Coldstreams

I forgot that in 2011-2019 I experimented with cross posting my main blog posts at coldstreams.com to Tumblr. Just re-discovered my old Tumblr blogs today. If the 1000+ old posts here, I deleted a bunch of them as no longer relevant - plus deleted the entire Social Panic blog content - was way too old.

My blogs are still live at coldstreams.com, social.coldstreams.com and a new one at coldstreams.com/travel

Source: eHighway | Electromobility | Siemens

Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 20% to 35% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 65-80% of total power is emitted as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft

Source: Engine efficiency – Wikipedia

The battery is highly efficient. Li-ion has 99 percent charge efficiency, and the discharge loss is small. In comparison, the energy efficiency of the fuel cell is 20 to 60 percent, and the ICE is 25 to 30 percent. At optimal air intake speed and temperature, the GE90-115 on the Boeing 777 jetliner achieves an efficiency of 37 percent. The charge efficiency of a battery is connected with the ability to accept charge

Source: Comparing battery power with other power sources

Specific energy (capacity)

Compared to fossil fuel, the energy storage capability of the battery is less impressive. The energy by mass of gasoline is over 12,000Wh/kg. In contrast, a modern Li-ion battery only carries about 200Wh/kg; however the battery has the advantage of delivering energy more effectively than a thermal engine.

Source: Comparing battery power with other power sources

A kg of gasoline has about 12,000 watt hours of energy but, per the above, the internal combustion engine translates perhaps 30% or 4,000 watt hours into useful work (moving the vehicle).

A kg of a Li-Ion battery is about 200 watt hours. To achieve similar power output to 1 kg of gasoline, we need about 20 kg of Li-Ion cells. To replace the roughly ten gallon fuel tank in my compact car …

10 gallons is about 38 kg of fuel. Mulitply that by 20 and we need about 760 kg of Li-Ion battery pack. Sort of. In some scenarios, the Li-Ion pack will be recharged by regenerative braking. Otherwise, we need about 1,700 pounds of Li-Ion cells to replicate the 10 gallons of gas. This is right in line with the Tesla model 3 having a battery pack weight of 1,054 pounds (and less range than my compact car) and a specific energy of about 168 watt hours/kg.

An undercover tracking program is revealing the toll of the e-waste trade.

Source: The dark side of electronic waste recycling – The Verge

People want to feel good about “doing the right thing”. Recycling is an example of a “feel good” activity and “ethical recyclers” stepped in to help people feel good about their recycling. But the recyclers were not doing what they claimed. Enormous and toxic electronics waste tonnage was sent off to China where it created an environmental mess.

Like many activities, corruption and fraud take hold. Another related area is carbon offsets, where activities having little benefit may occur and where much of the offset work is invisible (and untrackable).

On how the environmental impact of stuff is more on the manufacturing side

A “life cycle assessment” is basically where somebody goes and looks at the full environmental impact of a product — say a smartphone — from manufacturing to disposal and looks at what the air pollution impacts are, the mining impacts, the carbon impacts. The one thing we do know is that the biggest impact of most products is the manufacturing side. So if you want to reduce the environmental impact of your consumption, the best way to do that is to not manufacture more stuff. In that sense, the best thing you can do is not buy more stuff.If you want to reduce the environmental impact of your consumption, the best way to do that is to not manufacture more stuff. In that sense, the best thing you can do is not buy more stuff.

The longer that your product lasts, the longer that you use that smartphone, the less likely it is that you’re going to be buying a new one. So the goal really should be to keep your stuff in use for as long as possible, whether it’s by you or somebody in Ghana or somebody in Cambodia.

Source: ‘Secondhand’ Author Adam Minter Tracks What Happens To Your Used Stuff : NPR

Most people have little understanding of the total lifecycle impacts of products they purchase, the food they eat, the cars they drive or the third-party services they consume.

This is why (see our previous posts), many people switching to an EV from a gas vehicle are delivering far less environmental benefit than they imagine they are delivering. But this applies to all of the items we purchase, use or just store.

When I’d go jogging around my old neighborhood on the weekend (before moving) and see open garage doors with garages stuffed full of stored stuff, it sure looked like some people have a problem of acquiring too much and just storing it, unused. When you realize the manufacturing of all that stuff is where the largest impacts occur, you can see that reducing one’s consumption is the best course of action to help the environment.

