we're gradually getting poorer. The effects are just hidden (for most people) under a mountain of easy credit. It just worries me that inflation influences major monetary policy decisions, yet it's calculated in a totally arbitrary way, and has no bearing on the real cost of living.
It's almost enough for me to consider launching the ''~ALflation'' index. How about it?
I increasingy avoid getting drawn into the great ''Global Warming^^TM^^ debate'', because it has become a religious war, not a scientific discussion. So where do we stand?
Let's start with some obvious facts. Atmospheric CO~~2~~ concentrations have been rising for many decades - this is trivial to measure accurately. We know that increased concentrations of this [[and other|Saving the climate with CO2]] gases lead to a slight warming effect, because we can reproduce this in the lab. So it's disingenuous to actually deny that carbon dioxide concentrations affect the interaction of solar radiation and our atmosphere, at least at some level. But how significant is the effect? How much can the still-small unbalanced proportion of man-made CO~~2~~ really matter, in the grand scheme of the [[carbon cycle|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle]]? Well, ask yourself how a few milligrams of a drug could possibly affect the chemistry of 75 kilograms of body....
Where it rapidly gets complicated is in predicting the //effects// of this tiny warming bias. To understand this requires the development of very complex models that encompass the interactions of climate, meteorology, oceans and the entire biosphere. The models continue to improve, but as any reputable scientist would admit, none can accurately project the trends decades into the future, accounting for all of the subtle feedback loops that we know exist.
But truly understanding the science requires, er, an understanding of science. We can hardly expect a broadly scientifically illiterate population to thoroughly investigate the data and the models at the level of rigour required to draw conclusions. On an issue that directly challenges them and potentially threatens their cherished lifestyles, it's much easier to simply believe the comforting 'truth' and align with the doctrine of denialism.
The UK's Big Freeze of 2010 tells us nothing about climate change in itself. But consider it alongside the 2003 European heatwave, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 2007 UK floods, the 2009 Australian tinderbox bushfires, and [[many others|http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html]]. Extreme events seem to be cropping up with ever greater frequency. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what the climate models predict.
Whilst the battle of Hellthrow (previous entry) is still to be won, the battle against [[idiotic e-mail disclaimers|http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/]] has already been comprehensively lost.
These purposeless paragraphs of bandwidth-sucking, mildly sinister and infuriating legalese now clutter up vast tracts of on-screen real-estate across the planet, silently emanating from the e-mail accounts of organisations both large and small. This was one import from the corporate world that we all did //not// need. E-mail (as commonly used) is an insecure, non-private and easily-abused communications medium - ''get over it, folks''. Oh, and a note to marketing drones: don't send PRESS RELEASES by e-mail, in case your recipients feel compelled to obey your disclaimer's inevitable confidentiality clause!
If disclaimers have one purpose, is it to highlight the paranoid, untrusting and litigious global society that we now inhabit, and to inspire us to fight this in whatever way we can. But fighting disclaimers is almost impossible: if nothing else, rejecting employers that enforce them will severely limit your career opportunities.
@@color(#2bf):''DISCLAIMER'': please consider the mental health aspects of reading this blog, which represents the official view of the voices in my head. If you feel its contents may induce hallucinations, despair at the impending doom of the planet, or any other anxieties, please expunge the offending entries from your mind, set fire to your mouse, turn your monitor upside down, and notify me that you have taken these actions ... preferably by carrier pigeon, so that I don't have to read your [organisation's] ridiculous e-mail disclaimer.@@
No sooner is a new year born than oil finally hits ''$100/barrel'' for the first time. Some prominent experts were hard at work last year, predicting that prices would soar to this level by the //end// of 2008. So it happened on //2 January// - oh well, close in geological terms.
Of all the energy sources we have harnessed, none is more useful than ''electricity''. We can do almost //anything// with it, from powering nano-scale devices to running intercontinental surface transport networks. If a hypothetical future planet offered us no gas, no oil, and no other derived fuels, but limitless clean electricity supplies, mankind would manage just fine. Used wisely, electricity is the __only__ energy source we need in a high-tech utopia.
Happily, we already find that generating ''//renewable// electricity'' is already affordable, and in many ways easier than generating 'renewable' heat or fuels. Now we just need to devote every effort to generating //lots// of it in a hurry. Some experts have [[fascinating ideas|http://www.withouthotair.com/]] on how this might be done, in the UK at least.
Nuclear generation is a highly-debatable medium-term stop-gap; efficient and clean deployments of fossil fuels, such as gas-fired CHP and [[clean coal|Clean coal - myth or reality?]], are also stand-ins - useful for now but still limited.
But the future of distributed (small-scale) ''heating'' is electrically-driven heat pumps - ground source or air source. The future of ''transport'' (bar [[aviation|Fly like you mean it]], until the oil becomes prohibitively expensive) is electric - whether [[grid-connected|Electric transport - 4 wheels or 40?]] or otherwise.
We are now well into the 21st century, but sadly, electric cars are [[still rubbish|http://whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=234284&EL=3252759]]. It's all down to the fundamental challenge of ''energy density'', which has not been solved. Electric //motors// are efficient, quiet and reliable; but the //batteries// that drive them are heavy, expensive, and - pardon the pun - miles away from offering the range derived from the sheer energy content offered by a litre of refined petroleum, even burned at the 40% efficiency of a typical car engine.
Of course, there are __fuel cells__, which are still '10 years away' from affordable mainstream usage: just like they were 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. And there's a new problem facing both batteries and fuel cells, which is the [[shortage|http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/31/motoring.energy]] of some of the exotic materials on which they depend.
So our best surface transport bet, for the moment, remains __grid-connected__ electric vehicles, in other words trams and trains. Not electric cars, and certainly not (bio)diesel buses, however cheap and frequent they are. Much of Europe has already understood this, but the UK, as usual, has not. Now is the time to start seriously investing in electrifying the railways and in new urban trams. [[Bordeaux|http://www.trams-in-france.net/reload.htm?bordeaux.htm]], from where we've recently returned, shows the way.
People considering [[microgeneration|Microgeneration for dummies]] (eg solar photovoltaics) always ask the '''payback time''' question first. If they can tell me what the price of electricity will be 10 and 20 years hence, then I can give them a reasonable answer. Does this seem an //un//reasonable request? Fine - then I can easily offer an approximate 'payback' based on //today//'s electricity prices, but that's actually about as useful as the inside leg measurement of a unicorn.
What I //can// tell them, with reasonable certainty, is that their solar PV system will generate a given quantity of energy reliably for at least 25 years, whatever happens to general energy prices. It will also achieve ''//energy// payback'' within 3-4 years (and falling), giving it a good long-term return on the energy invested in making it.
The value of money, and the rules and whims economics, change constantly. The laws of physics do not - nor, indeed, do the indigenous resources we have available to us on earth (though I accept that the quantity of //known// and //extractable// resources does). We need to apply our scientific knowledge and engineering expertise to extracting the maximum [[EROEI|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI]] from the resources we //know// we have. The pseudo-science of economics really should not get in the way.
Achieving [[sustainable energy|http://www.withouthotair.com]] - remembering that "''sustainable''" does not mean 'green'; it means '''we can keep on doing it''' - is an engineering challenge, not an economic one. And our primary benchmark, if we're thinking long term, should be EROEI.
The global environment is irreversibly trashed and we're all doomed! Well, some of us anyway...
Unfortunately, environmental destruction really //is// a big issue, and the global warming proponents really //are// right. But we don't want to know, and who can blame us for running away from bad news? The excited response to //The Great Global Warming Swindle// demonstrates very clearly how people will latch onto the news they ''want'' to hear. And yes, that programme has been comprehensively rubbished and its psuedo-science utterly demolished, and I would be happy to prove this to you.
We have no second chances once we've messed with nature, and undermined the natural systems that sustain our existence, taking them beyond the point of no return. Once we reach that point - which some believe we have - then we are on a very dangerous path. The problem is, we may not realise until it's far too late.
//"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic."//
When there's a crisis, we all dash to get the opinion and wisdom of the "''experts''". But where has this got us recently? The very topical issue of the UK housing market provides some insights.
By mid-2007, it was clear that a slowdown had begun. But the "experts" were almost universally predicting flat growth, but absolutely //__not__// a fall in prices. As things began to turn quite dramatically in early 2008, forecasts by the "experts" were being downgraded and re-written faster than the tumbling prices, and still they appeared to utterly fail to predict what's actually been happening since then. Now, they have finally [[admitted this|http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7632207.stm]].
To the man in the street, on the other hand, recent housing market events come as no great surprise. We all knew that prices were ridiculous, and simply //had// to start coming down. The "experts" kept trying to delude us and convince us a) that prices could carry on rising forever, and that b) this was somehow good for us.
My view is that big falls would be ''very good news'' for the vast majority of us - if not those who borrowed over-the-odds to buy in the last years of the unsustainable boom. But then, I'm not an expert...
We are having a personal year of ''"peak flying"'' in 2008, making the most of what may be the dying days of mass, cheap air travel. The scenario we've all grown used to in the past 10 years is coming to an end: airlines are [[going bankrupt|http://airlines.einnews.com/news/airline-bankruptcy]] all over the world (especially the business-only ones), others are starting to ground planes and desperately trying to offload their older, less efficient types.
Peak oil may affect aviation more profoundly - and more //directly// - than any other sector: there are simply //no// practical technological alternatives to the kerosene-fuelled turbofan/turbojet engine, because //nothing// else remotely approaches the same level of __energy density__ (of the fuel) and __power to weight ratio__ (of the engines). So when the oil stops flowing, the planes stop flying, ''full stop''.
I have no doubts that the goverment's barmy plans to push towards [[Heathrow's third runway|The battle of Hellthrow]] will continue, since confronting reality was never their strong point. But I have //grave// doubts that Airbus will ever sell enough ''A380''s to break even in a climate like this, despite their relative seat-mile efficiency. Conversely, I do wonder whether, in 10 years time, airlines will still be wanting those nine hundred new ''787''s they've ordered, and which Boeing is struggling to build?
As the nuclear operator //British Energy// falls into French hands, yet another significant slice of the UK's energy infrastructure is about to become foreign-owned. Does this particular move actually matter?
Leaving aside the broader debate over new nuclear energy, which will be saved for another entry, let's look at the other components of our energy mix. The proportion of ''gas-fired electricity generation'' (CCGT) has now reached ''47%'', at a time when our own natural gas production is tailing off rapidly. Nuclear generation, on the other hand, has fallen ''below 15%'', and will continue to fall for some years to come, because several ancient plants will be closed long before any new ones are commissioned.
So at present, gas remains our most important primary energy source by far, and //''its''// source and security of supply should be our top concern. So in the end, I'm far happier to see a small chunk of our generation in the hands of the French government, than I am to see us ever-more dependent on the Russians for imported gas - which is a hugely more significant source of the majority of our electricity //and// heat.
Many people ignore just how pervasive IT is in our society. Like it or not, our infrastructure, government, health systems and financial portfolios depend entirely on complex computers and the software that runs them. But who controls this software? Who defines the data formats in which, for example, the government's archives - or our personal medical records - are stored?
