29 September 2022

Poetry of Despair

 Poetry of Despair

Have you come across the poetry of Natalie Shapero?

I am a newcomer. I quote from a review by Stephanie Burt in the London Review of Books (8th Sept., 2022) of Natalie Shapero's 3rd volume titled "Popular Longing" (ISBN 13:978 1 5565 95 882)

I am not an habitual poetry reader, and am unfamiliar with this vein of brilliant cynicism and witty despair. I am tempted to show it to my friends, but wonder if it is safe. Is it perhaps infectious, or poisonous? 

The river is heavy with phosphorous and
scum.
It causes liver damage if ingested.
I don't know exactly whose runoff it is, but
so long
as they 're taking press photos with 
prizewinning 
children and donating sizeable
sums to the ballet, I take no issue. River 's
yours.

(The line breaks are integral to the poems.)

Maybe those who live outside the united states of America can shrug off some of the clinging bleakness.

Wars are like children –
you create one, offer scant
effort, then call it botched as the years
accrue, go off and make
a new one with somebody else.
A chance to finally get it right.

This, and the following, seem to me to be suicidal stuff. 

........Or the man who drew his
gun
and shot up a wall of old masters and then
himself. 

Natalie (or Staphanie) asks "If life is just cashing in tokens for other kinds of token – why bother?" Why indeed! 

I do not live there. I do not meet those people, think those thoughts. I treck to the hills where I can find heather and bilberry, where I can walk to exhaustion; then rest; lie on my back and look at the sky. Then, everything I see is pure delight. I can echo JS Mill in commending Wordsworth, poet of nature, as a cure for depression. 

When I get back to my village, the pub is full of builders and plumbers, happily chatting about their bikes, or teasing the barmaids. Most of the people I meet are moving gently towards their goals; or think they are.  

It is not so bad. And, at the end of the day, a warm bath and my duvet. 

25 September 2022

Who wants economic growth?

Growth, Steady-State, or Shrinkage?    

There seems to be a majority in the Conservative party in favour of economic growth, such that Lis Truss could win office by offering 'growth' (with no mention of cost). 

I am not convinced that people are thinking deeply enough about this question. I mistrust the Conservatives because their declared aim is to favour the rich. I mistrust the media because they are (for the most part) simply repeating the scraps they pick up. I have learnt in my professional life, as a scientist, that one should never accept a proposition simply because it is widely accepted. I favour steady-state or shrinkage. But let us look.

    Some honest people might favour growth, thinking that "levelling up" requires growth. For everyone to have their own car, their own home, or two cars and a holiday home, there must be a considerable increase in the manufacture of desirable commodities. True enough; but we could "level down" if that seemed better –– in the long run. 

    Faced with a deficit between government spending and tax receipts, and having squeezed spending to the point where public services are failing on all sides, it is natural to try to increase tax receipts. There seem to be only three ways to do that: (a) tightening tax laws to minimise avoidance, (b) increasing tax rates, and (c) increasing gross domestic production (GDP).  These might be characterised as (a) difficult, (b) un-palatable**, and (c) opaque. I.e., does this 'growth' mean more of the same, or an increase of efficiency? If it means more factories, houses, schools, hospitals, concrete, trucks, cars, roads, fuel, pollution, CO2, with lower standards of hygiene, oversight, and control, etc. I would vote against it. Obviously! Because 'Quality of Life' matters. 

  Truss proposed to increase GDP by bringing in foreign workers. That would increase tax revenues, but it would not increase GDP per capita; we would not individually be better off. 

**It is amazing how few people can see the up-side to taxes –– that taxes fund services. See: https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2020/11/paying-taxes-both-virtue-and-necessity.html 

REFERENCES

West, I.C. (2011), https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2011/11/growth.html 

West, I.C. (2017), https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2017/10/coppola-comment-comment.html

Geoff Mann (2022) "Reversing the Freight Train", London Review of Books 44/16 p.27.

Jason Hickel (2021) "Less is more: how regrowth will save the world", Windmill, ISBN: 978 1 78609 121 5





    

12 September 2022

Tidal Power

 Tidal Power Generation

    A strange feature of Tidal Power is that everyone thinks it is a good idea, but few seem able to make it work (commercially).