Some people think they should buy carbon offsets to reduce their environmental impact.

Others think that by switching to an EV, they will reduce their CO2-emissions.

And of course, some think that installing solar PV panels, they will cut their CO2-emissions.

The reality is far more complicated.

Does your electrical utility source most of its electricity from fossil fuels?

Do not buy an EV. Install solar PV panels instead.

If you live in area where all or most of the local electrical utility’s power comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas, then your purchase of an EV will yield a minimal CO2-emissions reduction (and may result in producing more CO2 when the vehicle’s lifetime energy use, half of which typically comes from its manufacture, is included, as it must be).

Installing solar panels will directly reduce your use of their fossil-fuels. Buying solar panels is a more effective first step. Although this too “depends”. If you live in a location beset by endless cloudiness, then you might have to double the solar PV investment to a cost prohibitive level.

If you already drive a relatively fuel efficient vehicle, the best possible choice for the environment is to keep driving that vehicle as long as possible. That’s because of the large amount of energy consumed during the manufacturing of vehicles (for many fuel efficient vehicles, their largest consumption of energy and production of CO2 was when the vehicle was made – not while it is being driven.)

If you replace your existing vehicle with an EV, think through the details.

You either sell your vehicle so someone else uses it to emit CO2, or you junk the vehicle, thereby throwing all the energy used during the manufacturing of the vehicle. The more fuel efficient your existing vehicle is, the larger the percent of lifetime energy was used during its manufacture.

You then buy a new EV, which consumes large amounts of energy in sourcing its raw materials, transporting sub assemblies between factories and vendors, manufacturing and delivering the vehicle. All so you can decrease your usage of gasoline while increasing your local utilities burning of coal, oil or gas and increasing their CO2 emissions!

Details matter!

Does most of your electrical utility power come from “green” energy?

If you live in an area where your local electrical generation comes all or mostly from “green” power such as hydroelectric power, then purchasing an EV or plug in hybrid EV will likely reduce your CO2-emissions.

Installing solar PV may have minimal impact on CO2 reduction – and including the panels raw materials, manufacturing, shipment and installation – may even produce more CO2 emissions.

Is your goal virtual signaling and money is no object?

Install solar PV and buy an EV.

Unfortunately, a survey by Volvo found that about 75% of EV buyers today are doing so for virtue-signaling reasons yet, paradoxically this “helps them to feel better about making less environmentally conscious decisions in “other areas of life.”‘

Wow. That last part is revealing and scary – and likely leads to such individuals increasing their CO2-emissions, rather than decreasing – because people have little understanding of the energy inputs or CO2-emission outputs of their choices.

For example, I know some people who drive one or more expensive Tesla EVs – while living in an area where almost all power comes from non-CO2 emitting hydropower. Their use of a Tesla EV has them feeling self righteous even though their CO2 emissions reductions are nil.

Worse, as wealthy individuals, they take a number of airline flights to Europe and Asia for vacation trips. They likely view their use of a Tesla EV as offsetting their airline CO2 emissions -but they are not even close to doing so.

Consequently, virtue signaling choices can lead to increasing CO2 emissions while falsely believing they are acting good for the environment.

What about carbon offsets?

As noted a day ago, the carbon offset field has its own problems with scams. These include paying people not to cut down trees that they had no plans to cut down anyway, as one example.

Undoubtedly, just as Volvo found that EV purchasers are virtue signaling and then using that as an excuse to make worse environmental decisions, the same occurs with purchasing carbon offsets.

Carbon offset purchases also have built in inefficiencies – you need to purchase them through the equivalent of a broker who likely extracts perhaps a 15% royalty for managing the process. That’s 15% that is not accomplishing any CO2-emissions reductions. Does the broker also verify that the underlying “CO2 asset” is doing what they claim its doing? There are costs associated with insuring compliance and scam avoidance.

A FAR BETTER CHOICE THAN BUYING OFFSETS

If living where your electricity comes from coal and fossil fuels, help your neighbors to:

Reduce their energy consumption by eliminating waste. This includes improving home insulation and minimizing electrical usage (such as incandescent lighting). Consider more efficient appliances, especially including refrigerators, freezers and clothes dryers. Add an insulation blanket to water heaters and/or consider replacing with on-demand water heaters.

