As old readers here know, I have a team of visiting anthropologists - from Antares - camping out in my attic. Periodically they offer insights into human behavior, from their very uninvolved perspective. A bit baffling sometimes, but sometimes, perhaps, useful. When I can understand them, through their guffaws and giggles. Just the word "economics" for example, tends to make them start choking on their own tentacles.
The USA is currently "shut down", as virtually every human on the planet is sharply aware. In remote villages in India, the community hunkers in front of their one satellite TV, and watches the latest noise from our politicians, who have locked antlers.
Looks exciting, of course, but when the antlers actually lock (which does happen) the inevitable result is death, for both combatants. Either via predators, or starvation. And we are, currently - locked.
One of the primary results of this political deadlock is a vast irruption of "explanations", via all media. A veritable pundit super-volcano has appeared, drowning the media in lucid, logical lists - of each pundit's pre-existing beliefs. My Antarean friends have actually reached saturation in their normally insatiable sense of humor- they're getting tired of it. And not that this will make any difference to H. sap, of course, (since we never listen), but they decided to take pity on me, at least, and explain it all.
So here it is; in case you want to understand. Warning: the outlook isn't good.
"History!!" the Antarean leader chortles. "Humans are almost the only species in the known Universe that keeps track of their past; and then not only ignores it- but constantly talks about ignoring it! You even have a running contest in smart sayings by smart thinkers on how humans ignore it!"
The Antareans, however, dissect human history, constantly. You have a breakdown in "democratic government"? Maybe- it would be good to look at the entire history of "democracy" - how it came about, how it has failed before- and what preceded it, in human history.
Any good academic could turn this discussion into a 5,000 page tome. None of us really have time for that, though; so I'm going to cut to the chase.
The Antarean anthropologists point out that before "democracy", there were two competitive forms of human government; monarchy or some authoritarian variant; and tribal councils. Authoritarian governments quickly began to dominate the world stage, since it's quite easy for a King to say "Your sons will fight in my army; now." and enforce that; but it's rather difficult for tribal council governments to sustain armies and wars.
Tribes often require that large decisions be made by - unanimous consent. They talk; until all tribe members publicly agree- "Ok; we'll do that." It's understood that some members do not like this action, spoke against it, and still think it's a bad idea- but nonetheless, agree that the tribe will take this action- because no decision, and no action, and deadlock; would all be far more destructive. If the disagreement is too deep- the safety valve is understood to be that the tribe will split. You're free to go do it your way- on the other side of the mountains.
Authoritarian governments forbid splitting, and punish it with death. No, you may not leave; we're all in this together. Great way to keep your army working.
As the human population increased, however, the tribal groups simply ran out of places to go to; nearly all government by unanimous consent was replaced by authoritarian governments- which became intolerably abusive. Power corrupts, etc. So "democracy" was born- able to make decisions by "majority" vote, with modest variations on how you define majority.
Now, all you have to do to get a workable decision is convince a majority. 49% don't agree this is a good idea? Tough. We're doing it anyway. So very much faster than weeks of discussion. When true democracy became too slow, "representative republics" were developed; a kind of hybrid authoritarian-democracy; still involving a periodic vote.
Segue to "the tyranny of the majority"; followed by "checks and balances" as in the USA Constitution, designed to ensure "minority rights".
It's taken a while for the revised system to hit the wall - but that's what it's done. Because in all cases, "majority rule" requires that the minority acquiesce to decisions they disagree with. For 200 years; that was our tradition; you lost the election? Win the next one; meanwhile, we're one country.
But what we stopped doing was the long tribal councils- where all voices were truly listened to, and respected- and the acquiescence of the minority was formally sought, and acknowledged. Little by little, the resentment has built- until we now have a minority that refuses to be governed; and also refuses to even listen to the majority's arguments- truly; locked antlers.
All governments require the consent of the governed. That is what we have lost.
And what sobers my Antarean friends up is, they don't see how we're going to get it back.
Showing posts with label barriers to change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barriers to change. Show all posts
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Trivial. Maybe.
I'm not really a fan of "scientist bashing"- ridiculing various research reports because they seem foolish. In a huge number of cases, work that seems trivial to the casual observer may actually have some real merit, when viewed by a specialist. I've even gone on record here as bashing the bashers- Proxmire's "Golden Fleece Awards" being an egregious example of anti-intellectual pandering (in the comments here.)
But! Sometimes stuff really is silly. This one just escapes me- and there is a real significant question it raises - when do we "know" something?
Researchers in the UK have spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and money- to discover that- wearing 50 lbs of steel armor will make you more tired than not wearing it.
In the formal abstract for the research, they state: "How much wearing armour affected Medieval soldiers' locomotor energetics and biomechanics is unknown."
And end up with "Our findings can predict age-associated decline in Medieval soldiers' physical performance, and have potential implications in understanding the outcomes of past European military battles." Translation: old soldiers have a hard time carrying lots of steel, and maybe gasping for breath could have affected their performance."
I have to tell you- I really think "we", as in scholars interested in the field - "knew" that before the treadmill tests.
But there are a growing number of researchers who actually believe that if something is not published in a journal they recognize, then in fact we do NOT know it.
It may seem trivial- but I think it may not be. How do we decide what is in our joint pool of "true" information?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Ah, winter.
Sorry to be so quiet- this is a crazy busy time of year for us; one of our crops is chestnuts, and guess when you sell them?
The sales window for traditional markets is small, and it can't be done "later"; only "now". Just for extra fun, of course, two of our vehicles, the farm truck and the family car, have decided that now is the time for them to die; or almost die. So lots of extra monkey business there.
And, last night winter finally, really, closed down on us; 8 inches of snow, overnight. On icy hard-frozen ground. The John Deere 4WD was slipping sideways quite a bit as I plowed out.
Supposed to be a time of rest for farmers. Ho ho ho.
Murphy, and his laws, keeps hanging around, too, lest we become complacent. One of the things you have to do to market your chestnuts is, wash them. That takes water. We're off the grid, so, having reliable supplies is something that takes a bit of forethought.
We just thought fore to the extent of installing a new 2,500 gallon cistern. Polystyrene, alas, but concrete pre-fab was way more expensive, and any custom concrete possibilities even more so. If I had my druthers, I'da dug the hole and laid up fieldstone for a cistern myself; but I don't have the luxury of doing work that slowly, at the moment.
The well pump is a plain Shurflo 9300, a pretty reliable, though slow machine with a good track record. We actually own 3, via the weirdnesses of off-grid living, 2 currently dead but rebuildable as backups.
And, we just purchased a new solar panel, to directly drive the pump; no batteries to be connected; sun shines, pump pumps, into the huge cistern. Theoretically.
You DO need a "pump controller", a little solid state thingy, to prevent the odd chance that your panels may suddenly put out more electricity than your pump can handle, which will burn out your pump. That's a real concern for us, since exactly that can happen on very cold sunny days. Unbeknownst to many, solar panels will put out 1% more current for every 3° C colder it gets. Since panels are "rated" at hot normal temperatures like you'd expect them to be in Florida in full sun in the summer- on a cold day in February in Minnesota; when the air temperature is 25° below 0 F, and the wind is blowing at 30 mph, so the panel is really that cold; and the sun is shining full blast- on a snow field that's bouncing even more light onto the panel- you can suddenly find yourself with WAY more power coming out of the panel than it's rated at.
I found that out by boiling my batteries, the first year I had solar panels. Sure, the information was available - deeeeeeeply buried where nobody ever sees it. Gosh, why is there acid bubbling out of the top of my batteries?
And our spiffy Shurflo pump controller; just purchased with the new panel- has lots of cool facts about it available on the web; except all the technical specifications (or at least, I couldn't find them).
So reading them, now that I've got it in my hands... yeah, yeah, x volts in, y amps in, etc, etc... oh, look "Operating Temperatures: +14°F to + 135°F."
Excuse me?
Unwritten subtext: "We designed your spiffy gizmo to work in Florida; don't try using it anywhere you have actual winters."
They left that part out of the sales brochures.
Sigh.
Ok, my point.
There's a LOT of our world that now works this way; machines, devices, and processes- are designed to work beautifully, within specific parameters.
But, they don't tell you up front what those parameters are. And finding a person, a live one, who truly knows what they are, and how much they can, or can't, be stretched- is often incredibly difficult.
My water system is currently going "pocketa pocketa queep".
And my major response is; I get to wait until Monday, when at 9 AM Pacific time, somebody may, possibly, get my phone message. And may, possibly, pass it on to someone who knows something.