The global meteoric rise of free operating systems such as [[Linux|What is Linux all about?]] is not only attributable to cost and technical advantages. Organisations are realising that it's imperative to regain control of the technologies on which they rely. Only open standards can provide the reassurance we should all be demanding.
* ''It's about freedom'': the freedom to control, inspect, and modify our information systems; the freedom to translate software into new languages, and to improve it.
* ''It's about transparency'': who would feel comfortable using an electronic voting machine whose internal software is closed and secret - and then discovering that the manufacturer's directors fundraise for a particular party? This has already happened in the USA.
* ''It's about open standards'': free software uses published, fully-documented data formats, and standard protocols, as opposed to closed proprietary formats that can be changed (ie broken) at will by companies who seek to manipulate markets and extend their lock-in.
An organisation running on free(dom) software is a more secure, more flexible, and more efficient organisation. Not to mention a richer one.
''Here we go'': the [[long-awaited battle|The battle of Hellthrow]] of the third runway at Hellthrow has now begun in earnest. Despite my recent pledge against predictions, I'll boldly make a medium-term one at this early point: __the runway will never be built__.
What //will// happen is that hundreds of millions of pounds will be wasted on a long, fraught and pointless fight in the legal, political and planning spheres. The wider battle will continue to be an all-round outpouring of ignorance and prejudice, set against foregone conclusions and hidden agendas.
Whilst the people of Sipson will be living under a large cloud for some years, the realisation of the runway's ultimate pointlessness should arrive before the first bulldozers; said bulldozers could always keep themselves busy by getting started on that promised new railway line.
Meanwhile ,the redevelopment of Heathrow's terminals, made possible thanks to ''T5'', will continue. In combination with a gradual shift to larger aircraft, that will allow the airport's //passenger// capacity to grow - at least for as along as the aviation party lasts....
Gloucestershire is a very beautiful county, and perhaps one of the most desirable areas of England in which to live. But the city from which it derives its name has long been regarded as a downtrodden backwater, bypassed by most visitors to the region. As one of the city's new arrivals, I'm not really sure why.
I have moved here from the only town in Suffolk that could be regarded as slightly "rough", and the contrast is fascinating. Gloucester may well have some of the "roughness" that is seen in most UK cities, but it also has a massive amount to offer. Apart from the 2,000 years of history, there is the beautiful ''cathedral'' (where the latest //Harry Potter// is being filmed as I write), the ''historic docks'' and waterfront area (all nicely regenerated), many fascinating old buildings, plenty of ''good restaurants'', a world-class leisure centre, excellent transport links (if you overlook two traffic chokepoints that must rank amongst the worst in the country) and countless ''beauty spots'' within a 30-minute radius.
Sure, the city clearly suffered a period of decay in the latter 20th century, but it's back with a vengeance, and the cranes on the skyline tell everyone that the [[future is already being built|http://www.gloucesterurc.co.uk]]. After years in the shadow of 'Regency' Cheltenham next door - which has some surprisingly rough areas of its own - Gloucester is ready to regain its place as the region's capital, and it's great to be here to join the ride.
Is this just a nasty recession and chaotic banking crisis, or is the world really ending? I'm still [[testing the doomsters|Testing the doomsters]] on this vital question.
''On the one hand'', the scare stories grow ever more dramatic, and the merchants of doom seem just days away from heading for the hills with their survival packs, canned food and 'defensive' weapons. They talk daily about the onset of societal collapse, riots, starvation and the final collapse of capitalism and Western civilisation. These are not 'random nutters'; many are white-collar professionals who have carried out some insightful analysis of the undercurrents of the financial crisis, and the world's energy resource situation.
''On the other hand'', in this region of the planet, it's difficult to spot the signs of the world ending. Sure, there are plenty of vacant shops and rows of unsold houses, but these are nothing new in a cyclical recession. The roads are still clogged with busy traffic, the restaurants are still doing brisk trade, the shops are crowded, the phones still ring incessantly and the rhythm of life seems scarcely changed. The more sober observers assure us that things really will go back to 'normal' soon enough (without, of course, questioning whether or not this is a good thing).
So where are we going next in 2009? I remain on the fence - but certainly, at least one tribe of analysts (with many [[experts|Expertease]] among them) will be proved very, very wrong in the near future.
I'd rather begun to believe that the cost of living was rocketing these days, but I must have been wrong //again//, because ''inflation is only 2.5%'' - our friendly government tells us so.
The prices of almost every commodity, from copper to oil to wheat, have reached record highs - __all at the same time__ - but ''don't worry, because inflation is only 2.5%''. Your petrol has gone up by 18p/litre in just a year, and your road tax and insurance also keep rising. But ''don't worry, because inflation is only 2.5%''. Your pay is frozen yet again, but your mortgage costs are still rising, //even though// interest rates (not to mention house prices) are falling - but ''don't worry, because inflation is only 2.5%''.
You've given up on the idea of private health cover and future school fees, because they continue to rise by 10-20% a year - but ''don't worry, because inflation is only 2.5%''. Council tax - up another 5%? That's a bargain compared with train fares, which are up another 11% in many cases. So stay close to home and pop down to your local pub instead. //What?!?!// - is a pint really now averaging £3, and a bar meal about 50% up on a few years ago? Why yes, but ''don't worry, because inflation is only 2.5%''.
Inflation? I must be imagining it!
In my 32 years so far, I have failed to find a correctly-spelt namesake. But now, [[here he is|http://www.stevenssom.com/80215/contact.php]] in sunny Shropshire:
[img[driving school|graphics/blog_StevMotor.jpg]]
Oh well, good luck to the guy, I suspect there's not too much danger of anyone confusing us. And let's be honest, his profession is at least fairly innocuous....
The //War on Terror// died a few years ago, and has never been replaced. Should our governments be looking for a new war, of a rather less controversial kind, then might I suggest the //''War on Complexity''//.
Complexity is a self-breeding phenomenon: it only ever moves in one direction. Our complex world demands the creation and adoption of ever-more complex tools just to manage its daily operations. Complexity infects everything with which we engage, from geopolitics to energy markets to tax systems to car radios. In a resource-constrained and excessively interdependent world, complexity also becomes a critical sustainability issue.
But no-one asked for this. No-one specifically strove for it. Introducing complexity was never on anyone's list of life goals. Its encroachment on all of our lives is almost entirely //re//active. Complexity needs to be defeated, and to achieve this requires a war-like footing, just like the war on climate change and on energy insecurity.
We can all play a part in this. In your lives and daily work, keep on asking yourselves this: "Am I making the world more complex through creating / enacting / designing / enforcing this?" And if you are, then start by taking a very big step backwards....
2008 is certainly //not// shaping up to be the year of "__Linux on the Desktop__". Just like each of the last 5 or 6 years. Despite the many technological components that make up a Linux system continually getting better and better, and despite the system as a whole being more than a match for its commercial rivals, it is still not on the radar of 98% of ordinary PC users.
Thousands of extremely talented developers, in every corner of the world, have built a system fit for - and now widely used by - the enterprise. Hundreds of companies - including most of the world's tech giants - have invested //billions// of dollars in Linux, encompassing both technology and marketing. The critical issue of [[freedom|Freedom - through software?]] is rising up the agenda, as the [[office file format|A surreptitious lockout]] debate has proved. But still, Linux is invisible to the regular, desktop computing world.
Where are the barriers? I used to feel that I understood them, but not any more. Is it the suffocating power of Micro$oft's dastardly monopoly, even in the wake of the Vista fiasco? Is is the remaining technical shortcomings? Is it simple inertia, disinterest, or the suspicion of anything unfamiliar? Is it a continuing failure of marketing, or a lack of money with which to rectify this?
Linux was going to dominate the world - the //mainstream// world of IT - but it certainly hasn't - //yet//. Micro$oft will fall eventually - all monopolies do. When it happens, Linux may be the beneficiary - even it if missed being the trigger.
Two interesting browser-related stories hit the news recently: firstly, IE is gaining market share again; secondly, UK government departments are [[sticking with the pre-historic IE6|http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/08/despite-petition-uk-government-to-keep-ie6.ars]] for yet another while longer.
Are these stories connected? Perhaps. Back in the dark days of the mid-noughties, ~IE6 was utterly dominant, and must have seemed like an unshifting platform on which to invest a lot of development capital. ~IE6 and its warped 'standards' model was firmly rooted in a landscape almost without competition.
But then [[along came Firefox|http://www.spreadfirefox.com]] in 2004. Mozilla's upstart browser took the world by storm, and finally got Microsoft to notice. With great reluctance, they were dragged back into the browser game with newer and better releases, having otherwise been content to let the world - and you - rot with ~IE6.
But the UK government, whilst expressing a love of open standards, continued to pile resources into web apps that were locked into ~IE6's miserable ways, doubtless egged on my handsomely-paid IT consultants. And now they are //truly// paying the price, in trying to secure a non-securable legacy app platform as the world moves on around them.
Elsewhere, more people nowadays are using ~IE8 because it's become a lot better. But never forget that it's better because Firefox and Chrome made it so. Microsoft's choices in the mid-noughties, thank goodness, were not their own. But for UK government departments in 2010, there's no excuse.
The end is night for old-fashioned, energy-sapping lightbulbs, which are now beginning to be phased out across the EU, as we follow in the footsteps of Cuba and other nations. The 19th century incandescent bulb has served us well, but its time is long past. The push towards pervasive low-energy lighting has now been given a new boost, which is a welcome step.
But for the diehards who refuse to countenance this transition, it is evidently a [[step too far|http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8222941.stm]]. The surge in demand for incandescent lightbulbs, as people attempt to stockpile a lifetime's worth of 100W light-emitting room heaters, is a curious indication of the cultural challenges we face during the coming energy descent. It we can't even handle lightbulbs that are [[a little different|Cold, impoverished - or just a little different]], how are we going to handle the sweeping lifestyle changes required in the years ahead?
The scare stories about compact fluorescent lights (~CFLs) are groundless and readily dismissed, but that doesn't stop them being repeatedly trotted out through hysterical newspapers and chat forums. Unfortunately, the scares seem to be ensnaring large swathes of the public, who are now convinced that the push towards ~CFLs is part of some dastardly plot.
One wonders how many of these lightbulb diehards are the same folk who have been loudly complaining about their __soaring energy bills__ in recent years? People across the world will gradually need to become accustomed to many news ways of doing all sorts of things. We need to embrace these changes, and they start with the humble lightbulb.
@@color(#2bf):''[''The title of this entry is inspired by my [[earlier post|Lingering liquid lunacy]] on airport security. This entry also serves as a cyber-vigil to mark 3 years of the lingering liquids lunacy, which continues to humiliate and frustrate millions of travellers, without making them one jot more secure.'']''@@
Wow - there is hope, at last, that UK airport security is getting under control again. The absurdly overloaded Stansted, which has become an abyss of confusion, chaos and nightmarish queues in recent years, is getting better. The departures security area has been expanded, as has the incoming passport control area, and the queues are almost normal again. Our experience - even during this period of massive security lockdowns - was trouble free, on this random summer Tuesday. So kudos to BAA and the police.
But on the downside, the ridiculous [[liquids lunacy|http://www.glasgowairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Images/BAAnewSecurityRules061106.gif]] continues. This crazy regime, introduced over a year ago, seems designed purely to humiliate us, hassle us, and cost us money - as randomly confiscated items need to be replaced with identical items purchased at the shop 20 meters away. But I've not seen a single convincing argument that it achieves anything security-wise.