Help them install or purchase a solar PV system.

If living where your electricity comes from green sources, then instead of installing solar PV, switch to an EV and/or help your neighbors directly to purchase EVs.

These are examples of taking direct actions where you can see the result without going through brokers (carbon offsets) and potentially investing in scams.

Disclaimer

I began making posts about energy and transportation issues because I am interested in EVs. I think they are neat. But as I did my homework, I realized that purchasing an EV is problematic for me in that it would be mostly charged by fossil fuels, and there are very, very few public charging stations within 150-200 miles of where I live, rendering cross country travel difficult, or at least risky. I learned that plug-in hybrid EVs make far more sense for us – but I also learned that environmentally, it is actually better to drive my 2015 Honda Fit getting about 42 mpg for as long as possible. That’s because most people ignore the invisible energy/emissions used/created during their vehicles manufacturing.

Separately, I run a blog on the widespread use of propaganda to influence individuals and the public, called Social Panic. Even before I read Dr. Hans Rosling’s book Factfulness, I was well aware that what we think we know is often untrue. I read his book just before I began looking at EVs and as I did my own reading, I became aware of widespread misconceptions about climate, EVs and solar PV.

While posting items on this blog about energy and transportation, I have simultaneously been writing at Social Panic about the distorted thinking that has resulted from faulty climate communications. Much of that propaganda is back firing and turning people off to understanding the issues and instead causing them to tune out. Many others with far more qualifications than I are also starting to see this problem.

We have reached a state in social media that I call the “culture of perpetual outrage”. Anything anyone says that you may disagree with (even if you beliefs are poorly sourced and even wrong) is grounds for outrage. Consequently, I end every post on climate communications with the following.

tandard Disclaimer Applies: How to Do Climate Communications – Never Cry Wolf

As I previously wrote

The Nature Conservancy should focus on facts of atmospheric CO2 levels rising, land and sea surface temperature anomalies, ice pack changes, ocean Ph and sea level change (IPCC Synthesis Report, Figure SPM.1) – as reported by reputable scientific bodies, but they did not. Instead they went straight for hyperbole and making untrue claims to promote fear and hysteria.

or

Stick with the facts of CO2 rising, sea level ice and temperature changes, ice mass changes or risk tuning all of us out. Shrill terminology designed to create emotional outrage and responses is a total turn off.

and

The facts are sufficient. The impacts of untrue propaganda hysteria, on the other hand, are to turn off the target completely. We have learned nothing from the parable of the boy who repeatedly cried Wolf!

The propaganda messaging methods in use are leading to public opinions that are not based in facts, logic or evidence. In the U.S. 51% of those aged 18-34 believe humanity may become extinct within 10-15 years, even though there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion. This disconnect between belief and reality risks the potential for major backlash against taking action to reduce CO2-equivalent effects on climate.

Some suggest focusing on solutions and opportunities – instead of unrealistic, dystopian catastrophes designed primarily as click-bait – would be a more effective and positive way forward for climate communications. Instead, we get intense negativity – and falsehoods – that have led to children and adults to seek mental health treatment for induced anxiety.

Personal Notes on Climate Realism

We are taking direct actions to reduce our CO2-equivalent emissions. In late 2019, we are spending $18,000 (before credits) to install a solar PV array that will reduce our home’s annual grid-provided electricity to net zero (likely less). Our utility generates 56% of its electricity by burning coal and 14% by burning natural gas (about half the emissions of coal). Solar PV directly cuts our portion of those GHG emissions to zero.

We are spending over $5,000 to upgrade 40 year old R-19 attic insulation (which has settled such that it is less than that) to R-49 building code standards. For an all electric house, we currently use 1/3d the amount of electricity of similar homes. We heat using locally sourced wood pellets and our home is cold most every winter day. I drive a Honda Fit averaging about 42 mpg and after researching the reality of EV usage in my climate, my geography and within my fossil-fueled electric utility footprint, I plan to keep driving it as long as possible.