Perhaps.
So, I'm going sledding, with Smidgen. Spice is off to check the electric fence for the horses; on snowshoes.
Baked squash tonight; the woodstove is cranking out the heat.
Complex systems may have lots of collapsible pathways; but fire is hot, and squash is good food.
Labels:
barriers to change,
green living,
humor?,
off the grid,
seasons,
Smidgen,
solar panels
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Humor. maybe.
Now that T.Boone Pickens has announced oil has in fact peaked, there's hardly anything left to talk about right now.
So, I got this in my email yesterday- and it did indeed crack me up. So I thought I would share it with you- maybe it will make your day brighter- in some twisted way.
---------------------------------------
From: efcc.financial.refund@gmail.com---------------------------------------------------
Subject: Mr. Robert S. Mueller, III (Director)Federal Bureau of Investigation
Date: June 16, 2008 2:44:05 PM CDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Reply-To: efcc-financial.refund@webmail.co.za
Mr. Robert S. Mueller, III (Director)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Telephone: (206)-339-7444
Attention: Fund Beneficiary,
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Has discovered through our intelligence Monitoring Network, that you have an on going transaction with a Financial Institution in Nigeria, as the owner of the said sum $1,500,000.00 USD.
So the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) Washinton, DC in conjunction with The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Has screened through our various Monitoring Networks and has been confirmed and notified that the transaction you have with the Financial Institution is Legal and you have the Lawful Right to claim your due fund. We advise you to go ahead with the transaction as we are monitoring all their services and networks. Be advised that any letter or claims notification received from anybody or company should be forwarded to us with immediate effect.
Meanwhile, you are advised to follow the procedure of the Financial Institution. They have their own legal procedure which we have examined and confirmed legal. Follow their instructions while you keep us updated for more details. You are advised to contact the necessary office for more details of transfer as we are monitoring every move now.
Please, be advised and be aware that your funds had been insured and the necessary charges would be taken care of by you, as confirmed by the Monitoring network. For your own good you are advised to confirm any transaction or lottery promo you have either involved yourself with in the past to enable us trace this scammers. Only the Financial Institution has been confirmed Legal any other are still under investigation, and so many others are scam, most especially from Nigeria and Africa.
You are to contact the Director of Operations Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde with the information below in regards to more details on your funds.
Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde (Director of Operations)
Phone: +234 1 742 1060
E-mail: efcc-financial.refund@webmail.co.za
If you need to contact me at any stage please do not hesitate to call.
(206)-339-7444
Sincerely,
Mr. Robert S. Mueller, III (Director)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
One is, almost, tempted to call that phone numbers, and inquire.
Now I ask you, is that just totally hilarious, or not?
Simultaneously, I do find it sad, and disturbing- because-
A) There are people in this world who are SO DUMB that they think there are people out there, SO DUMB that they would fall for such astonishingly transparent bullpuckey.
and
B) The people in A- are correct. Yes, there are people so dumb they will believe this.
Clearly, my mind has boggled. But I don't see where.
Clearly, my mind has boggled. But I don't see where.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
lies and damned lies- and models
Stoneleigh, over at The Automatic Earth, cites some articles with a bit of discussion about macroeconomic models yesterday, pointing out some of the limitations there. (Among the basic assumptions in the most accepted models; consumers are rational!!!! - and - all have the same preferences!!!! Yeah, right.)
I'd like to add a bit of insider info on "models", per se. I started writing this as a comment on TAE, but it kept growing-
I'd like to add a bit of insider info on "models", per se. I started writing this as a comment on TAE, but it kept growing-
---------------------
The advent of computers got plenty of academics, in all disciplines, excited. Hey, we can use Big Math! And arrive at New Truths! Look at how many things we can throw into the soup, and still calculate! Man, you can correlate everything!
The reality, of course, remains the old bit about "Garbage In, Garbage Out." And the increasing complexity of "models" has made it both much more likely that there will be a bit of garbage in the model somewhere, and hugely less likely that anyone will ever find and remove it. Who actually examines the math- bit by bit?
The reality, of course, remains the old bit about "Garbage In, Garbage Out." And the increasing complexity of "models" has made it both much more likely that there will be a bit of garbage in the model somewhere, and hugely less likely that anyone will ever find and remove it. Who actually examines the math- bit by bit?
In truth; virtually no one, except the author, ever checks the math; not even the academic reviewers will put in the hours, days, necessary to truly proofread these monsters.
I've published some calculations on carbon cycle stuff- with surprising conclusions; and as far as I can tell, no one has ever even checked my multiplication. I got two kinds of reactions- with no checking: "wow, cool!"; and "I don't believe it." Check the math? Check basic assumptions? nah- why?
But "models" still carry a great cachet of believability- in the Congressional hearing, "but the model says..." will trump any expert opinion to the contrary.
But "models" still carry a great cachet of believability- in the Congressional hearing, "but the model says..." will trump any expert opinion to the contrary.
Math does not lie- we so desperately want to believe.
Disraeli nailed it long ago; "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statisics." I greatly fear that models may constitute a 4th kind; with a power even greater than statistics.
This first became obvious to me when I acquired my first Macintosh computer (1984, 128K). MacPaint was such a breakthrough program; absolutely astonishing. I was hopeless as an artist with pen and ink; but here, the computer will keep the lines straight; and- you can go back and fix anything, pixel by pixel if necessary.
One of the first things I did was make a diagram of a biological/genetic project I was working on at the time. Took me half a day (no time at all, compared to finding an artist, teaching them what I wanted it to show, etc.) and looked totally professional when done.
And totally convincing. Wow- this looks like- The Truth. Neat, clean, and logical.
And I knew damn well it was NOT a proven hypothesis; there were plenty of doubts possible, and remaining; but I'd made the diagram up as an argument, and they didn't show. Everybody who looked at it was convinced. And on totally inadequate information.
I was so impressed- and frightened- by the power of the Pretty Diagram that I immediately, made up another:
My insider's info: the mathematical models used to describe the dynamics of salmon populations- are junk. And most relevant fisheries biologists, and plenty of ecologists, know it.
Primary evidence- uh, they don't work; the salmon fishery in California is closed, this year, since the number of returning fish dropped to 5% of normal. Catastrophic. In fact, the mathematical ecologists have known for decades that the original salmon models are junk.
Once launched, models take on a life of their own. A major purpose for them is to communicate with lawmakers. Having acquainted the lawmakers with Model A- it's almost impossible for an agency to go back to the legislature the next year, and say "oh, incidentally, we've discovered that Model A is total crap."
So what you do is refine Model A. The problem being, Model A still contains crap; and arguably, crap, multiplied by anything, is still crap.
Models, regardless of the field they are applied to; whether economics, ecology, or global weather patterns- are like all technologies. They have no intrinsic ethics; they are true only to the extent their inputs are accurate, and honest. And that's assuming that the model has any chance of reflecting reality in the first place; by no means a given.
They are a particularly powerful tool for liars- because there are so few people who are qualified to refute them. And they are very seductive even for those with the best of intentions. Young scientists get sucked into the worlds of modeling constantly- becoming enamored of the power, and promise- and gradually becoming apologists for the entire process. And; well; this model right here- which they helped write...
One more technology where the potential for abuse and misuse is immense- mostly unrecognized- and not policed.
The salmon models are blindingly simple, compared to macro-economic models.
One somewhat objective way of looking at it:
Salmon models can be tested, and possibly refined. Did the predictions turn out true-ish?
Global warming models also- can be tested.
Economics models- uh- we're immediately out of the realm of hard numbers, into the worlds of fantasy and opinion. Are the premises true? Opinion. Numbers true? No physicist, or ecologist, would accept the kinds of measurements economists claim as accurate. There are simply too many assumptions, ifs, maybes, blatant guesses, and we hopes in all those economic data. And lies.
Ah, but the model shows- this is true.
And I can make a model to show anything I want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. So why, I hear you cry, is this discussion of any value to me? I come here for information on how to build potty houses, for crying out loud. And the occasional bit of stunningly wonderful poetry.
One of the basic problems we face is the increasingly difficult task of figuring out who is telling us the truth about our world, and its possible futures.
There's really no way of escaping the need to be able to judge your source's veracity. You need to know how to guess; is this person lying? a fool? misinformed?
It's not easy; and is not going to get any easier. Perhaps it will be useful to realize- if they're basing their claims on some complex and unexaminable "model" - and they're quite vehement about how this proves their claim- beware, oh, beware.