Wasn't this supposed to be temporary? Does it make you feel safe? Are we going to suffer this nonsense forever? And most importantly, what will they dream up next, in response to the latest Hollywood terror plot? So many questions, so few answers....
''ADDENDUM'' - it's even worse in Singapore! They don't allow //any// 100ml+ liquids through the gates, even water that you buy after security and drink in front of them. Lunacy taken to the next level!
[[About Me]]
blog//@//altrux''.''me''.''uk
----
THEMES
[[Energy|Why Energy?]]
[[Peak Oil|A deluded response]]
[[Environment|Environment - it's real]]
[[Digital Freedom|Freedom - through software?]]
[[Security|Security in the Digital Age]]
[[Linux|What is Linux all about?]]
----
LINKS
[[LATOC|http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html]]
[[Peak Energy|http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/]]
[[George Monbiot|http://www.monbiot.com/]]
[[Vivid|http://itsvivid.wordpress.com/]]
[[World Changing|http://www.worldchanging.org/]]
[[Techdirt|http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php]]
[[LWN|http://www.lwn.net]]
[img[www.getfirefox.com|graphics/get_firefox_3.png]]
<div style='text-align:center; color:#076; padding:20px;'>contact me on <span style='color:#3cb;'>blog @ altrux<span style='font-weight:bold;'>.</span>me<span style='font-weight:bold;'>.</span>uk</span></div>
<!--{{{-->
<link rel='alternate' type='application/rss+xml' title='RSS' href='index.xml'/>
<!--}}}-->
<style type='text/css'>#contentWrapper {display:none;}</style>
<div id='SplashScreen' style='border: 1px solid #ccc; -moz-border-radius:1em; display:block; text-align:center; width:400px; margin:100px auto; padding:.5em; color:#fff; font-size:24pt; font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans; background-color:#076;'><span style='font-weight:bold;'>ALscape</span> is loading<div style='font-size:12pt; color:#ccc;'>please wait<blink>...</blink></div></div>
I'm gradually becoming more and more vegetarian. It's not really for ethical reasons, or even health reasons, although these are background factors; it's more in preparation for a future in which meat will become a more expensive and rarer commodity.
The Chinese, whose meat consumption is soaring in line with their growing wealth, have just begun to experience this. Prices rocketed in 2007, and soaring //demand// doesn't seem to be the only cause. Quite simply, rearing animals on an industrial scale requires lots of ''energy'' - both directly, and indirectly, by way of growing the food that //they// need, and even the water used to grow that food.
Western levels of meat consumption over recent decades cannot be replicated across vast tracts of the planet; indeed, it will be increasingly difficult to sustain them //here//, once we are forced to start paying the //true// price for the food we eat. In global terms, we may slowly revert to a situation where animals are too valuable and too scarce merely to be eaten.
So get used to eating more vegetarian food - and you'll probably find that you enjoy it. Aren't we lucky that the UK offers delicious, adventurous and ubiquitous vegetarian food these days?
Here's the deal: we need lots of renewable energy, and //''fast''//, if we are to avoid a serious energy crisis. But it doesn't only exist at the multi-megawatt utility scale: you can get started at home. Here are the technologies to look out for:
!Electricity
* ''Solar photovoltaic panels'': yes, they do work in northern Europe, if you have a good unshaded south-facing roof. Expensive, but can still make sense when taking a long-term view.
* ''Micro-wind turbines'': whilst large-scale wind turbines are proven and cost-effective, this is not a technology that scales down well. Great if you have a good, open site; relatively useless if you don't - this would include most urban environments.
* ''Small-scale hydropower'': a niche option, but if you have a fast-flowing stream or river nearby, a miniature hydro installation will provide reliable, hassle-free energy for many years.
!Heat & Hot Water
* ''Solar thermal panels'': the bread and butter of microgeneration. These can generate 60-70% of household hot water, and are relatively cheap, hassle-free and highly popular.
* ''Heat pumps'': these use electricity at 200-400% efficiency (yes, really!) to extract ambient heat from the ground, water or even just air - think reverse-cycle aircon. Very nice technology, but best suited for new-build well-insulated properties, ideally with underfloor heating.
* ''Wood pellet burners'': pellets are a convenient, high-density and low-carbon fuel - essentially compressed virgin sawdust. They can be burned in 'feature' stoves to heat or room, or a full-blown automated pellet boiler (up to 92% efficient), as a great alternative to oil or LPG. Very common in parts of Europe.
!The Works
* ''~Micro-CHP'' - your very own miniature gas-fired power plant, generating electricity and heat. Not exactly 'renewable', but a highly efficient use of the best, cleanest fossil fuel we have. Still, there are drawbacks at this scale, and the market is in its infancy.
The UK government doesn't seem to know what it's doing any more. A rather sweeping statement, of course, and one which could apply to many current policy areas. But it's the ''energy'' sphere to which I'm mainly referring.
Whilst the right hand strives to keep people's attention on the major issues of energy and climate change, the left hand is busy ... shooting the left foot. A great example of this is the ''//Low Carbon Buildings Programme//'', run by ---the DTI--- BERR, and representing one little corner of the hopelessly fragmented approach to energy. The LCBP offers grants to householders, community buildings, and other sectors for installing small-scale renewable energy technologies.
It began inauspiciously, with an overly bureaucratic design, but quickly became unreasonably popular and successful, at which point something had to be done. So they slashed the maximum grant sizes, ratcheted up the complexity of the application process, and imposed more red tape - and crippling costs - on the fledgling army of small-scale installers and technology suppliers.
These measures have been [[superbly successful|http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/18/energy.economy]] at:
# Virtually killing the programme stone dead
# Leaving a large un-spent pot of grant money
# Pushing some small-scale installers into bankruptcy
# Pulling the rug out from under a promising home-grown boom industry
# Crushing grassroots efforts to combat climate change
Looks like another ''hole-in-one'' for joined-up government then!
The netbook revolution was fun while it lasted. These dinky, pint-sized little computers were made for ''Linux'', and things were briefly looking exciting - after all, Dell, the world's biggest computer maker, was fully onboard. But netbooks seem to have been a flash in the pan after all.
The market has been killed by two things: ''a)'' the hardware manufacturers [[forgetting|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_NC20]] that the entire point of a netbook is to be __small__, __cheap__ and simple; ''b)'' Microsoft persuading (or simply [[bullying|http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529]] almost everyone (including ASUS, the very //originator// of the Linux netbook concept) that its ill-equipped, expensive and clunky old operating system (i.e. Windows XP) is ideal for netbooks - marketing genius indeed.
''Linux'', with its vast array of ready-installed software, [[beautiful custom interfaces|http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/03/canonical-makes-ubuntu-netbook-remix-official-at-computex/]], and modular, speedy design, makes netbooks vastly more productive - and simply more //bling// - out of the box. But people bought these machines that //looked// like 'computers', took them home, and panicked upon discovering that they were 'different'. Perhaps asking clueless sales assistants to sell things to clueless consumers was always going to end in tears, though there is nothing unusual about this model.
But all is not lost - a new generation of netbooks is on the horizon already, and many will use a [[non-Intel|http://blogs.arm.com/smart-mobile-devices]] architecture. Once again, Linux is ready to run out-of-the-box on these machines; Windows is not. Linux has conquered the highest echelons of computing, and is now ready once again to conquer the 'pocket' end; all that may remain is the [[elusive middle ground|Is desktop Linux failing?]].
//Nul points// - that's what I'm awarding ''~McCain'' + Palin for their policies on energy. ~McCain is at least acquainted with the term 'energy security'; but to respond by proposing a furious oil-drilling rampage, in a desperate and foolish attempt to maintain the unmaintanable, is simply laughable.
Conversely, it is reassuring to note that ''[[Obama groks energy|http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-number-one-priority-revamping.html]]''. This alone is reason to vote for him - __Americans, are you listening?__ @@color(#2bf):[''UPDATE'' - it seems that they were.]@@ If you vote in ~McCain, the oil crash will hit you a lot harder when it comes. And believe me, it //will// come: don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the recent tumble in prices. This very week, even the conservative and famously optimistic [[IEA has sounded the alarm|http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSTRE49S0BB20081029]] (though the quoted numbers are inaccurate and await revision), followed quickly by a surprising and broad new [[grouping of UK companies|http://peakoil.solarcentury.com/?page_id=20]].
Admittedly, I'm starting to sound like a doomster (see below) at this point. Well, I am focusing on the subjects I understand (oil and energy) rather than those I don't (finance) - and it's all in the timing!
Recruitment drones often ask for my CV in Word format - and I'm very happy //''not''// to oblige. Why?
Principally because Micro$oft's file formats are closed, proprietary, and tied to the Windows platform. Micro$oft is a convicted monopolist, and has proved willing to go to extraordinary lengths to extinguish its few competitors and extort ever more money from us all. Its infamous file formats are finally being 'outlawed' by several large public-sector organisations around the world. I use the free Linux operating system on my computer. I don't use Windows, and I don't own a copy of Micro$oft Office. Incidentally, a full retail copy of Office 2007 (Standard edition, let alone Pro) now costs //more// than some perfectly adequate desktop ~PCs. My CV was created using the excellent, FREE [[OpenOffice|http://www.openoffice.org/]] 3.0 suite.
@@color(#f44):''Yes, I actually care about this stuff....''@@
My CV is maintained in ''~OpenDocument'' format (which recently became [[ISO 26300|http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=43485&ICS1=35&ICS2=240&ICS3=30]]) and distributed in Adobe's Portable Document Format. These are both cross-platform standards that can be viewed and printed by anyone, on any type of computer, using freely available software. ''~OpenDocument'' is now supported natively by almost all productivity software suites. M$ Office can't handle it natively, but [[this plugin|http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/]] might help.
Just as the ''"credit crunch"'' was beginning to feel like an old familiar friend, it suddenly morphed into the ''"financial crisis"'' and took a huge lurch closer to the lives of all of us, whatever our personal economic situations.
The extraordinary scale and pace of events over the past few weeks has brought forth a host of comparisons with earlier periods of economic turmoil, the leading contender being the Great Depression of the 1930s.
I'm no economist, but a lack of technical expertise does not prevent me raising the glaringly obvious point that the world is a ''very different place'' compared to 80+ years ago.
Globalisation was not in the dictionary then; mass air travel and ubiquitous communications technology did not exist; the huge majority of us led vastly simpler lives, and so on. Fundamentally, peoples, nations and economies were far __less interconnected__.
So is there not a limited value to any comparisons with the 1930s? What's happening now, wherever it takes us, is __unique__ in history, purely because the economic and political structure of the world is unique in history. I cannot offer better predictions than the [[experts|Expertease]], but I do propose to take their predictions - at least those based on orthogonal observations - with a large pinch of salt.