While spending an amount similar to a low end electric vehicle, our solar and attic upgrades we will have a far greater reduction in CO2 emissions than buying an EV. About half of an EV’s lifetime CO2 emissions occur during its manufacturing and if you live where your electricity is generated by burning coal, your overall CO2 emissions reductions are small. While EVs will generally reduce CO2 emissions, for many they seem to be primarily a virtue signaling device (a survey by Volvo found about 75% of purchasers said this, and selected an EV because paradoxically it “helps them to feel better about making less environmentally conscious decisions in “other areas of life.” – ouch.)

I post this at the end of each climate communications post because merely asking any questions about climate change results in being called a climate denier or a Nazi.

This euphoria is largely based on assumptions that drones inevitably deliver better customer service at lower costs with a better environmental footprint than conventional delivery by a driver in a parcel van. These claims are little more than flights of fancy that cloud a more realistic assessment of the potential for the use of drones in logistics.

For the technology to work in commercial practice, however, the economics must also work.

Source: Commentary: Drone-Delivery Projects Must Look Beyond the Hype – WSJ

The primary value in drone delivery may be

1. Delivering value dense items that need to be delivered quickly. Medicine is the classic example.

2. Very short hop delivery. The USPS is experimenting with drones that launch from your local postal delivery vehicles to carry small packages up to home door steps, rather than having the postal worker have to take time to walk that distant (and deal with loose dogs!)

3. Delivering items to remote customers, not urban customers. When a delivery truck comes through my neighborhood, they commonly stop and deliver packages to multiple homes. This is pretty efficient. But delivering to remote (e.g. farms, ranches) and rural properties is not as efficient.

Recently, someone said to me that cars are the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. They are not, but it is easy to see how many people believe that they are the greatest source. For example, take this quote from MIT Technology Review

The implication, as often interpreted, is that personal cars are the greatest source. That comment comes from this EPA chart showing the Transportation segment at 29%, just barely surpassing electricity generation (transportation passed electricity in 2017):

Let’s drill down into the Transportation segment. This yields an allocation of transport related producers per the EPA:

59% of the Transportation segment (29% overall) is due to light duty vehicles used for personal transportation and for business and government.

59% of 29% is 17.11% is due to all light vehicle use including business and government. The remaining 12% is a combination of medium duty trucks (like UPS vans), large semi trucks, aircraft, rail, ships and boats, and “other”.

I was not able to find an exact figure for the percent of light duty vehicles used for personal use versus business and government. A reasonable estimate (based on some numbers I found) is that 20-25% are for business and government and 75-80% are for personal use. Some personal use vehicles are used for business and some business vehicles are used for personal, non-business use. We would also need to know how many miles are driven, and the mileage estimates for each vehicle. As you can see, there is no exact number – just broad estimates.

Using those best guesses (75% figure), personally owned vehicles account for about 13% (less than 17%) of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and are not the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Looking back at the top chart, you can see that industry (22%) and electricity (28%) are, combined, the largest segment, at 50%. A large part of the industry segment is private electricity generation – or thermal generation for processing steel, chemicals and so on – from natural gas, fuel oil and even coal – consequently, electricity/industrial generation is the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Switching the vehicle fleet from gas to electric, all else being equal, shifts the production of greenhouse gases from the vehicle segment to the electricity segment.

For example, if I were to replace my Honda Fit with an EV, on the surface it would appear to reduce my own greenhouse gas emissions from transportation to zero. But, my electric utility generates 56% of its electricity from burning coal and 14% from natural gas (total 70%). Thus, I would be outsourcing my greenhouse gas emissions to their coal and gas plants. The vehicle transportation segment would reduce its GHGs – and I could feel very virtuous – but in reality I would have shifted a large portion of my GHGs across the GHG ledger to the electrical power plants side. (It is possible that due to where I live within the utilities coverage area that more of my electricity comes from hydropower than coal/gas but I have no way of knowing – all we know is the percentage for the utility as a whole.)

In general, this should not be interpreted as saying EVs are worse for the environment. To the contrary, EVs are generally better, but be sure to understand the trade offs.

There are some locations including India, China and even some U.S. states, where EVs may be worse according to the MIT Technology Review article:

In parts of India and China with particularly dirty electricity systems, EVs may even generate more emissions than gas-fueled vehicles, says Emre Gencer, a research scientist who worked on the study.