------------------------------------
Update, 6/16; an article in the Washington Post today contains this bit of comment, regarding the mortgage bubble collapse- " 'Nobody had models for that,' said David E. Zimmer, then one of the executives at People's Choice, a subprime lender based in Irvine. 'Nobody had predicted people going into default in their first three mortgage payments.' "
So- models- that did not work- were being used to guide actions. Result? Millions of foreclosures- suicides- etc, etc.
---------------------------------------
Update 9/19/08 - mid panic- An article yesterday in the NYT, on "How Wall Sreet Lied To Its Computers" - almost catches up to us-
Saturday, May 24, 2008
And some not so bright signs.
I've got a series of articles to run past you here; on a variety of topics. To me, they all point forcefully in one direction. Which no one on the planet is taking; yet. But we're going to have to, soon. (Don't worry, Ilargi; I'm not really planning on trying to swipe your style... :-) ).
Be aware, in all this, that these headlines, and the news, are being "cooked", consistently, to make things seem a little nicer than they are.
(Incidentally, this is still not my promised "next" post- this stuff isn't requiring any thought- it hits me like a sledgehammer.)
----------------------------------------------
Article 1, Washington Post: "Food costs push Bangladesh to brink of unrest."
No, it's not unrest, it's the brink of utter civic chaos, or revolution at least.
"Last month, about 20,000 garment workers defied a government ban on demonstrations to demand higher wages and protest skyrocketing food prices, especially on such staples as rice, which have doubled in price since last year. Some of the workers, mostly women, hurled rocks and bricks at police and vandalized factories in what the local media dubbed the start of the 'Rice Revolution.' Troops from the Bangladesh Rifles, a paramilitary force that normally patrols the country's borders, now operate and guard the crowded government-subsidized rice shops."
"Bib Norjaham, 40, and her three children said they thought they had already been through the worst of it when their rice and lentil farm was washed away during floods four years ago... 'We haven't had a full stomach in months, and work is very hard to find,' said Joshna, who said she is on a waiting list for a job as a sewing-machine operator. 'There isn't much we can do. The prices are just too high. We can't go back to the village. The land has eroded.' "
" 'If it weren't for emergency rule, there would be revolution right now. Things that would be happening in this country would be unbelievable," said Nazima Akter, 33, president of the United Garment Workers Federation, which has 20,000 members. "People are already really fed up when they are working hard -- sometimes 12 hours a day -- and they still can't afford basics.' "
--------------------------------------------
Article 2; Reuters/NYT; "Buffett sees long, deep recession."
The second richest billionaire on Earth thinks things are much worse than most are saying, and the recession is not going away anywhere he can see.
One sign, besides the billions he's made by ignoring Wall Street pundits, that he's worth listening to:
"Buffett also renewed his criticism of derivatives trading.
'It's not right that hundreds of thousands of jobs are being eliminated, that entire industrial sectors in the real economy are being wiped out by financial bets even though the sectors are actually in good health.'
Buffett complained about the lack of effective controls.
'That's the problem," he said. "You can't steer it, you can't regulate it anymore. You can't get the genie back in the bottle.' "
Sounds like good sense, with even a modicum of humanity in it.
(Aside- please notice that little phrase "in the real economy" ... people in the "financial sector" use it all the time. See- there's a "real" economy- you know, where people produce actual goods and services, and buy and sell them? Then- there's the "financial sector" - which they claim is desperately necessary in order for the "real" economy to function... but you know what? Their choice of words tells us- they know perfectly well we could all do without them. They're just swapping piles of money around- charging fees for each swap and pretending to be doing something worth while- but they're just blowing up their own balloons.)
But even Mr. Buffett is not carrying that equation all the way out; and that's what it is, and that's what we MUST do.
Can't steer it. Can't regulate it. But it MUST be steered, and regulated- or we face utterly unforgivable amounts of human misery. = ?
Are you listening Mr. Buffett? Congress? Anybody? If the tools we have don't work; then: we must find, and use, different tools.
That, of course, requires effective leadership, which as we know, the USA is utterly devoid of at the moment; and other world entities are not showing much either.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Article 3; the BBC: "Tensions Flare In Central Sudan" . No, they don't- they have a civil war in progress; again. Over... oil.
Scavenger birds pick through the charred remains of houses and shops in the central Sudanese town of Abyei, four days after violent clashes between troops from the North and South of the country ended.
The place is almost empty - tens of thousands of people fled from the town and surrounding area to escape days of sporadic fighting.
Looters steal what they can - beds, pots and even clothes - from the thatch huts that are still standing, the northern soldiers who now control the town looking on.
There is almost nothing left of the once-vibrant market - just the charred skeletons of buildings
After a tour of the town in a UN armoured personnel carrier, the head of the UN mission in Sudan, Ashraf Qazi, was clearly shocked by what he had seen.
"We have been to the centre of Abyei and it doesn't exist any more," he told journalists travelling with him.
This trend is not decreasing; quite the contrary.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Article 4; CNN: "Vallejo, California, files for bankruptcy"
Vallejo is " Vallejo is the 9th largest city in the San Francisco Bay Area by population,the 45th in the state of California,and 189th in the U.S. by population also." (Wikipedia)
" ...to deal with a ballooning budget deficit caused by soaring employee costs and declining tax revenue. The San Francisco Bay-area suburb of about 120,000 residents became the largest California city to seek bankruptcy protection." (CNN)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Indonesian government has raised fuel prices by nearly 30%, prompting fears of widespread unrest. ...
The government is struggling to meet the cost of fuel subsidies as global oil prices escalate. ...In several cities it is beginning cash handouts, intended to shield around 19 million poor families from the price rises.
But our correspondent says many Indonesians are worried the price hikes will mean that basic goods and public transport will also become more expensive.
After sharp rises in the price of rice, it could push many more families towards poverty, she adds.
Millions of Indonesians currently live on less than $2 a day."
BTW, I got word yesterday that Websters Interplanetary Dictionary is about the change to definition of "powderkeg"; to: "Indonesia".
------------------------------------------------------
And we could go on, of course. If you have an appetite for constant dire news, Ilargi is wonderful; likewise Sharon. And as you know, I indulge myself from time to time. It's not that hard to find it these days.
Which is the actual point of this post. Little by little, the world IS recognizing that "things" are getting really really bad-
Then next thing you know, somebody is going to suggest - gasp - DOING SOMETHING about it.
No, really, I'll bet ya. It'll happen. Although at the moment, the only thing the "leaders", financial and governmental, are doing, is pointing fingers, and doing "analyses", all of which show- it's not their fault. No action.
Possibly, when Bangladesh collapses into total chaos, and 100,000,000 (one hundred million) desperate, penniless refugees stream into India and Burma/Myanmar (I'm assuming 50 million straight deaths, first) - the world in general will say - "huh; should WE do something?"
What is the first tool at hand? Available to all governments- and unused, so far?
RATIONING.
Fuel; and food. Both need to be rationed- today. First within countries- and then; for the first time- internationally.
They won't be, of course. We need a lot more dead bodies, first. If you're tenderhearted, I don't recommend you look at this one from CNN: "Starvation claiming Ethiopia's tiniest". Only 120,000, or so. Twice the numbers just killed by the Chinese earthquake- to huge international attention, with a visit from Ban Ki Moon, in person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike my previous request for your help in raising consciousness about the role of speculation in the world food crisis (which is still there, duh)- I don't see that there is anything effective for us to do here, yet. The world in general is not ready to see the need; though it's obvious as all hell to anyone who actually thinks about it.
So here is my question to you- who- and where- on the planet will be the first to admit that rationing is needed? And implement it?
Will it be Bangladesh? One could hope- but it's a country, like many, with a wildly wealthy elite, who hold the power, and vast population of the utterly destitute.
Haiti? If it's still there. The UN has the only real police force in Haiti. They could do it. They should. Can Ban Ki Moon find the will?
Who? Where? What's your guess?
Monday, May 5, 2008
The water is back.
When we bought this farm- 160 acres- it had a "rough corner" - a steep rocky ravine, with a dry bottom. About 40 acres of forest there, some good timber, but this bit is not even close to being tillable. Brought the over-all price of the land down a little.
No water in the bottom, although just over the fence with the neighbor to the south, there is a spring that runs all year, most years; have only seen it stop running once, I think.
The ravine, which we call "the valley", looks like it might well have once had a full time stream running in it. Typically, around here, when the original lands went under the plow, the water table dropped, and some streams went dry.
I've hoped, year after year, that what we were doing here might bring the water back. Year after year- dry.