<div class='header' macro='gradient vert #201 #076'>
<div class='headerShadow'>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
<div class='headerForeground'>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
</div>
<div id='mainMenu'>
<div refresh='content' tiddler='MainMenu'></div>
</div>
<div id='sidebar'>
<div id='sidebarOptions' refresh='content' tiddler='SideBarOptions'></div>
<div id='sidebarTabs' refresh='content' force='true' tiddler='SideBarTabs'></div>
</div>
<div id='displayArea'>
<div id='messageArea'></div>
<div id='tiddlerDisplay'></div>
</div>
Like many people, I'm a closet fan of ''Jeremy Clarkson''. Not for his environmental views, which are clearly somewhat deluded, but for his humour and general //anti//-political correctness. We need //someone// to rub entrenched views the wrong way, and there are so few high-profile antagonists left.
And yes, I greatly enjoy //Top Gear// and I'm still into cars - something of a personal dilemma for me. But Clarkson, like the rest of us, will now be paying ''107p/litre'' for his beloved petrol, and he can't fail to wonder why. He is unable to honestly blame the government for the rapid price rises this year. This is //not// the impact of 'green taxes', though clearly our political masters are happy to spin it as such. __This is the oil crisis__, whose abrupt arrival is actually orthogonal to the environmental debate.
So what will happen when Jeremy Clarkson finally discovers and acknowledges [[Peak Oil|Early arrival]]? Will he head off to buy a 500bhp biofuelled Range Rover? Or perhaps a sleek and radical fuel cell-powered sports car? Clearly not, because there aren't any. Indeed, I've long suspected there never will be, in a mass-market sense.
As much as I'm entertained by Clarkson's views and beliefs, some of them will soon prove to be as over-the-hill as the world's [[oil production curve|http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/28/PU200611_Fig3_small.png]].
Yes, we really are running out of oil. Not //all// oil, but //cheap// oil. And trying to take control of Iraq or Iran really won't help, even if we miraculously succeeded.
No, there are no real substitutes. No, the "market" won't find an answer. No, biofuels won't suddenly take over - not if you still want to eat as well. Don't even mention the hydrogen nonsense - not until you've discovered a 10 trillion barrel hydrogen well sitting under your garden.
There is only one answer, which is to drastically change our lifestyles and the entire structure of our economy. Sounds difficult? When prices quadruple again, we might just find that it strangely gets easier.
Am I a doom-monger? No - I do //not// believe that we're all going to die or return to the dark ages. But our lives are going change. Since we seem highly reluctant to plan ahead and start acting now, we'll just have to do it the rapid, painful way, when the crisis //really// hits. But we'll probably manage one way or another.
Think of the up-sides: no more commuting, no more [[Ryanair|Would you shop in a Ryanair supermarket?]]!
Apparently almost none of us is saving sufficiently for our future pension. Why might this be? Could it be that our faith in pensions has been utterly destroyed in recent years? Could it be that, having seen thousands of people who did __all the right things__ and //still// got burned, we're strangely disillusioned?
Now that the age of the final salary pension scheme is over, we're reliant on throwing money at stockmarket funds and hoping for the best. This has not worked out too well recently - and the concept of everlasting stockmarket growth carrying our pension pots soaring upwards decade by decade seems more laughable than ever.
So what do we do about it? For one, we can carry on ''investing in property'', just like we always have done, and just like we are still doing no matter how much 'they' advise us not to. Or we could let [[renewable energy|Microgeneration for dummies]] save the day and follow what some of our European friends are doing: [[investing in other people's roofs|http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=2430§ion=Solar]], exploiting the reliable value offered by solar photovoltaics installed thereon. Feed-in tariffs are coming to the UK, meaning that this might just become an option next year - for us as individuals, or at least for our pension funds.
''Where is Fred Goodwin?'' He seems to have slipped from the news radar again, though doubtless the enormous anger over his [[pension|Pensioneering]] deal will take much longer to fade from view.
But in the meantime, what should we really feel towards Fred? Anger? Resentment? Envy? How about pity? The man has been utterly blinded by his own greed, has become an international pariah, and seems to have been hounded out of his own country, at least for the moment. I suspect that it is much tougher to enjoy one's ill-gotten riches under those circumstances.
Being blinded by boundless greed is a trap that any of us could fall into, in a competitive and materialistic world. Let's hope that the lesson of Fred's demise is to make us all more wary of doing so.
The latest peak oil report comes from a distinctly sober and [[straight-laced organisation|http://www.ukerc.ac.uk]]. You won't find any sensationalism here; what you //will// find is an honest and reasoned analysis of the ever-inadequate data on the world's oil situation.
The broad conclusion is that you can except said world to have changed dramatically by ''2030''. Significant 'issues' are still a strong possibility before ''2020''. As it happens, the equally-sober [[ITPOES|http://peakoiltaskforce.net]] disagrees with these optimistic (sic) assessments, and suggests that the oil crunch will bite us in the UK by ''2013''.
No-one can possibly predict how this will unfold, though there are plenty of wild and scary socio-economic theories out there. But broadly speaking, life will become more expensive (everywhere) and some things we've taken for granted in recent decades will become much more difficult. Frequent flying is just one of these things. Although long-haul will outlive short-haul, you may have only 10 years left to see the world relatively cheaply and easily. It's extremely unlikely to be more than 20 - so get on out there!
Peak oil is no longer a hazy future problem for the world, like it was during your school geography lessons. It's no longer your children's problem. It's //your// problem.
Oh, before you [[book your flights|Fly like you mean it]], you might want to lean on your MP to press the government as to why it still bases its economic projections on ludicrously optimistic oil price/availability assumptions right out to 2050.
Petrol prices are at record levels in the UK, and there are rumours of dissent. A poll by //What Car?// reveals that the majority of drivers would either participate in, or morally 'support', another fuel price protest like the one that crippled the country in September 2000.
As a driver who covers a lot of miles for work and personal reasons, I too am feeling the hit from soaring petrol prices, and I don't like it one bit. So will I be joining the protests and demanding that the government reduce fuel taxes? //''No''//.
The reality is, we'd better get used to this. Peak oil is here early, and the only way is up for petrol prices. If we were really feeling the pain, we'd all be changing our behaviour. But we're not. Not one bit. So for once, the government is right to ignore the disquiet.
Petrol prices may be high, but we haven't seen anything yet. I - and everyone else - may not like it, but the only response is to change our lifestyles. We can't demand a short-term fix from the government to shield us from the looming global reality.
The UK government has agreed to a fairly ambitious (given the tight timescales) target on renewable energy, effectively handed down by the EU. So how are we going to achieve it? Remember we're talking about //''all''// energy here, not just electricity. It's an enormous __technical challenge__, and we need to start doing //''everything''// we can, right now. But we're stymied by two things:
''Central Government'' - who continue to [[demonstrate|Money for nothing (and muppetry for free)]] that they just don't //get// it, despite the large amount of apparent activity in the energy policy arena - warm air in Britain's decrepid housing stock will not be generated by hot air from career politicians. But this is what happens when complex //technical// decisions get made by lawyers and accountants. Getting more engineers and technically-trained people into government is a challenge all in itself.
''The Planners'' - why yes, our largely unaccountable and [[hugely powerful|The Heritage Police]] friends who continue to have most of the country over a barrel. Sustainable buildings, let alone renewable energy infrastructure on the scale required, will never occur until the [[over-zealous and under-qualified planners|http://zerocarbonista.com/2008/05/12/onshore-wind-planning-or-building-which-one-is-the-real-problem/]] are reined in. Meanwhile, large tracts of the country will remain firmly stuck in the 16th century, frozen in time, whilst the rest of the world looks on in disbelief.
It's time for the renewables industry to rise up and fight the battle for progress once and for all, otherwise we - as a nation - will be in real trouble within a surprisingly short space of time.
''CSP'' is an acronym that you may be seeing more frequently in the years ahead. This is ''Concentrating S''olar ''P''ower, which takes our harnessing of the sun's energy to the next level. Although not new, this technology is on the threshold of a major renaissance - not, of course, in the fields of Gloucestershire - but in areas like the south-western USA, northern Africa and southern Europe.
CSP uses arrays of mirrors - parabolic troughs or heliostats - to concentrate the sun's energy onto a focal point, where heat is collected by a circulating fluid and delivered to a bulk thermal store. Temperatures of up to 1,000°C can be achieved, and the heat can be used in a variety of processes. Most crucially, it can be used to raise steam for electricity generation, turning low-value deserts into vast power stations.
[>img[airframe_cutaway|graphics/blog_CSP.jpg]]
The compelling aspect of CSP is that it can generate for both __base load__ and __peak load__, thanks to its controllability. The thermal store can be exploited to generate power 24x7 if desired, unlike many other renewable generation sources. Alternatively, the store can simply be used to 'lag' the output curve by a few hours compared with the solar input, which conveniently matches the typical diurnal electricity demand cycle.
CSP is once again attracting huge attention, and its upscaling should yield a big drop in costs. David ~MacKay's [[fascinating energy expose|http://www.withouthotair.com]] notes that it offers the highest energy capture per unit of land area of any 'renewable' technology. He and many others predict that it will become a vital element in Europe's zero-carbon generation mix (via HVDC transmission from North Africa), compensating for the shortcomings of wind, tidal and [[microgen|Microgeneration for dummies]]. Expect to see more CSP coming to a desert near you soon.
There are many gases that affect the earth's climate, inducing a warming effect through changing [[radiative forcing|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing]]. Of course the most prolific of these, in terms of the man-driven imbalance, is CO~~2~~, thanks to the sheer quantities that are released through burning [[fossil fuels|Clean coal - myth or reality?]]. But molecule-for-molecule, CO~~2~~ is positively benign compared to many others.
Refrigerant gases are a particular problem. Whilst modern refrigerants no longer damage the ozone layer, they still have huge global warming potentials (~GWPs), meaning that each molecule gives rise to a warming effect that's hundreds or thousands of times greater than a molecule of CO~~2~~. These refrigerants are proliferating worldwide in building and vehicle air conditioning systems, and - somewhat ironically - in [[sustainable energy systems|Microgeneration for dummies]] such as highly efficient ground source heat pumps.
This could prove a problem. But there is a strong alternative, in the form of much less harmful refrigerant, with many beneficial properties. It works at higher pressures, and so requires more expensive kit, at least for now. But it remains highly promising. This wonder refrigerant is called ''R744'', but you may know it by its more common designation of CO~~2~~. That's right, the world's most prolific greenhouse gas is also a useful weapon in one aspect of the climate change fight. Look for R744 in some cooling machinery near you soon.
It's hard to miss the widespread current hype about security and its relationship with technology. Whether it's airport terrorism prevention, beating identity theft, or keeping your Window$ PC safe from spyware and worms, this is an area where we should all become better-informed. The outcome of the security debate on lawmaking, culture and personal privacy will - or already does - impact on us all. If you're interested in this broad and complex field, I would highly recommend the following 3 starting points:
* [[Bruce Schneier|http://www.schneier.com/blog]] is a globally-respected security expert, who currently works for BT Counterpane, and who has written many relevant books. Bruce also publishes the monthly ~Crypto-Gram e-mail newsletter, which distills many of the crucial security issues of the moment, both philosophical and technical. Don't miss his safe personal computing tips.
* [[The RISKS digest|http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks]] is a moderated newsgroup, also archived on the web, in which experts and interested observers alike share and discuss the impacts of technology on public safety and security.