U.S. utilities are rapidly decreasing their use of coal, almost entirely by converting to natural gas, which cuts GHGs in half (but still remaining high at about 1,000 pounds per MWH). Perhaps more significantly”. Compared to Q2 of 2018, total U.S. power generation fell by 4% in Q2 of 2019″. The reason for this drop is not specified but is presumably due to widespread energy efficiency measures. The combination of converting coal to natural gas and reduced demand for electricity has caused GHG production from electricity generation to drop by -40% since 2005. Some states such as Utah, Indiana, Delaware, Kentucky, New Mexico, Wisconsin and West Virginia, have almost all of their electricity produced by burning coal.

According to MIT Technology Review:

Currently, US carbon emissions per mile for a battery electric vehicle are on average only about 45% less than those from a gas-fueled vehicle of comparable size. That’s because fossil fuels still generate the dominant share of electricity in most markets, and the manufacturing process for EVs generates considerably higher emissions, mainly related to the battery production.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614728/why-the-electric-car-revolution-may-take-a-lot-longer-than-expected/

Compare that “45% less” to the use of hybrid vehicle versus EVs. The 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid boasts a rumored estimate of perhaps 42 mpg which is about 70% more than the 25 mpg of the vehicle it replaces. Official EPA mpg is not yet available. (The 45% figure includes lifetime vehicle manufacturing energy use and the 70% does not include that.)

For many consumers (depending on where they live), EVs will produce less GHGs than comparable gas vehicles but may be on par with new plug-in hybrid vehicles. But for most people, EVs are not zero emissions.

Vehicle Lifetime Energy Use

The energy used to manufacture a vehicle versus the energy the vehicle consumes during operation is surprisingly high – for some vehicles, about half the energy consumed during the vehicles lifetime is used during its manufacture. The higher percentage applies to fuel efficient cars that consume much less gasoline during their lifetime. Replacing an existing gas vehicle with a EV powered by coal generated electricity will likely have a much smaller GHG reduction than you are expecting, regardless of the type of vehicle and mileage.

For example, suppose you decide to switch to an EV. You either sell your vehicle (so someone else uses it to produce GHGs) or you junk it (throwing away the energy used to manufacture it originally).

Then, you switch to a new EV – which consumes significant energy in its manufacture, mostly fossil-fuel based – and plug it in to the electric utility’s coal or natural gas powered electricity to charge the battery.

Your carbon footprint did not go to zero – not even close to zero. Up to half your vehicle’s lifetime energy consumption is still coming from fossil fuels (used in manufacturing it) and a significant part of your electrical generation is generating GHGs. You are likely producing less than before but you have not gone to zero. The lifetime GHG emissions of your new EV may be (ought to be!) less than the gas vehicle it replaced.

So what should you do?

If you already drive a “fuel efficient” vehicle, your best choice regarding vehicle lifetime GHG emissions is to keep driving it as long as possible. For example, my real world Honda Fit mileage is in the 39 to 42 mpg range. From an environmental standpoint, I should keep driving this car as long as possible, rather than switch to an EV.

If you drive a vehicle that is not fuel efficiency, such as getting 20-25 mpg, it may make sense to upgrade to a newer hybrid vehicle that gets far better gas mileage when you need to replace the vehicle. Revisit the 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid example, above, to see how the hybrid’s high mpg and overall greenhouse gases may, in fact, be less than a pure EV. An EV may be an option depending on how you use this vehicle – if you need to tow a trailer cross country, an EV is likely to make travel more difficult due to charging requirements. If you primarily drive locally, the EV may be a good choice.

Another option is plug-in hybrids. These contain a gas motor and electric motors, plus a small capacity battery good for 20-30+ miles of operation. The battery may be charged by plugging into the electrical mains, or by the on-board motor. When used as a plug-in, this becomes a short range EV, operating entirely as an EV for local trips, but providing the range and convenience of gas vehicles for long distance travel. The hybrid features enable efficient, high mileage performance on the highways too.

My state seems to be headed towards a path to reduce personal vehicle GHG emissions by pushing consumers into electrical vehicles. Another state, California, has enacted a new rule that all new state government vehicles must be electric (except for public safety – why the exemption?). This new rule is poor economics (EVs are expensive relative to gas cars and hybrids), and may not produce much reduction in GHGs, per the analysis above.