    There are a great number of grant-funded starter companies that research away for decades but never get to linking into the national 'grid'. One is reminded of a sardonic remark about anti-cancer research: that "there are as many people who live by cancer as die by cancer". Rather than give up a wonderful outdoor life on a Scottish island and return to university, they think up another plan and put in another research-grant application.

The exploitation of water to generate electricity is quite old. William Armstrong was using hydroelectricity to illuminate his house in Northumberland back in 1878, letting water flow out of his lake down an Archimedean screw. And H.J. Rogers began generating electricity on a grander scale at what is known as "the world's first hydroelectric power plant",  at Appleton, Wisconsin, on 30 September, 1882. Countries like Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand generate nearly all their electricity by such schemes. But they all use fresh water falling under gravity, from a height (to which it was raised by solar evaporation). Tidal power is much scarcer.

There are two ways of describing the cost of hydroelectricity; (a) ignoring the initial capital costs (counting only maintenance), and (b) including the capital costs. The latter is more just, but it only becomes possible to calculate when the lifetime of the installation is known. Which may be why we are often told how cheap hydroelectricity is. Like all the renewables, the input energy, the 'fuel', is free. The ongoing cost involves only maintenance (oiling, painting, cleaning the filters).  Thus, it is said [1] that: 

"at US$ 0.05/kWh, hydroelectricity remains the lowest-cost source of electricity worldwide, according to a recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency, entitled 'Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017'."

Once built, the only costs are servicing and maintenance, for the fuel is free. But building is expensive. It has been calculated that to build a hydroelectric dam and install turbines costs around £4000 per kiloWatt of installed power, falling slightly with increasing size [2]. This means that, if the installation lasts 4,000 hours and we ignore maintenance, we are producing electricity at the cost of £1 per kWh unit. To get the cost down to 1p per unit, the life must be 400,000 hr, or 46 years. 

    Such lifetimes have been easily achieved with freshwater systems, and many exist around the world producing low cost electricity.  What is it, then, that puts up the engineering costs of tidal power; perhaps the salt water and the stressful marine environment? Let us look at some examples, but first at why tidal power is so tempting.


The immense amount of energy in tides 

    Tidal flows contain two forms of energy: potential energy in the change in height, and kinetic energy in the movement of mass. Both depend linearly on the mass (m) of water involved.

        Potential energy (E(p)) depends linearly on the height through which the water falls. 

E(p) = mgh  

(where g is the constant acceleration due to gravity, h is height in metres.)

Kinetic energy (E(k)) is represented by:

E(k) = ½ mv^2

and therefore on the square of the velocity (v). (Some [3,4] say on the cube of velocity! Perhaps they are applying the formula used by wind turbine engineers [5].) With tidal-stream generation there is little or no fall of mass, just the lateral momentum of the tide flowing past the turbine; like viscous and massive 'wind'.


    Many people have noted the immense amount of kinetic energy involved in the tides that flow round many of the coasts in the world. Dragged round, of course, by the relatively sluggish rotation of the moon round the earth and the much faster rotation of the earth on its axis; for of course the earth rotates on its axis once in 24 hours (23.93 hours in sidereal time, for in our 'day' the earth rotates a tiny bit more than 360º, more like 361º), while the moon circumscribes the earth in 27.3 days.

    The energy involved in the twice-daily flow of water through Cook Straight between the North and South Islands of New Zealand) is estimated [6] at 12 GWatt, more that enough for the whole of New Zealand. A couple of engineering firms have been eying it up for a decade, but no electricity has yet been made. Kaipara Harbour [6] in the north of the North Island of New Zealand is another promising site, as it fills and empties 7960 million cubic metres of sea water daily through a channel only 6 km wide. 

    (Why does the earth spin? And rotate round the sun for that matter; ditto the moon about the earth? These are presumed to be residual rotational energies possessed by the matter from which the solar system was formed. It is a baffling thought, but belief in this theory is bolstered by noting that nearly all the planets and moons spin in the same direction and roughly in a plane. Looking down on that plane from the 'north', they all spin anticlockwise (except Uranus and Venus).  If you are wondering if these residual spins are gradually running down due to friction, as water rushes up and down our estuaries, the answer is 'yes they are, but not by very much'. According to Wikipedia, the length of our day has increased from 21.9 hours to 24 hours in the last 620 million years.  As yet 'Man' has not increased, by a noticeable fraction, the frictional dissipation of rotational momentum. The tides will survive us, and our grandchildren.)