* [[Ross Anderson|http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/]] and his team have been researching and writing about security for many years at the University of Cambridge. Ross has published an enormous range of academic papers, and is an influential voice in the field, challenging the ominous nature of many recent legal and technological developments that affect computer security - and thus all our lives.
For more, simple, practical advice, check the excellent [[Get Safe Online|http://www.getsafeonline.org/]] site. I approve of this, because it has advice for Linux and Mac OS X as well as Window$, and covers proper web browsers, not just IE. Just remember that with the wrong motives, the security of your own PC can unfortunately be [[turned against you|http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows.html]].
//non-linear musings for a bifurcating world//
I've always had a strong distaste for Skype, with their deeply proprietary software and protocols, which undermine the spread of universal, interoperable ~VoIP for the world. But Skype 'the company' (also known as eBay) has grown much worse, because it has been using [[Free Software|Freedom - through software?]] code in its products (which is fine), flagrantly breaching its licensing terms (which is //not//), then trying to [[defend its actions in court|http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2008/05/07/#20080507-olg_muenchen-skype]]. Thankfully, [[Skype lost|http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/08/gpl-prevails-again]], and the GPL has prevailed again.
But we must not miss the warning signs. Something as precious as communication should not be allowed to be hijacked by one unpleasant company with dubious ethics. ''Avoid Skype'', and tell your friends to do the same. There are plenty of zero-cost alternatives that use __standard SIP protocols__, and are just as easy to use: Gizmo, ~WengoPhone, Ekiga, and the list goes on. ''Trade convenience for freedom at your peril''.
A [[legal battle|http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_3426197.html?menu=]] is taking place that could, in the most dramatic outcome, mean the sudden end of Skype. Would I mourn it? Hardly, as [[you'll already know|Skype - one to avoid]].
If this outcome actually happens, don't say you weren't warned. Like all proprietary technologies, Skype is controlled by private entities for private profit. It can be taken away on a whim, and when it is, there's nothing you can do about it. This simply //cannot// happen with [[free|Freedom - through software?]] technologies; projects may die, but the code - and most importantly the very protocol on which it's built - stays alive.
Making yourself dependent on a proprietary technology is more dangerous now than ever. Whether you look at Skype, iTunes or many other examples, these 'free' (free as in price, but //not// as in freedom) tools are a trap, imprisoning you within a walled garden forevermore. They represent the antithesis of what the Internet is all about, and we should not mourn them if they disappear.
In recent months, stories have abounded of global '''traditional''' energy companies pulling out of their investments in '''green''' energy. Whilst alarming at first glance, we really shouldn't read too much into this, and we //certainly// should be surprised. Despite the absurdly overblown eco-bling rhetoric, companies like Shell and BP remain just what they always were - oil majors. They follow the money, since that's what they're expert at doing. They will dabble in something different when there is short-term money to be made, and they will pull out when there isn't.
The green energy industry will face some short-term tests during the financial chaos and recession - absolutely no-one is immune at this point. But this is not an industry that's going away: we are being propelled into an age where '''energy''' //is// '''green energy''', and there is no turning back.
It will be instructive to watch what the 'big boys' do when oil hits $200/barrel - which will simultaneously boosts their profits and make 'alternative' energy a financial gold-mine again. But it will be far //more// interesting to keep watching the army of young, innovative companies who //genuinely// eat, sleep and drink this stuff, rather than intermittently jumping on the greenwash bandwagon.
A common response to rising ''peak oil'' alarmism is a wide-eyed optimism that mankind will "find something else" to fuel our voracious energy-drinking society. Funnily enough, that's what many people //have// been trying to do for 100 years or so, but thus far without any notable results.
We forget that for the overwhelming majority of human history, ''renewable energy'' //was// energy. There wasn't a "something else" for tens of thousands of years of early human development; we made progress using the natural resources around us, fuelled by sunshine and wood - which, when you think about it, is ultimately just a biological store of accumulated solar energy.
Then along came coal, followed by oil (and gas), and these triggered an extraordinary uptick in human development an technological progress. This much is well known. But set in the context of human history, we seem to have forgotten that oil //is// (was) the "something else" - a brief and non-repeatable blip in our resource curve.
So instead of waiting for "something else" to just come along and save us before the bell, perhaps we should work harder at trying ... something else?
/***
''Inspired by [[TiddlyPom|http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~tuspam/tiddlypom.html]]''
|Name|SplashScreenPlugin|
|Created by|SaqImtiaz|
|Location|http://tw.lewcid.org/#SplashScreenPlugin|
|Version|0.21 |
|Requires|~TW2.08+|
!Description:
Provides a simple splash screen that is visible while the TW is loading.
!Installation
Copy the source text of this tiddler to your TW in a new tiddler, tag it with systemConfig and save and reload. The SplashScreen will now be installed and will be visible the next time you reload your TW.
!Customizing
Once the SplashScreen has been installed and you have reloaded your TW, the splash screen html will be present in the MarkupPreHead tiddler. You can edit it and customize to your needs.
!History
* 20-07-06 : version 0.21, modified to hide contentWrapper while SplashScreen is displayed.
* 26-06-06 : version 0.2, first release
!Code
***/
//{{{
var old_lewcid_splash_restart=restart;
restart = function()
{ if (document.getElementById("SplashScreen"))
document.getElementById("SplashScreen").style.display = "none";
if (document.getElementById("contentWrapper"))
document.getElementById("contentWrapper").style.display = "block";
old_lewcid_splash_restart();
if (splashScreenInstall)
{if(config.options.chkAutoSave)
{saveChanges();}
displayMessage("TW SplashScreen has been installed, please save and refresh your TW.");
}
}
var oldText = store.getTiddlerText("MarkupPreHead");
if (oldText.indexOf("SplashScreen")==-1)
{var siteTitle = store.getTiddlerText("SiteTitle");
var splasher='\n\n<style type="text/css">#contentWrapper {display:none;}</style><div id="SplashScreen" style="border: 3px solid #ccc; display: block; text-align: center; width: 320px; margin: 100px auto; padding: 50px; color:#000; font-size: 28px; font-family:Tahoma; background-color:#eee;"><b>'+siteTitle +'</b> is loading<blink> ...</blink><br><br><span style="font-size: 14px; color:red;">Requires Javascript.</span></div>';
if (! store.tiddlerExists("MarkupPreHead"))
{var myTiddler = store.createTiddler("MarkupPreHead");}
else
{var myTiddler = store.getTiddler("MarkupPreHead");}
myTiddler.set(myTiddler.title,oldText+splasher,config.options.txtUserName,null,null);
store.setDirty(true);
var splashScreenInstall = true;
}
//}}}
/***
http://tiddlystyles.com/#theme:DevFire
Author: Clint Checketts
***/
/*{{{*/
body {
background: #000; font-size:.80em;
}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Link styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
a,
a.button,
#mainMenu a.button,
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a{
color: #ffbf00;
border: 0;
background: transparent;
}
a:hover,
a.button:hover,
#mainMenu a.button:hover,
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a:hover
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a:active{
color: #ff7f00;
border: 0;
border-bottom: #ff7f00 1px dashed;
background: transparent;
text-decoration: none;
}
#displayArea .button.highlight{
color: #ffbf00;
background: #4c4c4c;
}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Header styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
.header{
border-bottom: 2px solid #ffbf00;
color: #fff;
}
.headerForeground a {
color: #fff;
}
.header a:hover {
border-bottom: 1px dashed #fff;
}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Main menu styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
#mainMenu {color: #fff;}
#mainMenu h1{
font-size: 1.1em;
}
#mainMenu li,#mainMenu ul{
list-style: none;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Sidebar styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
#sidebar {
right: 0;
color: #fff;
border: 2px solid #ffbf00;
border-width: 0 0 2px 2px;
}
#sidebarOptions {
background-color: #4c4c4c;
padding: 0;
}
#sidebarOptions a{
margin: 0;
color: #ffbf00;
border: 0;
}
#sidebarOptions a:hover {
color: #4c4c4c;
background-color: #ffbf00;
}
#sidebarOptions a:active {
color: #ffbf00;
background-color: transparent;
}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel {
background-color: #333;
margin: 0;
}
#sidebarTabs {background-color: #4c4c4c;}
#sidebarTabs .tabSelected {
padding: 3px 3px;
cursor: default;
color: #ffbf00;
background-color: #666;
}
#sidebarTabs .tabUnselected {
color: #ffbf00;
background-color: #5f5f5f;
padding: 0 4px;
}
#sidebarTabs .tabUnselected:hover,
#sidebarTabs .tabContents {
background-color: #666;
}
.listTitle{color: #FFF;}
#sidebarTabs .tabContents a{
color: #ffbf00;
}
#sidebarTabs .tabContents a:hover{
color: #ff7f00;
background: transparent;
}
#sidebarTabs .txtMoreTab .tabSelected,
#sidebarTabs .txtMoreTab .tab:hover,
#sidebarTabs .txtMoreTab .tabContents{
color: #ffbf00;
background: #4c4c4c;
}
#sidebarTabs .txtMoreTab .tabUnselected {
color: #ffbf00;
background: #5f5f5f;
}
.tab.tabSelected, .tab.tabSelected:hover{color: #ffbf00; border: 0; background-color: #4c4c4c;cursor:default;}
.tab.tabUnselected {background-color: #666;}
.tab.tabUnselected:hover{color:#ffbf00; border: 0;background-color: #4c4c4c;}
.tabContents {
background-color: #4c4c4c;
border: 0;
}
.tabContents .tabContents{background: #666;}
.tabContents .tabSelected{background: #666;}
.tabContents .tabUnselected{background: #5f5f5f;}
.tabContents .tab:hover{background: #666;}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Message area styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
#messageArea {background-color: #666; color: #fff; border: 2px solid #ffbf00;}
#messageArea a:link, #messageArea a:visited {color: #ffbf00; text-decoration:none;}
#messageArea a:hover {color: #ff7f00;}
#messageArea a:active {color: #ff7f00;}
#messageArea .messageToolbar a{
border: 1px solid #ffbf00;
background: #4c4c4c;
}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Popup styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
.popup {color: #fff; background-color: #4c4c4c; border: 1px solid #ffbf00;}
.popup li.disabled{color: #fff;}
.popup a {color: #ffbf00; }
.popup a:hover { background: transparent; color: #ff7f00; border: 0;}
.popup hr {color: #ffbf00; background: #ffbf00;}
/*}}}*/
/***
!Tiddler Display styles /% ============================================================= %/
***/
/*{{{*/
.title{color: #5cb; border-top: 1px solid #187;}
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5 {
color: #fff;
background-color: transparent;
border-bottom: 1px solid #333;
}
.subtitle{
color: #666;
}
.viewer {color: #fff; }
.viewer table{background: #666; color: #fff;}
.viewer th {background-color: #996; color: #fff;}
.viewer pre, .viewer code {color: #ddd; background-color: #4c4c4c; border: 1px solid #ffbf00;}
.viewer hr {color: #666;}
.tiddler .button {color: #4c4c4c;}
.tiddler .button:hover { color: #ffbf00; background-color: #4c4c4c;}
.tiddler .button:active {color: #ffbf00; background-color: #4c4c4c;}
.toolbar {
color: #4c4c4c;
}
.toolbar a.button,
.toolbar a.button:hover,
.toolbar a.button:active,
.editorFooter a{
border: 0;
}
.footer {
color: #ddd;
}
.selected .footer {
color: #888;
}
.highlight, .marked {
color: #000;
background-color: #ffe72f;
}
.editorFooter {
color: #aaa;
}
.tab{
-moz-border-radius-topleft: 3px;
-moz-border-radius-topright: 3px;
}
.tagging,
.tagged{
background: #4c4c4c;
border: 1px solid #4c4c4c;
}
.selected .tagging,
.selected .tagged{
background-color: #333;
border: 1px solid #ffbf00;
}
.tagging .listTitle,
.tagged .listTitle{
color: #fff;
}
.tagging .button,
.tagged .button{
color: #ffbf00;
border: 0;
padding: 0;
}
.tagging .button:hover,
.tagged .button:hover{
background: transparent;
}
.selected .isTag .tagging.simple,
.selected .tagged.simple,
.isTag .tagging.simple,
.tagged.simple {
float: none;
display: inline;
border: 0;
background: transparent;
color: #fff;
margin: 0;
}
.cascade {
background: #4c4c4c;
color: #ddd;
border: 1px solid #ffbf00;
}
/*}}}*/
It is now 5 years since ''Concorde'' ceased gracing our skies for good. Many people assumed that a 21st century replacement might be in the works by now; in reality, not even the beginnings of a new design have reached a solitary drawing board or CAD workstation anywhere in the world.