What is important is to reduce CO2 emissions – and that can also be done with vehicles that get far greater mpg (such as hybrids) and replacing fossil-fueled based electricity and thermal generation with alternatives.

Practicing factfulness – and digging in to the data – shows us that what we think we know is often not correct. On the surface, EVs seem to be zero emissions – but the reality is a bit different.

I happen to think EVs are cool and would like to have one. However, by the numbers, directly switching to an EV at this time does not yield the results we are led to believe it delivers.

The best bet for most of us is to move towards efficient hybrid and plug-in hybrids – versus EVs. For some of us, depending on our requirements and how our electricity is generated, an EV may be appropriate. However, if we already drive a very fuel efficient vehicle then continuing to drive that vehicle for as many years as possible is likely to produce less overall, vehicle lifetime GHGs than switching to a new vehicle.

Your most effective strategy for reducing energy-related green houses is to

Lead an efficient life, avoiding wasted activities, products and services.

Insulate and seal your home to modern standards

Install solar PV to generate electricity. Depending on where you live (relative to sunshine availability), this can cut your household’s delivered energy by a significant amount. If your utility is fossil-fuel based, then this will have a far bigger impact on GHG reduction that switching to an EV.

Consider an EV for local area transportation especially if your electrical power comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Otherwise, the greenhouse gas reduction by switching to an EV may be little. Installing solar PV to charge your EV is expensive. A typical solar PV installation may produce 20-30 kwh per day to meet household needs. A typical EV battery pack is in the 60 to 100 kwh range, meaning a 50% charge is 30-50 kwh (plus add in more for inefficiency factors). You might have to double the size of your solar PV installation to support recharging the vehicle.

Note – we are currently installing solar PV at our house. We now live in an area that has good amounts of sunshine, with a south facing roof. This solar PV replaces the electricity generated by the local utility, which is 56% generated from coal-fired power plants (70% from coal or natural gas). We heat with wood pellets from a local source.

Without solar PV in operation (it is not yet hooked up), our home averages 10-14 kwh of electricity per day versus the average of 28 kwh of typical American homes. After solar PV comes online, our annual average should be about 0 kwh from the utility. Our installation uses “net metering”. During much of the year, our array produces more electricity than we need and this is sent back to the grid for use by someone else (thereby avoiding fossil-fuel generation). During a few winter months and especially on cloudy days, the array will produce less than our own demand. Excess power produced is banked as a credit to draw upon in winter when our home supplements the solar array by taking power from the grid. Excess power credits left over after 12 months are donated to charity and low income residents.

We are also upgrading the existing attic insulation. The existing insulation was probably R-19 when installed 50 years ago but over the years settled in to a thinner and less effective layer. The new insulation will meet our state’s code requirement of R-49 minimum and should reduce the energy required to heat the home. As I write this, the outside temperature is 12 degrees F/-11 deg C.

Is Burning Wood Carbon Neutral?

The EPA and the European Union rate wood as “carbon neutral” – although whether it is or not “depends”. When a tree grows, it takes carbon out of the atmosphere. When the tree is cut down and burned (or decomposes), it releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. However, when new trees are planted to replace that tree, the cycle repeats, with new trees removing carbon from the atmosphere. Hence, over time, wood is seen as a renewable, carbon neutral source of heating.

Whether it is carbon neutral “depends” on various factors. The EU reportedly imports up to half of its wood pellets from American forests, where wood is processed into pellets and then shipped across the Atlantic. Another critique is about which trees are cut. Older large trees remove more CO2 than young, small trees. Replanted trees can take years until they are consuming significant amounts of CO2.

Some pellet producers use scrap such as saw mill waste and blown down branches or trimmed parts of trees to make pellets, thereby avoiding cutting down trees specifically for wood pellets.

Our home is heated with a wood pellet stove. The wood pellets are manufactured by a local company that uses saw mill scrap and forestry management scrap (cut or blown down branches, small trees) for its raw material input.

Stated another way, the more money poured in to student loan programs, the higher the tuition charged. Tuition goes up because of student loans rather than the view that student loans go up in response to higher tuition.

Consistent with the model, we find that even when universities price-discriminate, a credit expansion will raise tuition paid byall students and not only by those at the federal loan caps because of pecuniary demand externalities. Such pricing externalities are often conjectured in the context of the effects of expanded subprime borrowing on housing prices leading up to the financial crisis, and our study can be seen as complementary evidence in the student loan market.