But. This year:
We have water. And not just a little- there are seeps feeding this flow all the way through our land- ending, in fact, exactly at the fence with the neighbor to the north. It's about a quarter mile of spring and seep fed creek, that wasn't there before. (You can hear a chickadee singing "spring-soon" early on, and then a wild jungle-bird call, quite loud. It's not fake- it's one of our pileated woodpeckers; just lucky to catch it.)
This is a lot of water, up from nothing. It's crystal clear- unless we've had heavy rain, then we get run-off from the neighbors' fields, and it's muddy as can be, until the next day. There are green mosses and algae living in the clear water- making oxygen.
It's been 30 some years. For me, this is crazy exciting. And satisfying. I think, maybe, we've brought something back, that was supposed to be here. Is water important? What a question.
Now the stream runs, and even babbles. Middle Child says he can hear it, from the house, if the wind is still. He says it really changes the feel of the valley. I knew it would. Running water hits the human heart, and hind-brain, directly.
I can't hear it; unless I'm close. Too much time with tractors and chainsaws. (Yes, I ALWAYS had ear protection of some kind- except once, helping out a neighbor... I don't think the standard ear muffs do enough, over time. Now I wear ear plugs AND muffs.) Yeah, that makes me a little sad, but seeing the clear clean water, and having it there for my kids, makes up for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we bought the farm, it had been managed in the locally normal fashion, since about 1845. Three quarters of the land had been cleared and plowed. About 1/4 of it had been savannah grass, that was all plowed. Most of it was really too steep to be plowed, but it was anyway; these days 3/4 of the tilled land is technically classified as "highly erodible". There had been cows, too; the forest had been grazed periodically, though luckily about every other owner had NOT put cows in the woods, so it wasn't totally degraded. We had much better wildflower populations than usual.
But the land had been used very hard; there were several places where clearly it had been plowed at one time, but erosion gullies had cut so deeply that a tractor could turn over in them. Now these places were pasture. Before we bought the land, a soil survey done in 1956 said there were between 12" and 18" of dark topsoil on the north hill- in corn and hay strips. In 1976- we found between 0" and 6". A foot of soil was gone, in just 20 years.
The farm is hilly, and the soil is light, a "loess" type, technically silt-loam. Good soil. The truth is, most farms in the US have been used this badly, at some point. Many, many still are. Even good farmers are pushed by many forces to cut corners, get higher yields, more acres plowed- a few more dollars for the bank. As long as you use a plow, the process only moves in one direction. You will lose the soil. I didn't like that.
How I got to that place, philosophically, is another long story; perhaps another time. Right now, I just want to describe the directions we took. Much of this was not fully formulated when we began- we learned as we went.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader RC, in comments on the previous post, was kind of demanding an exegesis (careful, your academia is showing!) of my claim that the food we produce here is "Not Organic- It's Better!"
It all ties together.
I wanted to focus on "tree crops", building first of all on J. Russell Smith's book with that title. Mostly because of erosion here that I felt was really out of control- far beyond "unsustainable", moving towards "desertification", rapidly. Did you know that there are cities in Italy- which were seaports for the early Roman empire- that are now 50 miles inland? Plows. And wheat. What do they grow on those hills now? Grapes and olives.
First- get rid of the plow. Russell Smith documented many aboriginal peoples who harvested their staple foodstuffs from trees. He, however, was not a biologist- he was a geographer. I could see opportunities he could not, because of our different perspectives. So I started focusing of some specific "tree crops", and some specific pathways of my own.
No, it's not "Permaculture®". I never heard of Bill Mollison until things here were fully developed. I'm interested in crops- and feeding cities; and I really don't think permaculture is.
Many "horticultural" crops, including apples and grapes, often include the plow still, or at least a periodic disc cultivation of the surface. We only disturb the soil during the first year of establishment. Then we have grass, which we manage in a number of ways. The grass is a problem, more often than not at this point; but we're working on ways to integrate other practices, without going to cultivation. Cultivation is bad because; it causes erosion, it destroys biodiversity, it costs huge quantities of fossil fuel, it costs money and time- year after year.
Second- No spray. Ever. Meaning, no pesticides; no insecticides, no fungicides, no general herbicides. No toxins. Not even "organic" ones. Two exceptions; we use a little fly spray in the greenhouse (the same stuff used in dairies), and we have, in the past, used a little Roundup during year 1 of plant establishment. But I've almost quit doing that, too; probably will. Don't need it. We do, rarely spray a little fertilizer, if the plants are starving. I don't think the frogs like it though, so we try not to.
I didn't set out to go "no spray"; in fact in the early years, I just took the received wisdom, and used the "at least!" dormant oil spray universally recommended for fruit trees. (Turns out, it's a big mistake; don't do it.) Little by little, over the years, I've experimented (I did do all that PhD work) - quite formally - and learned; and had a number of wildly useful and illuminating accidents happen. I'd need a long book to go through them; maybe some day.
It was my new non-horticultural tree crops that taught me that dormant oil is a mistake. Took about 10 years to figure that out; it was not a snap dogmatic decision, but an insight based on long trained formal observation. No, it's not published- just haven't had time.
That worked this way: the first time I saw nasty caterpillars eating all the leaves on my young trees- I was outraged, of course, as one is. MY plants, you vermin leave them alone! But. The scientist/ecologist/parasitologist/ethologist in me insisted that I wait, and watch; at least a couple of years. This is a new planting here; perhaps this caterpillar is exploding just because it has a new food source; and given some time, perhaps a predator, or disease, will catch up with it, and control it without having to resort to poisons. I was out on new ground, crops no one had grown this way, so there were no experts to tell me otherwise.
So I waited, for several ticks of the annual clock. You have to give predators and parasites plenty of time to show up- they may be quite rare, and they don't reproduce at the high rates the herbivores do.
Here's the thing. So far, in 30+ years - 100% of the time; outbreaks of this bug or that- fade. Typically, in year one of a new bug, it'll look like slaughter, and over and over, I'd think "oh, boy, here it is, I'm finally going to have to spray." But- scientifically; the only way to know that is to wait, and watch. And I've had the luxury of being able to do that. In year 2 - every time- the damage caused by the bug has dropped; away from the "where's my spray gun?" point to at least the "that's ugly- but not killing us" point. In year 3 - it's less yet.
Every time.
Except once- and that pest was a foreign invader; we just needed some different genetics; it's over, now.
That's a really huge deal, in fact. The rock bottom dogma of conventional agriculture and horticulture is that you MUST spray, because you're growing these plants in an intensive monoculture, and there is no alternative... oh, wait...
Third. No monocultures. All of our plantings have species mingled, a couple rows of this, then 8 rows of that. We've specifically striven to include diversity in species and genetics and physical structure, just for the sake of the diversity. More diversity means more critters can live here. The more species living here, the more stable the entire system is. That's an ecological dogma. But humans have never acted like we believe it.
It's true, and it works.
For example; back to dormant oil spray. The idea there is that you're suffocating the eggs and dormant forms of your pest insects, which overwinter right there on your tree, all ready to start eating come spring. The scum. Sounds good, and logical, and the oil is not really even a poison, so why not? Everybody on the planet says it's a good idea.
I did dormant oil spray on our apples for 10 years, just like everybody. Then- extrapolating from what I was learning in my other crops- it occurred to me, via my parasitologist/ethologist training. If you were a pest predator- where would you lay your eggs?
In fact, I already knew the answer- they lay them right next to their food source; eggs or dormant bugs- right there on your tree. We know this. But we don't act like it. Spray your dormant oil spray- and it kills off your predatory insects- better than it kills their prey. Because of relative population numbers and reproductive dynamics- herbivores tend to be abundant and reproduce fast, predators are few, and reproduce slowly; even if they're minute wasps instead of wolves.
The field of agriculture is rife with embedded double-think; and food is so sacred (the staff of life! the new oil!) that we never examine basic and hidden assumptions. All good farmers simultaneously believe, with all their hearts: a) they grow FOOD. b) the world will starve if they don't produce all they can. c) farmers never get paid enough for their work- because they over-produce so much it's dirt cheap.
Some of that has changed a little, just recently, but those are all rock solid core beliefs for farmers, any time in the last 50 years. And, in case you didn't notice- they're contradictory.
So, when my little lightbulb went off, after a mere decade, and I realized I was doing something that I knew did not make rational sense- I quit spraying my apples. At all.
Gasp! You can't grow apples without spray! Everybody knows it!