'Progress' was never intended to work out this way. Humanity was always meant to achieve ever-greater technological feats, and push ever further outwards the boundaries of what is possible. Instead, we can __no longer__ do something that we //could// do 30 years ago. And a cursory examination confirms that Concorde is hardly the only example of this.
But I am confident in predicting that //commercial// supersonic flight is ''dead forever''. This is now a different world, where concerns over the environment, looming resource shortages and economic turmoil mean that anything other than the leanest and most efficient solution to a problem is usually doomed. In the world of quirky exotic cars, fantasies can be indulged; but not in the aerospace world, where investments are measured in tens of billions.[>img[airframe_cutaway|graphics/blog_Concorde.jpg]]
In raw engineering terms, designing a new supersonic airframe - carrying far more passengers than Concorde - is achievable, if expensive. But the insurmountable challenge is the __engines__. Creating an aero engine that offers efficient supersonic cruise performance, whilst also managing low noise and low emissions during take-off and approach, is essentially impossible with current technology.
So the revival of supersonic flight will remain a dream, and //that// represents one giant leap backwards for mankind.
Right, I've changed my mind. It seems that another round of fuel price protests really //is// [[about to arrive|http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2225276,00.html]]. And contrary to my earlier decision (see the [[previous entry|Protesting against reality]]), I shall be supporting them (after brimming my petrol tank), but not for the same reasons as most people.
If chaos ensues, as it did last time, it will be a wonderful primer for the near-term future, when genuine fuel shortages begin to happen. This is our chance to observe, monitor, and prepare for an oil drought. I hope the authorities are paying attention, and will make good use of this to plan how to make the country function with //much less// oil. I've no doubts it can be done, but I have serious doubts that anyone up there is taking it seriously
The extraordinary happenings of last year have made 2009 feel exceptionally unpredictable. In common with some of the world's [[experts|Expertease]], I'm not even going to attempt any predictions for the months ahead. Instead, here are some questions on the frustrations of modern technology:
* Why are factory-fit [[sat-navs|A partnership of micro and mega]] in new cars still dizzyingly, eye-wateringly expensive, when you can buy a fully functional portable sat-nav in the shops for £100?
* On a related note, why does a car cost __dramatically less__ than the sum of even a fraction of its replaceable spare parts? Why does an automotive ECU, with a small number of functions, cost much more than a high-powered all-purpose PC? Both are mass-produced electronic items - surely environmental hardening factors alone can't explain this?
* Why does a typical PC from 2009 take __just as long__ to boot as a typical PC from 1994?
* Why is there no mainstream electronics manufacturer producing the __products that most consumers //actually// want__: simple, understandable, high quality and robust mobiles phones, cameras, car radios, digiboxes etc? Did anyone ever //request// complexity?
* Why is __true reliability__ still remarkably rare? My definition of a 'reliable' device is one where you //cannot remember// when it last failed to Just Work^^TM^^. In my little world, this applies to limited electrical and mechanical hardware, but to //almost zero// devices that contain software. Yes, even humble DAB radios and digital cameras can and do crash.
* Why can we place large, fragile satellites into precise orbits with greater a success rate than we can run on-time trains (OK, money may play a part here)?
This initial list merely reflects what recently popped into my head: this entry will be expanded and amended over time - suggestions on a postcard!
The great financial crisis of 2008, and its interplay with other pressing challenges such as [[peak oil|A deluded response]] and [[climate change|Environment - it's real]], has created one hell of a feeding frenzy for conspiracy theorists and doomsters across the world.
Many of their increasingly-dramatic writings make for fascinating reading, and however seriously you choose to take them, they undoubtedly bring some new insights into the issues that matter. But their collective belief that current tumultuous events really are the '__final great unravelling__' of the modern capitalist world, will be tested once-and-for-all in the weeks and months ahead.
If they are wrong this time - and if we return to some sort of stable normality, even for a while - then it should represent a cataclysmic blow to their significance, which is a more palatable prospect than the cataclysmic '__end of the world__'.
We certainly live in fascinating times, and there is plenty to be concerned about. But even the most celebrated doomsters have been wildly wrong many times before. If they are right this time - and things do look pretty sticky out there - let's just say that none of us will be bored in 2009....
In just over a year from now, the world will change dramatically for the better. This, of course, will be the date on which George W Bush leaves office forever. An occasion as wonderful as this deserves to be marked by the ''Party of the Century''.
I've already started planning the celebrations. For whoever may replace this most appalling, despicable, incompetent and dangerous US President - surely the worst Western leader since the birth of liberal democracy - they cannot possibly be anything other than immeasurably superior.
The USA is still enormously powerful, and its leader still shapes the world stage - as if anyone needed reminding. The damage wrought to our planet - yes, ''//our//'' planet, not his - during 8 years of Bush bedevilment is hard to quantify. It will take years, maybe decades, to undo. Let us simply hope and pray this his successor is up to the job, and makes a convincing start.
Meanwhile, put ''20 January 2009'' in your diaries, as this will be the day when our twisted world receives its greatest blessing in a generation.
...is surely the ultimate embodiment of short-sighted, backward-thinking, braindead muppetry. Or at least, that's the impression I get from looking at the pathetically uninspiring homes springing up all around here at the moment. As usual, all we see is repetitive, yawn-inducing designs, shoddy quality, endless scrimping and corner-cutting, and hopelessly inefficient use of space.
This latter point doesn't just refer to the interior of the houses themselves, but whole estates seem designed to destroy any sense of community by breaking everything up into tiny little blocks, connecting by pointlessly swirling roads, with little (as in too small to get a car into) garages plonked randomly here and there, disconnected from the houses of course.
Here in Britain, we are still installing sinks without mixer taps, family bathrooms without showers, bedrooms without storage closets, and heating systems based on 1950s technology.
The Great British Housebuilder won't take a single step towards the future unless forced to at gunpoint by the government. And they don't seem particularly bothered - beyond the energy efficiency aspect - so progress is minimal.
Only in the UK could there be a pervasive, anti-development force that can hold almost every area of the country to ransom. No single organisation is responsible, but there's a collective psyche out there that is determined to nail the country into some imaginary point in its past.
The 'need' to preserve the look and feel of //everything// historic - including mass-produced low-value buildings from any given period - now seems to take precedence over any other issue.
The urgent need to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock is trumped by the sanctity of 'historic' window frames. We would rather let the lights go out in our picture-postcard towns and villages than have them 'blighted' by the occasional discrete solar panel or double glazed unit. Even the status of London as a global business capital is continually threatened by development constraints on its buildings and transport infrastructure. Never mind that it has changed for 2,000 years - why must it stop changing now?
Like those of the Health & Safety brigade, the powers of the Heritage Police know no bounds.
The diametric opposite of this can be seen in Malaysia, where rampant over-development is gradually concreting over vast tracts of the country, with seemingly no limit on the number of 40-storey tower blocks that can be built in one crowded area. Preservation of heritage and natural wonders is clearly //way// down the agenda over there.
''So where's the happy medium?''
The only thing constant is change, so they say - and few could argue. In fact, constant change has //always// been with us, but the sheer //pace// of it these days is genuinely new. The explosion of technology - not to mention cheap energy - has enabled this. But change isn't something that simply "happens" (thank you Zurich); things change because //''we''// change them.
In our old part of the world, the local train operator changed its ownership and/or name (and therefore livery, signage and web site) ''6 times'' in 20 years. The tatty old trains from the early 1980s remained, of course, in their ever-fresh and ever-different colours. The wastage, public confusion and general pointlessness of this is staggering. Companies used to carve their names in stone above their premises - and all over their railway stations, of course. It's hard to imagine that in this age of transience.
Of course, much change is unnecessary fizz; it occurs merely as a rapid response to other changes. Conversely, bigger 'planned' changes can take so long to implement that they're irrelevant when completed ... because the world has changed so fast around them. To me, the faster something changes, the //less// it matters - that's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to our transient world.
Perhaps we have simply forgotten how to recognise and value true timelessness when we meet it.
Last week saw the 'climate camp' protest at Heathrow Airport, which provoked the usual outpouring of nonsense, ignorance and prejudice, on both sides of a debate that completely missed the most important points.
Heathrow is a grim, ghastly place, and does indeed shame London. The gateway to the world deserves better, and [[Terminal 5|http://www.heathrow-airport-guide.co.uk/terminal-5.html]] can't open a day too soon. The economic importance of the airport means its development is a national priority. If we absolutely have to have a new runway, better that it be Heathrow than anywhere else, as it has by far the best location for a mega-transport hub.
But I'm against it, not purely for environmental reasons, but because it is ''//pointless//''. The assumption that air travel will continue to grow is utterly invalid. [[Peak Oil]] is coming our way, like it or not, and air travel will be one of the first things to be hit. Spending billions building runways that will lie empty in 30 years' time is clearly madness. So why, yet again, do our politicians refuse to be honest with us?
In some less savoury parts of the world, people live in perpetual fear, as gangs roam the streets and rule entire neighbourhoods, extorting money from ordinary citizens for 'protection'.
Well, now it's happening in the software world as well. No prizes for guessing that Micro$oft, the evil empire, is behind it. This is the company whose tactics have already been compared to those of a drug dealer (by a Brazilian government minister, no less). Micro$oft's latest trick is to persuade major open source companies that Linux might just infringe its (unspecified) patents, but that everything will be OK if they sign up to a nice little 'cooperation' agreement. It started with Novell - one of the big fish - and recently, Xandros and Linspire have joined the dubious club as well.
Thankfully, the biggest fish of all in the Linux world - Red Hat and Ubuntu (Canonical) - have publicly declared that they will not be succumbing to Micro$oft's little protection racket. Mandriva has declined as well.
This ought to be the final straw, but I fear it won't be. Micro$oft knows no boundaries when it comes to bleeding customers dry, illegally manipulating markets, spreading FUD, and strong-arming anyone who stands in its way into submission. Micro$oft's idea of 'cooperation' closely matches most people's ideas of slow but steady annihilation. This is a company you should trust about as far as you can throw a large volcanic island.