From: Lucca, D., Nadauld, T., Shen, K. (2015, 2017). Credit supply and the rise in college tuition: Evidence from the expansion in Federal student aid programs. Staff Report no. 733. Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

As the authors note, this is similar to other areas where a third party supply of money causes prices to rise – such as the effect of cheap mortgages causing home prices to rise.

A similar effect occurs in health care where third party “insurance” benefits are an enabler of higher priced health care services.

Whenever the cost of goods are services are subsidized such that their immediate direct costs are lower than the market clearing price, demand for those goods and services will increase. As demand increases relative to supply, the prices charged increase to a new actual and higher market clearing price.

Although many consumers pay nothing out of pocket for flu shots, insurers foot the bill. And those prices vary dramatically.

Source: The Startlingly High Cost Of The ‘Free’ Flu Shot | Kaiser Health News

Insurance has made possible random pricing for what should be fixed price goods and services. Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, insurance does not make health care cheaper, it merely makes someone else pay for it. Kaiser found that 3rd parties pay $15 to $85 for the same flu shot.

I paid $19.99, cash, at Costco, because we no longer have 3rd party paymet for prescriptions or vaccinations. Fred Meyer wanted $60 – it was hard to get a price quote from them as they were flustered when I asked for a cash price, as if they didn’t know what to do. Several minutes later they got back to me with a price.

Since I have skin in the game, I shop around. There is no reason for anyone or any insurer to pay exorbitant (and secret) prices for a fixed service like a flu shot. But they do it anyway.

All proposals for addressing health care issues in the United States are of the form “health care costs too much so let’s find someone else to pay for it“. This strategy will only work as long as you can find someone else to pay for it, and then it collapses.

It does not mean much:

The MPGe rating is really only useful for comparing the relative energy consumption of gasoline (or hybrid) cars with that of electric cars. The Focus EV uses the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline for each 105 miles of travel, compared to a hybrid Prius, which would use roughly 2 gallons of gasoline for every 100 miles it travels.

Source: Decoding Electric Car MPG | Edmunds

What might be more useful would be a comparison between CO2-equivalent outputs.

For example, where I live, 56% of the power generation comes from coal-fired power plants which produce “greenhouse” gases.

If you enjoy 3D stereoscopic Macro Photography, check out our small group of enthusiast on Flickr:

The above is in cross eyed viewing format. No special glasses needed for full color 3D. Look at the center and slowly cross your eyes – a full color 3D image will appear in the middle.

Albertsons and Stop & Shop are testing automated “micro-fulfillment centers” in the backs of their own stores that are dedicated to fulfilling deliveries and pickups. At two stores, Albertsons is using robots to prepare customers’ orders, which it says speeds up the picking process.

….

.And in Salem, New Hampshire, Walmart is piloting a system with autonomous carts that gather customers’ grocery orders and bring them to Walmart workers, who then prepare them for delivery or pickup.

Source: Why supermarkets are building ‘dark stores’ – CNN

California has more wild fires, in large part, because its expanding population is wealthier and has migrated into outlying areas in historically fire prone wild land areas. As homes move in, so to do more power lines which are subject to start fires when wind blown trees contact power lines. The state is also historically prone to intense droughts that dry out forests.

Standard wood sided homes with a shake roof are easily burned by wild fires. Homes can, however, be built to be highly fire resistant through the use of non-flammable roofing and non-flammable siding and deck material. This is in addition to keeping clear the area around the home, and using detached garages and shops (a frequent source of accidental fire starts).

When wildfire swept through Bob Heath’s neighborhood in Napa, Calif., a lot of other homes in the fire’s path burned to the ground. In recent years, as many as 2,000 homes (annually) have been destroyed by wildfire, a loss inflated by drought conditions in both eastern and western states, along with steady encroachment of development onto “frontier” lands.Jim Smalley, manager of wildland fire protection for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), notes that some home builders have taken an active role in fire prevention–often getting some perks in the process.