Well, I do. Yes- I had to grit my teeth through several bad years, when bugs ate everything. But- have faith, my children- if you feed them (and don't poison them) they will come. Predators - birds, frogs, insects, shrews, mice- parasites- bacteria- viruses- oh, my.
Hey, it's an ecosystem.
If you plow- you can't have one. You go back to dead sterile soil- and nowhere for the ecosystem to live. The wasp pupae need a safe, stable place to overwinter, and bare dirt is not it. We have permanent, deep sod; everywhere between the trees, with many species of plants in it. And a few pines, in the apples. Among other things.
If you spray - you can't have one. No sprays are species specific, the claims notwithstanding. And in any case; if you wipe out the deer; you also wipe out the wolves. Guess which comes back first? Now- we've had multiple visitors, knowledgeable ones, who see our apples (about 60 standard trees) and ask what our spray regimen is. "No spray." "Wow! You mean you're organic!? I've never seen an organic orchard that looks this good!" "No- no spray, at all." ... "What?" ...
The years do vary- sometimes, one bug or another comes up and is pesky. Two years ago, the Minjon apples had a bad apple maggot fly problem. Last year- trivial, really. Codling moth- there's always a little, but it's no biggie, fairly easy to spot. And- we have Amish neighbors who are happy to swap us something for the codling moth affected apples- they make great apple butter or sauce, or cider, if you can cut out the bad core; and they have the labor available to do that.
Fourth. Genetics. Most of our apples are "heritage"- old cultivars that were developed long before spray was so universal. They've usually got the genetic tools they need to respond to pests. One of our worst performing apples is "Haralson" - a big commercial favorite here. Born and raised in the University, released in 1922. Those were the days of dousing in Bordeaux mix- and lead arsenate sprays. I kid you not. Without spray- we get a few to eat once every 6 years, or so.
Finding plants with the appropriate genetics for your land is an absolutely critical part of this. And it's a long process. If you've ever bought fruit trees, you know how the catalogs read: "Absolutely hardy; huge crops of delicious juicy peaches, every year!" The only words in that sentence that are not a big fat lie are "of", "peaches", and "year". And "peaches" is questionable.
Basic hint- the cost of the trees, at planting, is the tiniest part of the investment you will make in a good food tree. Plant lots- plant them thick; let nature sort them out.
Fifth. Fertilizer. You have to feed your plants, one way or another. The organic movement decided that chemical fertilizer is evil, bad for water, bad for worms, etc. Yup, if you're putting it on bare soil, that's likely true. If you're spreading modest amounts on top of permanent sod- getting to the trees, we hope, by timing the season right- or waiting (both work)- it's just not the same thing. Most of the fertilizer used in farming is applied to naked soil- when the target crop has no roots to speak of. It rains- it runs off into the Gulf of Mexico. When we spread fertilizer, it falls on grass sod that has roots 2' deep; or trees that have roots 12' deep. None of it ever gets away; we've tested.
Plain N-P-K fertilizer is an over-simplification of what plants need, of course. But ours also get a steady rain of bird manure, from residents, and migrants; deer, raccoon, and whatsit manure galore- and- spider poo. You'd be surprised at how much poo spiders put out. If they're not dead, and there are bugs to eat. We keep testing for micronutrient deficiencies, to keep track; so far haven't really got any, so far as we can tell.
And, as it turns out- well fed plants just kick off pests. It's when they're starving that they get sick.
Sixth. Tweak, don't Demand. Way back there, I considered talking about "Pestapo" style agriculture. Eradicate everything. And contrasting it with my own "Tweakology".
But I decided that was just a bit too cutsey. It does illustrate a basic attitude, though; pest "control" is not something we do- we do a little pest management. But you will always have some pests, and pest damage...
And you WANT to. If you have no prey- you will have no predators. That's a setup for an epidemic outbreak. Cheaper, easier, to tolerate low pests, and work around them.
Example: mice. Mice are a big problem in some tree plantings; they can eat the bark and roots in winter, killing even big trees in bad years. Lots of orchards put out mouse poison, on a schedule. We do two things; we mow the grass down tight to the ground before the snow comes, and put up "hawk-roosts"; big poles put up in the right places to attract hawks and owls. It works. We have mice. We also have a resident pair of red-tailed hawks, who raise their brood feeding them mice, out of our plantings, every year. Plus tons of owls, who take over the night shift.
We try to nudge a pest in the direction we want; never shoot for eradication. That kind of total control is a trap; you'll have to do it forever, because, of course- you've also eliminated ALL the natural antagonists to the pest you're controlling. There are dozens, at least- probably hundreds - (how many diseases do people get?) but if they have no place to live, they're gone. Clean slate- ready for the pest to explode next season- unopposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, better stop, before you all fall asleep. RC- our stuff is better than organic because it comes from highly biodiverse permanent plantings- no plow, no toxins. And full of frogs (one spray of rotenone will wipe yours out for good) and bird nests. Eco-system based pest management.
So far, for us it's working. Which doesn't mean there won't be bumps. Grit your teeth.
The water in the valley- is crystal clear, but may well have some chemicals in it from all the years this land was "conventional". Atrazine, maybe. But for years now, all the water soaking into the ground has been free of toxins. That's hopeful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't forgotten the hunger issue, but we all need a break. There IS some progress; more are becoming aware- and some of it is as likely due to the noise we're making as anything. Take a look at the articles and links here. More before long.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
"conventional" farming gets pricey-
You remember, of course, a few posts ago when I referenced this NYT article on "Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles."
Plenty of folks are getting worried that organic products will "price themselves out" of the market; since they're always a bit more, and people are cutting everything they can in their budgets these days.
One of my responses was that, in time, "organic" could prove to have a competitive advantage over "conventional" - fewer inputs from oil, etc.
"My wife said, 'We're either going to sell the pigs or sell the farm, and we're not going to sell the farm,' " he said.
His farm once raised 50,000 hogs a year and employed a dozen people."
His farm once raised 50,000 hogs a year and employed a dozen people."
The article states that at the moment, due to increased cost of feed and fuel, mainstream hog farmers in Minnesota are losing $40-50 - per pig.
The problems of conventional ag are not going to get better. It's always been fossil fuel intensive. That's only going to get worse. A major component of the system, fertilizer, has been skyrocketing in price, and actually getting short- around the world, including the USA.
" 'If you want 10,000 tons, they’ll sell you 5,000 today, maybe 3,000,' said W. Scott Tinsman Jr., a fertilizer dealer in Davenport, Iowa. "
This is not good news for "commercial organic" farms; that that have to purchase certified organic feed for their dairy cows, etc. It's great news for small organic farmers, who use on-farm inputs, green manure, animal manure, and plain labor- instead of fossil fuels.
My question is- can organic farmers- and organic consumers get used to going into the store and finding - "Hormel" pork chops at $3.20/lb; and "local, certified organic" chops at- $2.90.
Now there, is sticker shock. It was always part of the point to organic- in the long run (and here we are!) it's more efficient- with less reliance on fossil fuels, and benefitting from the various aspects of small and local husbandry.
Both organic producers, and organic consumers, though are used to "elite" pricing. They take pride in it, in fact. "I get the highest prices, because my food is worth more" - and "I pay the most for my food because I care more..." A lot of the time, organic producers have gotten into the habit of setting their prices by looking at conventional stuff- and just bumping that up a certain percentage. Gotta quit doing that!
Time to start working on moving up to the next level. Shift gears, and take over the arguments always made by the massive inputs conventional ag guys.
"Organic Is Cheaper- Because We're More Fuel Efficient!"
"We Buy Organic- Cheaper, Healthier, Smarter!"
The transition, though- will be tricky. There's a chance for "organic" to shoot itself in the foot, by trying to hold onto the elite marketing direction. Let's face it- after fighting to be recognized as better, healthier- elite- it's going to be hard to revert to being plain farmers, for many of us.
We have lots of friends in the organic game- which we don't play, for many reasons. The food we do sell, we label "NOT Organic- Better". We ask for organic prices- or better- and have had no problem with acceptance. Because our customers know us.
-----------------------------------------
COMING NEXT POST!!
A cheerful, thirty year, on farm, success story. No starving children! No extinct species! Hopeful stuff!
So stay tuned. :-)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
In Defense of Excellence
Sometimes, when the universe presents me with a confluence of concepts, I am unable to resist responding. Hopefully this post won't suck too much time out of my life- or yours.
This morning, La Crunch posted a guide to a greener Valentine's Day- which included a suggestion that rather than go out to a fancy restaurant and CONSUME, you might stay home and celebrate there.