Now that environmentalism is fashionable, every company wants the world to know that they are doing their bit to reduce carbon emissions. But in the desperate rush to appear green, some of the claims being made are amusing at best, and insulting to our intelligence at worst.
The latest eco-nonsense comes from Thomsonfly, the charter airline, who have spun the removal of on-board blankets as an environmental decision. They argue that by reducing the laden weight of the aircraft, emissions are reduced. Well yes, but presumably, by an amount that is so small it would be impossible to even measure. I wonder if even [[Ryanair|Would you shop in a Ryanair supermarket?]] would stoop this low?
There's plenty of this sort of token environmentalism around. Perhaps we should be thankful, in that at least it keeps the issue at the forefront of people's minds; but conversely, it makes people falsely believe that they're making a difference.
It seems that we will do //anything// to help the environment; apart from actually //doing something//, that is.
We've just experienced the fun of riding a ''steam train'' on one of Britain's burgeoning 'heritage railways'. Recalling that the best of our shiny modern inter-city trains travels //''not one mph faster''// in service than the [[pinnacle of steam locomotives|http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/mallard.htm]], it is interesting to reflect on the role that 'steam power' still plays in the modern age.
The vast majority of the world's electricity generation is still driven by steam turbines. This includes all coal and nuclear power stations, as well as the bulk of the output from gas-fired combined-cycle plants. And steam power is playing a key role in the [[renewables revolution|Renewables: time for battle]] as well: deep geothermal, biomass and concentrating solar power plants all depend on it.
Of course, a modern steam turbine bears no //mechanical// resemblance to the piston and crank drivetrain of a steam locomotive; but the //thermal// principles are identical. Key benefits of the switch to turbines include power-to-size (and weight) ratio, and sheer reliability. For engineering amusement, it makes you wonder what a modern steam //turbine//-powered train could achieve - although [[they proved unpromising|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive]] in the past.
But the key point is that the '''age of steam' never ended'': without steam power, the lights - not to mention the laptop screens - @@color(#666):''would be staying firmly dark''@@.
The success of ''Linux'' on the desktop [[may be limited|Is desktop Linux failing?]], but its astounding success elsewhere cannot be ignored. One such area is the embedded market - the small, portable electronic devices that make millions of you out there Linux users without realising it.
The ''~TomTom'' satnav devices are popular embedded Linux products, and Micro$oft - which has been quite open in threatening various legal assaults - has now [[gone for TomTom|http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/27/microsoft_tomtom_opensource_future/]], in what many pundits are predicting could be "''The Big One''". The case involves, amongst other issues, the infamous VFAT file system. This ancient Micro$oft relic, despite being flakey and utterly obsolete, is still the 'lingua franca' of electronic devices and portable storage, including memory cards and USB sticks.
The looming patent battle, via the ~TomTom case, offers the strongest justification yet for the long-overdue death of VFAT - plenty of [[free|Freedom - through software?]] and hugely superior alternatives exist. More broadly, it reminds us of two things:
* Micro$oft's continued attempts to dominate every level of computing, through fair means or foul, are a grave threat to us all
* The US software patent regime [[continues to stifle innovation|http://news.zdnet.co.uk/leader/0,1000002982,39619904,00.htm]] and retard the rate of technological progress, and must be fought
There is a ''$5 billion lawsuit'' that you've never heard of, and that you've never read about in the newspapers. It began in 2003, and [[it has yet to end|http://groklaw.net]]. It involves a small and failing software company that tried to take on the biggest names in the IT world - IBM, for instance.
The lawsuit is centred on Linux, whose rise was but one factor threatening this small and failing company. It decided to try imposing a 'tax' on Linux, thereby ripping away its very [[freedom|Freedom - through software?]], which has brought so many benefits to millions of us all over the world. Thankfully, it failed utterly. But despite the collapse of the company into bankruptcy protection, the recent [[removal of its repugnant CEO|http://blogs.computerworld.com/14942/sco_fires_ceo_darl_mcbride]], and the sheer waste of incalculable hours of court time, it simply refuses to die.
The company is called ''SCO'': three letters that should forever symbolise the race to the lowest depths of America's lawsuit-infested corporate 'culture'. Will the SCO saga ever end? And when it does, who, exactly, will have won anything? We all know the answer to that.
Over the past 50 years, we've all grown accustomed to the ''"small world"'', thanks to the [[air transport|Fly like you mean it]] revolution. Of course, the world is no smaller than it was 4.5 billion years ago, but our ability to reach almost any point on its surface within 48 hours has changed our perspective.
It has also encouraged us to live disparate, scattered lives. In a very literal sense, our personal worlds are vastly //bigger// than ever before, with personal connections, interests and memories touching every corner of the globe. So much for a small world.
But it's all starting to change again. Local is the new global, and if [[oil prices|135 and rising]] are going to stay on an upward path, the localisation trend will accelerate. Travel is going to become more expensive and more difficult, and this applies to goods (from food upwards) as much as to ourselves.
This presents many fascinating economic opportunities - such as a possible revival of local manufacturing - and as I always remind people, the coming energy descent will have many positive side-effects. But as our own personal spheres shrink, the 'small world' may begin to feel rather __big__ again.
The electricity portion of our future renewable energy pie is often viewed as the 'easy' portion. Perhaps it's better described as "the most difficult portion, apart from the other two". But however things play out, we really have three key options for generating low-carbon electricity. They are as follows:
* ''Nuclear'' - which is low (but definitely not zero) carbon, still cripplingly expensive, time-consuming to build, and which can only realistically provide baseload power
* [[CCS|Clean coal - myth or reality?]] - which is low (but again, definitely not zero) carbon, highly expensive, thus far unproven at utility scales, and which drastically lowers the ultimate efficiency of fossil fuel power plants - but it is //dispatchable// and can thus meet varying load profiles
* ''Renewables'' - which can be close to zero carbon, remain expensive at present, and which present all sorts of variability and grid integration challenges, which can probably be solved with the appropriate technologies (and money)
Devising an energy mix that's affordable, whilst helping us meet our legally-binding carbon targets, will not be easy. But we have to look ahead: ultimately, __neither__ of the first two qualify as 'sustainable'. They are //transitional// technologies that buy us time, and thus may have a role to play over the next couple of decades; but the long-term future, if we have one, belongs only to number three. Deep green renewables are where I'd be putting my money.
Take a look behind the dramatic financial headlines that have shaken the world this month, and focus on some of the __numbers__. Are the figures not terrifying? Can we even get our heads around the sheer scale of what is happening? I suspect not.
But some perspective can be gained by comparing the numbers to our collective spending on ''sustainable energy'' and ''combating climate change''. Politicians never fail to remind us that these issues are the "gravest threat to mankind", yet unsurprisingly, the rhetoric is not matched by spending - not even by two orders of magnitude.
The miserly amounts being put into such [[fiascos|Money for nothing (and muppetry for free)]] as the LCBP, or vital energy technology research, pale into insignificance when compared to amounts being used to bail-out banks and reward recklessness. The widely-respected Stern Review in 2006 explained in concrete terms the relative costs of taking action versus doing nothing. The UK government commissioned this report, yet seems content to ignore its conclusions.
Just imagine if even 1% of what is being spent on bank bailouts - or wars, for that matter - by the US and UK - was diverted towards accelerating clean energy. But instead of investing the for future, we're busy desperately resuscitating a failed past.
Why do earth-shattering events often seem to happen in ''September''? A closer look at this unassuming month reveals its bizzarely unique qualities. Whilst the transition in seasons brings equal daylight hours and a predominance of benign weather at all latitudes, hurricane activity actually peaks. Intriguingly, September also contrives to be the month of lowest global oil demand.
And yet, as most of the northern hemisphere, at least, swings back into action after the long summer lull, strange things often seem to happen. Game-changing events include the resurgent Middle East crisis beginning in 2000, the 9/11 attacks in the USA, and of course, the current extraordinary financial meltdown, as the credit crunch fallout reaches another crescendo.
Within the UK sphere, we could point to Black Wednesday in 1992 - now a mere blip compared to last week's carnage; the soul-searching aftermath of Diana's death in 1997; the fuel crisis explosion in 2000 (when petrol was a good 30p/litre //cheaper// than today); and the Northern Rock bank run and subsequent collapse last year.
But what is it that regularly conspires to prevent September - which of course //should// be the 7th month, not the 9th - from being a month of dull normality?
Everyone knows that everyday computers continually get faster at a dizzying rate. Or do they? Well, the 'Gigahertz Wars' of the early noughties seem like a distant memory, and unlike the browser wars, they are not coming back. When measured in good old gigahertz terms, our high-end ~PCs are actually a little slower than they were in, say, late 2004.
But first, a little history. ''AMD'' pulled a great trick by releasing the first mainstream ''1 ~GHz'' chip in 2000. The Gigahertz Wars were on, with ''2 ~GHz'' arriving in 2001, ''3 ~GHz'' in late 2002. ''Intel'' had responded by actually designing a [[less efficient chip|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4]], purely so it could achieve high clock speeds for marketing purposes. So when did we reach ''4 ~GHz''? Well, __never__, as it happens. The race was abandoned at 3.8 ~GHz, and no subsequent chip has beaten this - overclockers with nitrogen cooling excepted. This didn't come about due to a sober return to sense; hitting the buffers of nanoscale ultra-frequency physics might have had something to do with it.
So are today's computers actually slower? Well, not really: increasing processor performance is achieved through microarchitectural efficiency, and of course, by having ever more multi-cores on a chip. Multi-core is all very well in some circumstances, but fully exploiting it depends entirely on the //software//, and we all know that [[software sucks|Why do OSes still suck?]]. So the race continues, but it's a very different race these days.
What would you expect to happen if the price of an everyday item rose dramatically? By this, I mean a near-quadrupling in price, over a relatively short period. Obviously, demand would fall, perhaps by a large percentage. Simple economics, right?
We've seen it happen with various goods and services, from common foodstuffs upwards. But for one important commodity, this simply hasn't happened. I'm talking about oil of course.
Prices are now approaching $90/barrel, a level predicted by precisely //zero// mainstream analysts, as recently as two years ago. This is a staggeringly long way above the now-laughable OPEC 'comfort' price range of $22-28/barrel, which was endlessly promoted just a few short years ago. So what has happened to demand, in the wake of this near-quadrupling in prices? Absolutely ''//nothing//'', of course. And how high will prices go? I don't have the answer, but don't expect the 'experts' to either; they've been heroically wrong at every step of this journey to an unknown summit.
This situation should frighten us. We are so critically dependent on oil that we will happily pay any price for it. Life goes on precisely as normal. The traffic jams we drive through each day haven't shortened by a metre, and the runways continue to be built. So what will it take to break the habit?
While we debate that, the oil is rapidly continuing to run dry, and we are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for it.
Last Friday we headed off to rock the capital of the world once again. ''London'' is a place you where you can never be bored. Walking the streets and simply absorbing the atmosphere, the architecture, and the multilingual buzz is entertainment enough.