Source: How to Build Fire-Proof Homes | Builder Magazine

A major reason that wild land fires seem worse is the same reason hurricane damages seem worse – as documented by researchers and the insurance industry, more people are living in more expensive structures in locations that are historically prone to “natural disasters”. Damages are up because we are wealthier and build more, nicer buildings in these zones, not because of an increasing incidence of events.

There are solutions. In hurricane prone areas near the ocean, new homes are built on risers with the bottom floor being a garage, storage and recreational area with “break away” walls to accommodate a storm surge.

In tornado prone areas, new construction uses steel fastening straps – or even steel stud construction – to create buildings that can survive the high winds of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

Logically, fire prone zones should be using fire resistant construction techniques.

Software development was a nascent field, struggling to gain traction and be taken seriously. It was also previously a field dominated by women, and sadly, a new influx of men wanted to come in, take over and make it a “proper, masculine” discipline. So they pretended they were all engineers and they were all building things, like men wearing hardhats in factories in an engineering or manufacturing context.

Source: Software development is a design activity – Extreme Uncertainty

I stopped reading at the bold faced text because that is not true. And if that easily verifiable fact is not true, what does that say about the rest of this report?

Programming hasn’t always been such a male-dominated field. By the 1960s, women made up 30% to 50% of all programmers.

30% to 50% is not “dominated by women”. I entered the field in the early 1980s when women were up to about 40% of the software work force. By the late 1980s, that began to shift and steadily decreased in the 1990s. Now it is under 20% even though for two decades there have been numerous programs to encourage more women to enter STEM. Surprisingly, they have entered STEM but not TE. They use STEM interchangeably with TE when they really mean TE.

What changed? No one has a coherent answer.

One possibility, never discussed, is the advent of the H-1 visa.

In the early 1990s, the H-1B visa was introduced and almost all H-1B visa tech hires were young men. Unfortunately, the government claims not to know the gender of those working on H-1B visas and we have only estimates. By the year 2000, according to a U.S. Department of Commerce study, 28% of jobs in the field requiring at least a Bachelor’s degree were H-1B workers (who were almost all male). This skewed the gender distribution of the work force but is one that we do not publicly talk about.

Regarding women in STEM, last I had looked at NSF data, women were just over 50% of STEM graduates. But it depends on how you define “STEM” and many choose to define steam as “TE” – technology and engineering and not as Science – Technology – Engineering – Math.

I have seen surveys that omit women in the health sciences (nursing is about 90% female), veterinary medicine (majority of new grads are women) and even medicine. Consequently, the public has no idea about any of the underlying data. We are spun by propaganda messaging from those wanting to adopt their agenda.

Delivers 4K stereoscopic live stream or 6k for post editing:

The Live Planet VR system may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but this stereoscopic, 16-lens camera and its associated cloud platform may be one of the best tools out there for live-streaming events in 360 degrees.

Source: Review: Live Planet VR live-streaming system: Digital Photography Review

I find VR “interesting” and enjoy doing occasional VR shooting. But viewing seems cumbersome with use of VR helmets versus wearing 3D glasses. So far, little VR has been shot in stereoscopic 3D – yet VR 3D is far more interesting to view than plain VR.

From last May:

“I don’t think a four year degree is necessary to be proficient at coding. I think that’s an old, traditional view. What we found out is that if we can get coding in the early grades and have a progression of difficulty over the tenure of somebody’s high school years, by the time you graduate kids like Liam, as an example of this, they’re already writing apps that could be put on the App Store,” TechCrunch quoted Cook as saying on Friday.

Source: Apple CEO Tim Cook says 4-year degree not necessary for coding

Left out of stories that we need more young people in STEM (they actually mean TE, not S-TE-M but use the terms interchangeably) is that much software work has turned into skilled labor, rather than engineering.

This occurred because the tools to develop software applications are far more advanced than in the past and are easier to use. 25 to 50 years ago, development of much software required an understanding of processor architecture and system hardware (and programming in assembly language), and the development and use of efficient algorithms to make use of the then limited hardware capabilities. Today, fast hardware often substitutes for inefficient and bloated software. Which makes sense as writing software is expensive while hardware is now cheap.

Much of the field has changed from very high skilled work requiring at least a 4-year college degree encompassing a variety of technical topics to narrow skill focused work such as writing Javascript applications. In effect, much software development is skilled labor rather than engineering. This seems true for many web applications and smart phone apps.