My response basically pointed out that restaurants have to make a living, too- and they're in some trouble at the moment, as lots of folks cut back. (And, full disclosure- I make part of my living selling fancy food to fancy restaurants...)
Then, cosmic synchronicity-wise, Frank Bruni, the NYT food writer, has an article entitled "In Defense of Decadence" - and opens, bless him, with Michael Pollan's brilliant distillation "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Then goes on to describe an eating experience on the other end of the spectrum.
I doubt that Pollan intended for us to abandon fine cuisine, and genius chefs and restaurateurs. Besides the value of occasionally cutting loose in celebration, there is another side to this problem, one we need to remember.
I did not discover that food could be ASTONISHING until I was 19, I think. My epiphany came in Munich, Germany- in the form of Ochsenschwanz Suppe. Ox-tail soup.
I ordered it because I'd heard of ox-tail soup for years, it sounded weird and exotic to me, and I was in the exploratory mode that summer- try whatever shows up, if it doesn't look dangerous.
One spoonful did it.
I was astonished. I'd never, in my life, realized or imagined that soup- or food- could be such an intense, gripping, focused, DELICIOUS, amazing- experience.
Soup, for crying out loud. It's soup- and I'm sitting here paralyzed.
My mother was a good cook; very good, and very conscientious. Every meal she cooked, she thought about, worked on; it was part of her work, her contribution.
Inevitably, though; cooking day in, day out, for the same audience, her efforts usually ended up reaching for - "good", and "ok". And those of us on the receiving end of her generosity surely did not pay enough attention to it.
The effort required to strive for astonishing excellence was usually just beyond her reach. One place she did spend the effort was on birthday cakes- she could have gone pro.
So. Why are so many of us willing to just constantly stuff our faces with MacDonald's burgers and fries? And put up with all the consequences?
I think a big part of the answer is WE JUST DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.
I didn't- until that spoonful of ox-tail soup. I just plain didn't know what was possible.
Teaching children, at a young age, to pay attention to the quality of their food- just might be one of the most important things we could do to move the world in a sustainable direction.
And it takes excellence to break through the vast mountains of salty-crunchy-sweet-cheesy-chocolate-grease they are used to. Mom is either tired most days- or feeds them packaged stuff to save time. Sad, but very common.
I've had fantasies for several years of 4th Grade field trips. The school bus takes a load of kids to the Farmers Market- they get to taste a fresh apple; fantastic cheese- then they go to the nearby 4 Star restaurant, where the top chef does his absolute best for them, for lunch; and their lives are changed. Now- they KNOW- what food is; and can be.
And cooks and chefs capable of excellence need somewhere to live, and grow. Their habitat is fine restaurants. And WE are the only ones who can prevent their extinction.
Somewhere- we need places where we can learn, and be reminded, of what is possible.
:-)
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. And splurge, occasionally.
My own opinion.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
New! Improved! Green! - oh, yeah, and dead children.
Sorry for my high post rate here, hopefully we won't reach overload on either end. Hadn't intended to post at all today, give things a chance to sink in- but-
What? Yeah, turns out that nasty smoke is the only thing keeping the mosquitoes out of the house. Guess who suffers? It's the children. They die. Big improvement.
There's a story today on the NYT that just made me see red. This is another "WHY can't we do Science right???" post. And why can't it be reported right?
Wow, sounds great huh?
Maybe, maybe not. One of the things I've studied in detail is the process of innovation- start to finished installation of new idea/technology. (Why? Because humans need to do a lot of changing- and we're lousy at it. The history of innovation might be good to know about.)
First thing you ask about a "new" idea - has somebody else already done/tried this?
No indication in this article they bothered with that. Just - "gosh, I was choking on the air inside! Must be awful to have to live with!" Never mind that they DO LIVE with it, and have for millennia. Don't bother to guess that they have ways of moving, sitting, and managing so they avoid the smoke most of the time. Don't ask.
Yes, dozens of inventors have looked at 3rd world cooking/cookstoves and come up with much "better" ways to do it; ways that use less wood, or make less smoke. Very few of them work out well. Would be a good idea to ask if it's been tried before around here.
Guess what? It has.
Guess what else? Improved Stoves and Severe Malaria
The critical quote from this German peer reviewed study:
In terms of cooking practices, use of an improved stove was associated with an increase in the risk of severe malaria (OR=3.39, p=0.004, 95%CL=1.49-7.75) as was an average cooking time less than three hours per day (OR=2.18, p=0.02, 95%CL=1.14-4.18).
No mention of this possibility in this lovely piece of PR for Shell, of course.
This ticks me off. This is not my area of expertise; I just read the science news- and even I knew about this connection. As far as we can tell, neither the scientist at the Shell Foundation, nor the journalist with the rosy reporting, bothered to ask question #1 - "has this been tried before?"
And will anybody notice this post, when the New Improved Regan-Bush Depression is getting underway today?
:-)
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The THWASPCO/Potty House in Winter-
That's "Three-Hole Wind And Solar Powered Composting Outhouse", in case you missed that earlier.
Some time ago, I made a comment over at NoImpactMan, to the effect that "everybody going back to mud huts" IS indeed an "option".
So- when your town builds one mile of 2 lane road- it tends to cost around $3.2 Million. More if it's mountainous, or swampy.
It took me quite a while to realize some of the participants there did not understand what I meant by that. It's not that universal mud huts is an option we would CHOOSE, as a society.
It's that we could all to easily find ourselves living that way- if we don't fix some of the problems facing us. The potential for societal collapse is that big. We won't choose it- the universe will enforce it, if we continue to ignore physics.
Seemed obvious to me- pretty dumb (of ME), huh?
Wherever humans live, there are seasons; either cold/warm, or wet/dry, or light/dark, or calm/windy - etc.
One of the factors contributing to planetary overload is the increasing assumption that whatever dwelling/city you build; it should be built to serve your needs perfectly - 100% of the time.
I think we probably cannot afford it. And I can tell you from long personal experience- it won't kill you to be hot, cold, wet, or dry, some of the time.
We look, for example, at the country farmer housing/village in China/India/Brazil- and the more sheltered among us are appalled. My gosh, the houses are made out of... mud. (Literally; or adobe, or rammed earth, or thatch...) The streets aren't paved. They use outhouses. Each house has one lightbulb. It's horrifying that humans should be forced to live this way! We think.
They frequently don't think so, until they get a satellite tv link, and start watching re-runs of Dallas.
Then, since this is what the whole world tells them, they start to "need" paving, highways, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, and prefab plywood houses. It's a disaster. They have no recognizable "cash-flow" to pay for all this, of course; so they tend to abandon their 8,000 year old sustainable agriculture/polyculture pathways, and plant a "cash-crop" - like cotton, or opium. So they can buy Spam, bagged rice from California... etc. One crop failure of the new cash crop and - they starve.
Sitting cosy in our Chicago condo, it's hard to realize- about HALF of all the humans on the planet still live this way. World Bank data.
As far as I can decipher the bureaucratese, a mere 25% or so of the world lives on $1US (one dollar) per day; or less. What's a little harder to discover is that another 25% or so lives on - TWICE that. That is - $2US/day (two dollars) - or less. Rich folks.
Life in the mud-hut world is far from bucolic; it entails occasional hunger, frequent lack of basic medicine, total lack of advanced medicine; short lives and too much hard work.
Here's what I'm trying to get around to- the capital investment in our "modern" city/suburb infrastructure is utterly incomprehensible to anyone living on $2/day. And a disproportionately large chunk of it goes to make our modern world "100%" functional, 100% of the year.
Highways are not a really good example to work with here; since a lot of the "frills" associated with fancy highways are also for safety - hard to argue against. But the numbers are more easily accessible than most; and for most of us- the costs are surprising. From GAO - (slide 16)
WSDOT found:
– Reported costs ranged from about $1 million to $8.5 million
per lane mile.
– The median reported cost was about $1.6 million per lane
mile.
– Five states reported costs significantly higher than other
states—ranging between about $3.1 million and $8.5 million
per lane mile. (See fig. 1.)
You have any idea what a mud village could do with $3.2M? Build a hospital? (mud would be fine) Educate 3 doctors?
Are all the roads in your neighborhood NECESSARY? How many are there so people can get to work 10 minutes faster? Or because there's one house way at the end of the road?
Staggering amounts of money are spent by us on infrastructure that is useful - for a small percentage of time; or a few people. This is mostly unnoticed- and I think is not being discussed as a possible source of "saved" energy and resources. Of COURSE it's my right to have an all weather road to my door!