Everything is here. The old world and the new world. 2,000 years of history and the leading edge of fashion, cuisine and entertainment. 300 languages and one unifying grit. The juxtaposition of hideous eyesores with 21st century icons. The orderly parks and gardens and the chaotic skyline.
The problem is, it makes everywhere else - in the UK, at least - feel a bit irrelevant. As we return to our beautiful, peaceful and pleasant country towns, there's always that feeling that we've left something behind. Even for a resolutely non-city person, the buzz becomes addictive. It's even worth paying the world's most expensive travel fares to experience.
Saving time is a time-consuming business these days. Often, to do it requires learning some new tricks and new tools, and that ... takes time. Usually not very much; but still, we're far too busy for that.
In today's frenetic work culture, I've noticed that everyone is so busy being busy that they actually have no time to learn how to do things efficiently. And the surprising thing is that we thus do most of our tasks ... wildly inefficiently. It's a cultural phenomenon, and I've come across it in many workplaces.
So what's the solution? How can we encourage people to devote 5% - or even 1% - of their time to learning new tools, so that the other 95 or 99% of their time becomes more productive? Well, perhaps I've answered my own question - maybe if we did that, we would end up even more //driven// towards obsessive busy-ness?
Every time I drive now, I'm constantly staggered by the sheer amount of traffic. It seems that everyone is going everywhere, all the time. Main roads, back roads, day and night, it seems to make no difference. There's no such thing as a rush-hour any more. When will the madness end? Perhaps when ''oil prices double again'', which they might? [''__UPDATE__'' - and yes they have - it did [[not take long|135 and rising]]]
Our societies could be vastly more efficient, but the incentives just aren't strong enough yet. We keep claiming we can't build our way out of the roads crisis, and yet we keep trying. I've never known a time when there were more bypasses being built - I can name seven in my own region, opening within a 2-year period. And yes, I currently benefit enormously from two of these, on my regular commute between home and Cranfield. But the traffic volumes just keep on growing, and it won't be long before these shiny new roads are once again inadequate. Unless something changes - which it will have to....
Like many of you, I'm addicted to my car, and you can prise it out of my cold, dead hands, thank you very much. OK, so I do live in a town with no train station. But I have a personal dilemma - love of cars versus environmentalism and peak oil fears - and I'm looking for answers.
1. Linux is the name behind a free, powerful operating system kernel - the core software that makes a computer run. Completely free and open operating systems built around Linux have changed the computing landscape in recent years, and Linux has become a standard bearer for the global Free Software movement.
2. Millions of computers don't run Windows; they frequently run variants or clones of a thoroughbred system called Unix, which has existed for more than 35 years. Linux is now the most widespread of these many Unix variants.
3. Linux is not centrally controlled by any single organisation; it's a global movement, or a community, of many individual developers, companies and end users.
4. Linux systems come in many flavours, all based on the same common building blocks. Linux is massively flexible, and runs on all types of computer, from ~PCs to Apple Macs, and from smart phones to IBM mainframes.
5. Linux systems can do everything that people demand of computers: from word processing to firewalls, from enterprise databases to 3D games, from software development to sound mixing.
6. Linux is not new - the Linux kernel itself was started in 1991, and the Free Software movement behind it has existed since 1984. It's been attracting press attention since the late 1990s.
7. Linux is not a fad; few fads, especially in technology, survive for 17 years and attract the attention and investment of governments and large corporations. Linux has grown dramatically every year since its inception.
8. Linux is a huge challenge to Microsoft - though by accident, not design. After nearly 20 years, Microsoft's steady rise to dominance in mainstream computing is finally being challenged.
9. Linux is everywhere, though you may not have knowingly seen it. It's still uncommon on ordinary desktop ~PCs; but on other types of system, such as the servers that power the internet, Linux is already widespread.
10. Linux's freedom is hugely significant, but it's also simply a great, powerful and flexible operating system for you or your organisation.
11. There are other free operating systems, and a vast ecosystem of Free Software in general. Linux is the most popular and the most visible of the free ~OSes, but members the BSD family, which are also Unix-based, are notably found on many servers.
It is well known that the best technologies do not always succeed in the marketplace. But how often does the //worst// offering come to dominate its market to the extent that its competitors are repeatedly consigned to history, one by one?
The market in question is, of course, that of the humble and ubiquitous ''PC''. I'll refrain from launching another tirade about the Micro$oft Windows operating system, or the Internet Explorer browser - those are excellent examples, but form a rather special case. It's the __hardware__ in which I'm interested.
Every PC you've ever used - and any current Mac as well - is based on the ''Intel x86'' architecture, whose lineage goes back to the late 1970s. Since the outset, it has been almost universally derided as the clunkiest and least elegant of all computer instruction architectures. Yet it has gradually trumped all of its competitors, and now enjoys an entrenched domination of every tier of computing from netbooks to million-dollar supercomputers.
Most extraordinarily, //Intel itself// tried to supplant its long-in-the-tooth x86 baby with the ~IA64 //''Itanium''// architecture, the very spectre of which caused some key competitors to roll over and die several years ago. But whilst struggling on, the Itanium remains a truly [[spectacular failure|graphics/blog_Itanium.png]] - perhaps the biggest and most expensive in computing history.
Meanwhile, the humble x86 lives on, now in 64-bit guise thanks to ''AMD'', whose substantial innovation was soon wisely copied by Intel. And perhaps it doesn't matter any more - the current generation of x86 computer processors are powerful, capable and scalable. Somwhere deep down inside, Intel itself must be amazed.
My interest in serious hi-fi equipment waned some years ago, spurred on by nutty stories of people ''digging up gardens'' to install better-quality electrical supply cables, ''moving walls'' to improve room acoustics, assessing the sound quality of different rubber support feet, and spending ''£400/meter'' on the ultimate cabling - yes, even for cables carrying //digital// signals (the debate continues)!
In the end, the goal of high-end hi-fi is to preserve //to perfection// the source signal read from the music medium, right through the long and tortuous path to the speakers. But the ultimate limitation is the quality of the music medium itself - garbage in, garbage out.
When the ''venerable CD'' - the first mass-market digital music medium - appeared in the 1980s, it offered us a leap in quality, as accepted by most audiophiles, though not all. We //can// do vastly better now - but we //don't//, of course. For years, audiophiles wondered which physical music medium would supplant the CD, offering us another boost in quality. The answer, it seems, is __none__; the CD will forever remain the high water mark in ubiquitous physical music formats.
We live in the age of the ~MP3* and of 'portable' music. ~MP3 and its competitor formats are compressed, stripped out, reduced-quality packets of digital music - so we have taken a step //backwards// in quality, just as we did when cassettes replaced vinyl ~LPs. [[Lossless|http://flac.sourceforge.net/]] digital audio compression exists, but is not widely used. So ultimately, spending thousands on serious audiophile equipment is much harder to justify if we're going to be feeding (relative) garbage in.
*If you're joining this retrograde 'revolution', I would strongly recommend [[Ogg Vorbis|http://www.vorbis.com/faq]] over ~MP3.
Energy is one of ''the'' issues of our time. Concerns over security of supply, and over the environment, have rightly pushed it to the top of the agenda.
Since embarking on my [[MSc course|http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/students/courses/page1320.jsp]], I have been repeatedly reminded that for once, I'm going to be in the right place at the right time. Stories about the looming energy crisis scream out from every newspaper, radio programme and political debate. We have some serious problems coming our way. To escape them, as well as having governments providing supportive frameworks, we need ''engineers'' to devise and implement creative solutions.
So although engineering has long been an awkward choice in the UK - due to this country's lamentable disrespect of professional engineers - this particular sector looks set to offer some fascinating opportunities in the near future. What's more, it's something you can believe in!
Aren't modern ~PCs amazing? The little whirring box under your feet looks much the same as it did in 1992. But inside, it's at least ''1,000'' times more powerful by almost every measure, and can process more data in a millisecond than a human could process in a month. Even more remarkably, it probably cost you no more than a few tanks of 2008 petrol.
But whilst the hardware has roared ahead, the software that drives it is still rooted in the problems of the past. The fundamental design challenges in operating systems have not been solved, and the user interface paradigm is still broadly the same as 20 years ago. We still have most of the same problems of unreliability, complexity, awkward management tools, slow pace of development, and of course ''bloat''.
Booting up my dual-core 64-bit monster machine and opening a document takes exactly as long as it did in 1992 on a 4MB 386. Yes, it can do more, but re-installing or upgrading the operating system takes much longer, and has far more ptifalls. Random glitches occur //just// as often, even if the overall platform is admittedly much more stable. But basically, most __software still sucks__. And for once, this is not an anti-Microsoft rant; the lamentable list above applies just as equally to the Linux that I currently use.
How many more decades will it take to create the OS embodiment of design perfection?
I will soon be flying, once again, with Ryanair, the world's [[least enjoyable airline|http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6087016.stm]]. The extraordinary thing is that they're almost proud of it. You have to admire them for turning shoddy service from a damaging liability into a cornerstone of their marketing mix.
Being 'low cost' is hardly an excuse. Their superior rivals at @@color(#f70):''easyJet''@@ manage to run a low-cost airline that's perfectly acceptable, and doesn't leave you feeling like you've been cheated and trampled on. Ryanair, on the other hand, is a veritable flying cattle truck. You already know about the baggage heist, but now they even charge you //extra// for on-line check-in, even though it //saves them money//.
So just imagine what a Ryanair supermarket would be like. Large, garish adverts would appear in newspapers declaring that the products on their shelves were the cheapest available anywhere. You'd be tempted in by the promise of a 1p loaf of bread. But you'd arrive and discover there's a trolley rental fee, checkout handling fee, and chiller cabinet surcharge. And if you should deign to go grocery shopping as a couple, these charges would be levied //twice// - naturally.
Unthinkable? But when it comes to flying, we seem to tolerate this in our millions!
Now that I've left the IT world forever, I've returned to a field with more mundane - or perhaps more //normal// - job titles. Myself, I'm just a common-or-garden "project manager" these days - a ubiquitous title that can essentially mean anything. But from back in the IT world comes news of surely the job title of the decade (look closely):
[img[business_card|graphics/blog_metaverse.jpg]]
No, I have absolutely no idea what it means either. Perhaps IBM is branching out and founding some new religions? But anyway, //you// had better find out what it means, in case your child comes bounding to the breakfast table one day with a gleeful cry of "''Daddy, I want to be a Metaverse Evangelist when I grow up!''" Stranger things have happened....
Apple's iPhone has generated plenty of hype in recent months. But if you look beyond the first-glance appeal of this trendy device, you'll find that it represents another battlefront in the ugly DRM war on consumers.
The iPhone's functionality is deliberately restricted, in order to lock you into certain networks and compel you to purchase only approved services and add-ons. Many clever people have tried to break free from these chains, and extend the functionality of the device, [[just as they have done|http://www.rockbox.org]] for many ~MP3 players, including the iPod itself.
Apple's response has been to force software updates that effectively [[disable the device|http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/iphone_update_response]] altogether. That's what you get for invoking your freedom to use something you paid for in the way that you please.
You should avoid the iPhone like the plague. Apple is a deeply proprietary company, which is fine up to a point; but when their lock-in is threatened, they are every bit as [[unpleasant as Micro$oft|The digital protection racket]] when it comes to using our own technology against us.