Sea water may impose problems,

    Tidal power has been harnessed since the dark ages, driving costal water mills as water flowed into or out of tidal ponds. It is a little surprising that there are so few successes and so many failures in harnessing this energy for the generation of electricity. When it comes to sea water, extra problems seem to arise, like corrosion, and storm-damage. 


Tidal Successes [6]

1. Rance River project in Brittany, France (Usine marémotrice de la Rance)

    Construction took five years and was completed in 1966. In the following year a road was built across the barrage linking the towns of Dinard and Saint-Malo, and the output was connected to the national grid. The plant cost some €94.5 million (in Francs, of course) and, at an annual output of approximately 500 GWh, is said to have taken 20 years to pay for itself.

    The cost of electricity production is currently quoted as "€0.12/kWh", but it is not clear what assumed lifetime goes into that calculation .


2. Sihwa Lake Barrage, South Korea.

    This barrage (completed 2011) was built with the primary purpose of land reclamation. The cost (US$ 560 million) should be recouped in 10-11 years as the generated energy is 552 GWh per annum. (552 million units, at 10c per unit, is 55.2 million US$ per year.)

Tidal Failures [6]

    The "world's first commercial-scale and grid-connected tidal stream generator" – by SeaGen in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, built 2008, and decommissioned in 2019, cost  12 M£ and generated a total of 11.6 GWh in its lifetime. As there are a million kiloWatthours (kWh) in a gigaWatthour (GWh), we see that the tidal stream electricity cost roughly £1 per kWh. This technology is still in the developmental stage.

    A proposed tidal power project to be located in the Kaipara Harbour was approved in 2011 and put on hold in 2013. The project planned an ultimate size of 200MW at a cost of $600 million. Suppose it achieved 60MW for 100,000 hours (producing 6000 GWh) the produced electricity costs $0.1 per kWh, and would take 11.4 years to pay the up front capital cost. But the developer Crest Energy gave up and sold the project to Todd Energy. 


Conclusions

    Big tidal projects require deep pockets; maybe government investment. 

    It is sad that the successful Rance Barrage has not been followed up more energetically, though admittedly it was not till 1990 that it could be said unequivocally to be a success. 

    Tidal Stream generation has not yet become commercial, but should develop from its present experimental status.


References

[1]  https://www.hydroreview.com/business-finance/hydropower-remains-the-lowest-cost-source-of-electricity-globally/ 

[2]  https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/hydropower/hydropower-learning-centre/how-much-do-hydropower-systems-cost-to-build/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_power_in_New_Zealand#Tidal_power

[4]  http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph240/peterson2/

[5]  https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wind-power-d_1214.html

[6]  Wikipedia

06 September 2022

Average electricity consumption

 Average annual electricity consumption. 

    I spotted a small comment at the top of page 2 of my electricity bill which piqued my interest. It said (and I am faithfully retaining the punctuation):

Your Annual Consumption (based on average usage): Electricity kWh:4200.”

It struck me that 4200 kWh might be a bit high, so I dug out my data for the last few years. In the 12 months to the end of August 2022 I imported 847 kWh. In the previous two years I imported 1051 kWh, and 926 kWh respectively. My average consumption must lie in the region of 940 kWh per annum over the 7 years I have been in this property. So I challenged the company. Their defence surprised me: 

"This is the figure we are told to put on the invoice by Ofgem."
    
Well I do not think so! These OFGEM people may not be top-flight economists, but they are civil servants. I quote:

"The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) regulates the monopoly companies which run the gas and electricity networks. It takes decisions on price controls and enforcement, acting in the interests of consumers and helping the industries to achieve environmental improvements." "OFGEM is a non-ministerial department."

The concept of "Your average consumption" is ambiguous. It implies averaged over time.  It surely does not mean averaged over me and a number of other people in like circumstances. Describing somebody else's consumption as "Your Annual Consumption" it is plain false.

What I think we can conclude is that OFGEM orders supply companies to tell their customers "an average annual consumption of energy" (electricity in my case), leaving undefined what they wanted consumers to know, and why.  I think OFGEM must have intended companies to indicate the consumption of the average household, with its 2.4 members aged 40.4 years. That is not much of a guide for a single pensioner of 80.  