Quite a few thinkers believe that one of the "answers" in the coming centuries to humanity's problems has to include a more even access to resources - water, fuel, money. Besides the airy-fairy nonsense about fairness or justice - it's just practical. Those damn poor people eventually get cranky, when they have nothing left to lose- and start banding together, and burning cities, and stuff. (take a look at history, please)
3 billion people now live on less than $2/day. How much more do they have to lose?
Analysis will show, I am quite confident, that the cost of providing services "100%/24/7/52" -is usually about TWICE the cost of providing services "92%/23/7/46". That's huge; and those resources are desperately needed elsewhere.
Would you be willing to put on a sweater for a couple weeks - so a village in India could have a doctor? That's what it could come down to, in the centuries ahead.
SO - where the heck is the THWASPCO in all this blather?
Well. It's a sanitation service that makes many people recoil in horror. "I COULDN'T live like that!" they'll say- and the most astonishing part to me; they believe it. Never mind that a) all your great grandparents lived this way, and b) more than half the people on the planet still do. Yes, you COULD. You just don't know it.
Why do we have one?
A) we couldn't afford a "normal" sanitation system- which would have cost about 6-8 times more. (Freeing resources for much more critical needs.)
B) once we got into the needs and design aspects- this system actually does an environmentally superior job of handling waste- by a long shot.
Oh, yah, and C) luckily for us all, your tushy just doesn't have many "cold" sensors in it. Sitting on a below-zero seat is like jumping into 50°F water- seems chilly for a couple moments, then you're used to it. NO BIGGIE.
Basically, the THWASPCO provides perfectly comfortable services about 8 months of the year. It's got substantial solar heat gain when the leaves are off- making spring and autumn pretty cozy. It MAY get too hot for a few days in mid summer. In midwinter- yeah, you notice it's not cozy.
So? Cope.
And how, precisely does one use an outhouse in -20° weather?
Very, very quickly.
More tomorrow. :-)
Thursday, December 13, 2007
New solar panels are up!
Hey, Chrusty Churkey! Here's a nice long dense one for ya! :-)
(For others- do be aware there will NOT be a test after you finish reading- feel free to skim over some of the technical bits; and you'll find pithy parts here and there, and at the bottom...)
As regulars here will remember, in October we had the delightful addition to our work of having our greenhouse solar power array wiped out by a direct lightning strike.

And, what does that all mean? Basic translation: "these panels claim to be 175 watt output, but "Standard Test Conditions" are unrealistic; slightly more realistic ones suggest 131 watts is a better average guess; and if it's a little cloudy, subtract more. These are "nominal" 24VDC panels- which is why they're putting out 35.7V under good conditions, of course- so your 24V batteries actually get charged."
Picking a manufacturer was an odyssey, too. In case you haven't noticed, the big petrochemical companies have been buying up the solar cell manufacturers. Eww.
We did, finally, get the panels replaced, and up and operating. That was a whole bunch of work- illustrating a number of points regarding attempts to move towards a greener lifestyle.
The solar panels WERE covered by our business insurance. Mostly. They're expensive, you know- and critical to the business, since they provide the main power for the greenhouse; so they were specifically listed on the insurance policy (unlike our stolen farm truck- not listed; worth $500 or so, and a minor piece of equipment- that was NOT covered; though our stolen chain saw; not listed, but worth $800 or so- WAS... go figure.)
But. Insurance has become a game where most insurers spend most of their effort figuring out how to NOT pay you anything for your losses. They sell you the policy smiling and saying "we're here to help you through bad times!" and when the hurricane hits, it's "no, no, see the fine print here? Says if the storm hits on a Thursday, we don't owe you anything! Ha! Gotcha!"
In fact my business insurance company is WAY better than most- they specialize in insuring nursery/greenhouses, and that whole world is small, and idiosyncratic in spades; so they have to be somewhat accommodating just to survive.
The coverage on the panels though was a little too specific to be useful, causing an extra 4-6 days of discussions before we could agree on how to proceed. The policy read "6 solar panels, max coverage $300 apiece; prorated for age; maximum liability #1800.00."
What I actually lost was 6 Siemens single-crystal panels, rated 48 watts apiece, installed in 1992. All 6 were damaged by the lightning strike- which was just as well, since trying to find panels to hook up and replace half of the array would have been impossible.
No, that's not me, that's Jerry, who came all the way from NY to help out. These are the panels AFTER the strike, incidentally - they look fine from this distance - but they don't work; blocking diodes melted, and some of the surface wiring between individual cells was vaporized. Took me several days before I noticed my battery bank was not getting charged.
Nobody makes 48 watt panels today (that I could find) - and the standards for the precise inner workings of the panels have changed...
In fact EVERYTHING about solar panels has changed since I bought my first ones- in 1982, I think (the cost- about $15/peak watt.) The only option then was single crystal- and a "nominal" 12V panel put out 16.something V max under load; 19V open circuit. If YOU are the one putting the system together, yeah, you have to know ALL those numbers; they make all the difference in whether the array is going to work or not.
Also, when I first bought panels, there were approximately 3 companies doing business- and the internet did not exist. Decisions were pretty simple.
Not so today. There are about 25 major companies selling panels over the internet- from about 15 different major manufacturers. And there are minor ones, too.
The good news is- the internet really does let you compare stuff very well.
The bad news is; it still takes hours- and it's still confusing/confused after you've done your darnedest to untangle it.
Let's just start with the hardware.
There are now single-crystal; poly-crystalline, amorphous, wire-pulled crystal, and hybrid solar panels to choose from. At least. Are there differences? Duh. Do they matter? Hey, just read their advertising!
Is there a good disinterested source that compares the types, based on initial cost, length of service, rate of power loss... fragility... track records...? Not that I could find. Actually I couldn't find even a bad, self-interested source with broad comparisons. Even digging down into the scientific reports and engineering journals didn't help. Half the technical info is on cells not available to the public- Gallium Arsenide, instead of silicon- and even more exotic stuff. Wildly expensive, and not going to be available for decades, if ever, to you and me.
Just sorting out, with some level of certainty, the differences between the stuff that IS available took days.
So, here's what I learned, and what I think. No real guarantees I'm right, though.
The original solar cells were made in the 50's - out of single cell crystals. (They're still working, incidentally, though at a reduced output. You own any other gizmo that's 50 years old and still works all day every day?)
When people got interested in trying to get the cost of solar cells down, they came up with "poly-crystalline" cells. They were supposed to be cheaper to make (though I don't see any real price differences today). But- originally, they didn't put out as much power as single-crystal cells; and they didn't last as long. Today, their specs claim they DO make as much power- and the 20 year/80% output guarantees are very similar. But. When you dig down- it seems that the RATE of power loss is still higher for both poly-crystalline and amorphous cells; single crystal cells lose power at something like 1% a year for the first 25 years; the others may lose power at 2-4% a year for the first several years; then slow down the rate of loss.
Amorphous cells rarely last longer than 10 years before needing to be replaced- they're just not as durable. Cheaper, flexible, lighter weight, but not going to last- barring lightning (or earthquakes, tornadoes, or what-have-you), a good silicon array can be expected to function adequately for - FORTY YEARS.
Eventually I decided I did want to go with the old single-crystal cell type. Mostly because they've got the track record. Some of the newer types are a little more efficient- but they haven't been around for even 20 years, so we don't exactly know how they'll be doing down the road. Ok. Now- which ones? Made by whom?
Here some of the panel sellers ARE useful- the best ones list good, uniform technical specs for each panel- with the manufacturer's spec sheet available as a downloadable PDF. Great- still very time consuming, and you have to be conversant in the language; and able to sort out stuff like:
Performance under standard test conditions (STC)
Peak Power (Pmax): 175 watts
Maximum power point voltage (Vmpp): 35.7 volts
Maximum power point current (Impp): 4.9 amps
Open Circuit Voltage (Voc): 44.4 volts
Short Circuit Current (Isc): 5.4 amps
Performance at 800w/sq m, NOCT, AM1.5
Peak Power (Pmax): 131 watts
Maximum power point voltage (Vmpp): 33.1 volts
Maximum power point current (Impp): 4.0 amps
Open Circuit Voltage (Voc): 41.1 volts
Short Circuit Current (Isc): 4.4 amps
Minor reduction in efficiency under partial load conditions at 25C at 200 W/sq m, 95% (+/- 3%) of the STC efficiency (1000 W/sq m) is achieved
Getting a headache yet? I sure was, around day 4 of trying to sort this stuff out.
-----------------------------------------------
Slight aside #1: if you're thinking of getting solar panels- or a wind generator- do you really have to know all this technical stuff?
Answer: It's very much like getting your car fixed. You either have to be able to do it yourself; or you need to be able to TRUST your mechanic.
There are plenty of mechanics who will rip you off if they CAN. "Hey, your infrahydraulic-frammulator is totally clogged! Dangerous to drive with it that way! I can put in a new one for only $320!"
Unless you know SOMETHING about it all; you're at risk of being ripped off, but good. And the more you know; the better. Not to mention that even good honest mechanics DO sometimes make boo-boos- and it helps if you're paying attention- knowledgeably.
The good news again- is the internet. You CAN educate yourself enormously faster, and better, than you could 15 years ago. But you still need to go into the process with your brain turned on; and be aware that there are thieves and liars on the internet, too. Surprise.
---------------------------------------
So - back to my installation- here is what I wound up with:
Two panels; instead of 6. And they're 24VDC instead of 12 (greenhouse battery system is 24V.) Those numbers above are for these panels; nominal 175 watts.
Basically, as more folks are installing solar arrays, the available panels have been getting bigger- and cheaper. Some economies of scale do seem to be kicking in. These panels were advertised at one site as $4.60/watt - which is CHEAP. Buying 50 watt panels to replace my 288 watt array would have cost me over $6/watt, best I could find. Some good incentive there for me to go just a bit larger; I can always use the extra power. Now- which panels, exactly?
The basic specs on a lot of panels have changed since I last bought some, 10 years ago. They all operate at slightly higher voltage; and they ALL come with built-in blocking diodes; something my first ones didn't have. All that is good- part of the learning process I'd helped pay for, by buying the early stuff.
And yes, I intended to support a growing, immature industry, by paying outrageously high prices for electricity- when friends and advisors kept pointing out "that's not even close to a competitive price for power, you know." I knew. We need to support green processes with our own dollars- they'll die on the vine, otherwise.
When solar panels were experimental, the engineers naturally - put them out in the sun, right? And measured their performance. Unfortunately, residences and small businesses have some other factors in their reality - they're called "neighbors", "utility lines", and "trees". All of which make "shade". It turned out that having just ONE CELL shaded on the old panels could make the whole array quit producing power. The voltage would drop on one panel- so the other panels would now push power- into that low panel, not the batteries. The blocking diodes prevent that from happening; so one shaded cell doesn't mean you lose the output of the whole array; just that one panel. And the higher over-all voltage also helps - better performance when it's a little cloudy, for example. Quite significant in terms of power delivered to the batteries, over the years, in the real world. Ok; having sorted THAT out (took one day, I think); I started looking just for bigger single-crystal panels, with an open circuit voltage around 44V...
Picking a manufacturer was an odyssey, too. In case you haven't noticed, the big petrochemical companies have been buying up the solar cell manufacturers. Eww.
The first panels I bought were Solarex. They were among the first to sell to consumers; based in Maryland, I think- big plans for building a "solar breeder" plant; where all the power to make their cells would come from... solar cells. BP (British Petroleum) bought them, quite a few years ago now- so BP can print tons of ads about how wonderful BP is, for doing all this advanced research on solar power.
Same thing happened to the Siemens solar division- which made the panels the lightning hit. They were bought out by Shell Oil. Double Eww. I will run out of gas, and walk, before I buy gasoline from Shell. Long story.
Then I ran into very similar panels made by Conergy- which, it turns out, is a German company. Cheap, too. Except. As it turns out. When you dig into the technical sheet - THESE particular German panels, imported into New Jersey, are actually made in China. Which you can really only tell IF you can decipher their product code- they don't exactly brag about it.
Now- I'm the opposite of a China-basher. I love the place; love the people, and I think as a country they have huge potential, if they can just avoid making all the mistakes we already have. Sure, they have some corrupt politicians and greedy businessmen - uh - SO DO WE, in case you haven't noticed. They also have huge numbers of very good people, including some politicians and businessmen, doing their darnedest to make China; and the world, "work".
But it IS on the other side of the planet- and the energy required to ship them just doesn't make environmental sense, as we know. I'd rather pay more money for panels made somewhere closer. Back to the drawing board.
There was another panel; made by a company I'd never heard of- "SolarWorld". Kind of a cheesy name; sounds like they hired a consultant to choose it...
Digging to find out who they are- turns out, it's a German company, with what looks like a good track record- and - guess what! These panels are being made in the California factory that they just bought- from Shell! Who bought it from Siemens. Round we go.
I liked the quality of the panels I'd had - these are probably made by the exact same PEOPLE - and Shell is now out of the picture. The engineering and manufacturing is critical on anything that SHOULD last for 40 years. These guys seem to know how. Ok, we have a winner.
I didn't buy the panels where they were cheapest. A) they didn't answer my emails; B) their website was a little slick and short on information; C) they shipped from the east coast; and these panels are made in California. I bought my two panels (a tiny order) from a company that ships from California; and they answered my emails, and even called on the phone to see things were going ok with the order.
The panels arrived on a semi (too big for UPS) - like 2 days after I made the order. Took several more days to get them installed; the old mount really could not accommodate the much taller panels; we managed to modify the old mount with some new steel; lots of sawing and drilling. Used an old "post drill" hand powered drill press to make most of the new holes in steel. Then took most of another day to get the panels bolted on, and wired (VERY CAREFULLY). And we added MORE lightning protection; another ground rod, just for the panels; heavy ground wireS. With any luck; it should be good for 40 years.
----------------------------------------------------
That's most of the story on replacing the panels. A huge part of my reason for detailing it here is to highlight the real difficulties of sorting out "what's green; what's greener; what's true; what's false; what's real; what's fake..." out here in the real world.
That's a topic that's come up several times in all the blog conversations I check into; for example No Impact Dude; Chuncky Chincken, and Green as a Whistle. And others.
Just the topic of "exactly how useful/green are Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs" turns out to be complex enough to keep people writing about it, including me.
At the moment there's a serious shortage of authoritative and trustworthy voices on green consumer practices, and a worse shortage regarding particular practices. The US Federal Govt. occasionally puts out some good comparative data- sometimes very extensive- BUT; you really have to dig for it, often it's in a weird incomprehensible form, and sometimes- it's biased by politics.
The only way to get this problem fixed:
1) Get everybody to understand that you have to take ALL "this is green" statements with a grain of salt- and do some homework of your own to see if you can believe it. And always will.
2) SOMEBODY (not me, I'm really busy) needs to found a green version of Consumers Union; the publishers of Consumer Reports. They're non-profit; never accept advertising from ANYONE; forbid any maker to use their name to recommend any product (and they'll seriously sue when someone does)- they really try hard to be independent. Perfect? no; always right, no- but the best thing I know of out there in terms of thorough independent testing and information. But they're not about to take on this chore of green certification, on top of what they already do. We need a new organization.
Somebody could make a good living doing that, actually, very fairly; and provide an invaluable resource for the rest of us.
And, such an organization could start to push for changes (Consumers Union members have considerable political clout) - like- how come, when you're buying a computer, or TV, or something similar- you have to absolutely BEG for the information on power consumption? Why isn't it listed right up front; always? Why don't businesses like Gaiam, which totally focuses on being "Earth-friendly" - actually give you the numbers? What they say there is "Energy Star Compliant." Oh, be still my heart. What that means is; some bureaucrat thinks the energy use is "not too bad". I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY.
I NEED to know, exactly- because I'm off the grid; and every photon counts; today. I not only want to know their "wattage" - which tends to be kind of meaningless - but I want average power consumption under 3 conditions; max load; half load, and light load. Because EVERYTHING varies on how much power it actually pulls. And I want numbers for average watt/HOURS/day, for each of those conditions- because a watt is just a measure of instantaneous power use- not power consumption per time.
Other stuff we need to know- embedded energy content; per gizmo; exactly how many ergs went into manufacturing this thing; and transporting it HERE. Lifetime - lifetime energy cost, and cost/year. Standby power use. (And EVERYTHING needs a switch on it; up front; so there is NO standby power drain.)
We label our food like we care about it. We've GOT to start labeling our energy consuming devices the same way.
The government is NOT going to do this, anytime soon- we're going to have to demand it, ourselves- and there's almost nothing out here, as an organized, authoritative green voice.
So. Who's going to DO it? You?
Why not?
Labels:
barriers to change,
green living,
real wealth,
solar panels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)