(I also found recently that OFGEM impose a surcharge on companies to recover the money lost in the bankruptcy of suppliers, and set an upper limit to the standing charge that suppliers may charge –– see my blogPerhaps OFGEM is not quite as sharp as I have been assuming.)

I decide to put this to OFGEM. For the sequel, see: Part 2 


05 September 2022

Standing Charges

 Electricity Standing Charges 

You may have wondered, with me, why the so-called 'standing charge' on your electricity bill has gone up. This charge, expressed as x pence per day, is explained as the cost of attaching you to the grid. Well, that has surely not gone up in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so why did the standing charge leap up  this spring from e.g. 25p to e.g. 35p?

Well, it turns out it is not because of a sudden change in the cost of connecting you to the grid, an idea I had already dismissed. Nor is it simply a case of opportunistic profit taking, which was my next thought. It seems it is a rather clumsy way of recompensing the surviving supply companies for taking on the customers and the debts of the recently bankrupted supply companies. 

I call it clumsy because I think it loads the debt onto the wrong people, and in the wrong way. It might be that the surviving supply companies were already overcharging their customers, and that is why they survived. Or they operate a more efficient business, in which case why penalise them (and their customers)? 

The whole business of standing charges seems to me to be wrong. When you buy a box of matches you do not pay a surcharge to cover your share of the factory, and operating costs; those are factored into the unit cost. It is true that a small user of electricity will incur similar connection and billing costs to a large user. But a tiny integrated charge would cover that, and the sparing user would be maximally rewarded for his frugality. At a time when the whole world is trying to minimise fossil energy consumption, lowering the unit cost by hiding it in standing charges seems to me to be wrong-headed.

(A parallel argument applies to water supplies. I noticed that my neighbour sprayed tap-water all over his garden while I collected rain-water in butts. I figured that he was not on a meter. And concluded that there was insufficient inducement to go onto a meter; especially for large users like my neighbour.)

I believe some suppliers of electricity make no 'standing charge', and do indeed incorporate the cost into the unit price. However, most companies do make such a charge. Why is that? Is it just a way of confusing the buyer who looks only at the unit price when choosing a supplier? I believe I use considerably less than the average amount  of electricity (see my next blog), and consequently am paying an inordinate share of the debts of the bankrupt companies. I must track down a company offering zero standing charges. It seems to me to be a more straight-forward way of selling a utility. 




03 September 2022

Subsidised bus fares

 Subsidised Bus Fares.

    Hurray! At last my ideas are getting through. On 18th July I wrote to Stagecoach Oxford a longish letter, of which this is a part:

Dear Stagecoach Oxford,

....... It is a dilemma for Stagecoach. Overtime and higher wages would presumably cure the ‘Sunday sickness’ problem. But not enough people use the buses. I would have it (by law, using subsidies) that any single bus fare must be cheaper than the same trip by car. But then, I am not prime minister. ........

     Yours sincerely, Ian West

    And this morning, on BBC radio 4 Today:

"'Bus journeys in England will be capped at £2 from January to March next year in a bid to ease the rising cost of living', the government has said."

    The government has not grasped the whole proposition, but this announcement is a beginning. They seem to be looking at it as a way to ameliorate a  cost of living crisis in the next six months. I am considering the whole rationale of public transport, fuel economy, climate change, levelling up, etc., not only for short journeys and not only for 3 months, but continuing well into the future; more as a matter of principle than as an expedient.

    It is amazing, all the same, that my core idea might have got through to the Department for Transport and to its energetic minister Grant Shapps. Perhaps Martin Griffiths (Stagecoach Chief Executive), or Ray O'Toole (Stagecoach Chairman) is one of his buddies, though that seems a bit unlikely.  Stagecoach owns a formidable number of transport companies around the world, and I only contacted the Customer Service officer in Oxford. I doubt my letter got read, let alone passed up the chain.

    Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transport, says he also was calling for a £2 cap. And well he may have been; for he seems to be a good egg. He also might have noticed the stream of empty buses on car-infested roads, and come to the same conclusion that I did, who am chief executive only of my own tiny household.