Category Archives: CounterCurrent

From NIMBY to BANANA

5 Replies

The 2005 government report entitled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, by Hirsch, Bezdek, and Wendling, is a sobering tally of the current picture of oil production and consumption in the world today. Often referred to as the Hirsch Report, the authors take a “now shot” of the global oil production scene and speak directly to the matter of mitigating the approaching economic disruption that must usher an unprepared nation into a future of peak and declining oil production.

If you read the Hirsch Report and pay attention to current events, you may be gripped by a kind of cognitve dissonance, or a haunting sense resembling a schizophrenic episode of contradictory voices in the collective consciousness.  While the global warming showboat is paddling up and down the Mississippi blowing steam and calliope music, nationalized oil producers are failing to answer calls for increased production in reply to a dramatic ramp-up in petroleum demand. Some call for increased exploration and others call for drop in replacements for petroleum. All the while, evidence accumulates that the ecosystem suffering from consumption and waste generation.

As with any discussion involving economics, it is possible for people to speak imprecisely when discussing supply and demand. Econobrowser takes Hirsch to task in this manner. It seems that many of us confuse demand with desire.

Supply equals demand today, supply will equal demand in 2025, and supply will equal demand in 2050. Whatever Hirsch means by “peaking of world conventional oil production,” it certainly isn’t the condition that “production will no longer satisfy demand.”

Our news media, now almost fully morphed into a perverse mix of gibbering Bill O’Reilly clones and entertainment news programming, prattles endlessly about the hurtful gasoline prices and truncated vacation plans. Government makes flatulent noises about more drilling, but hardly a peep about reduced consumption.  Where is the journalist corps? Who is asking the tough questions?

In isolation, either climate change or an exponential oil shock are more complex than nimrods leaders in the Bush administration can process. Together, these stresses add up to a major challenge to the way we live.  Maybe the situation is more complex than any nation can reasonably respond to. With global prosperity comes global demand for resources.  Western nations have built a house of cards based on cheap petroleum. Instead of wage growth in the past 20 years, we have been given easier access to credit. Instead of increased savings, we have found ways to burn up discretionary income.

A major part of what has to happen to adapt to the new reality of petroleum scarcity is a remodel of our infrastructure. We need more passenger rail lines and terminals with the necessary right-of-way issues taken care of. Workers need to live closer to their place of employment. The airlines have to figure out how to operate profitably with reduced passenger miles. We must upgrade our electric power distribution system to accommodate the increasing reliance on electrical energy. If wages do not change, we must adapt to having less discretionary income to spend. 

But a remodel of infrastructure will require that we adapt to living nearer to it. In the past, a proposal to build a power plant is met with a chorus of outrage or “concern”. It used to be called NIMBY- Not-In-My-Back-Yard.  The latest acronym is BANANA- Build-Absolutely-Nothing-Anywhere-Near-Anything. New power transmission lines and generating plants will have to go up and it will have to happen somewhere. People naturally fret about real estate prices and their view from the dining room window. I foresee more exercise of eminent domain in the future.

Secular Marriage. Gaussling’s 8th Epistle to the Bohemians.

9 Replies

Below is a comment that I left on the Volokh Conspiracy some time ago. Rather than squander perfectly good ramblings there, I have reproduced it here and attached a link.  Th’ Gaussling

Broadly, we have two kinds of marriage in the USA. One is before a god and the other is before the state. Marriage before a god is a supernatural arrangement that is beyond the scope of this letter.

It would seem that the states compelling interest in marriage is mostly confined to the disposition of debts, assets, and minor children during the marriage and in the event the marriage fails. Married partners have an obligation to the welfare of minor children born to them or adopted. Married partners also have a status that allows for decision-making in critical care situations. It seems to be a kind of partnership whereupon responsibility for the secular aspects of married life are defined. After all, the state is called in to make decisions as to the disposition of civil matters in the event of a divorce. Surely the state can clearly define certain basic responsibilities and privileges in advance.

The moral/spiritual aspects of marriage “can” be interpreted as being perpendicular or orthogonal (like the x and y axes in a graph) to the legal dimension of property rights and other secular aspects of married partners. The state is without supernatural powers, thankfully, so it is inherently impotent in the spiritual dimension. If that is the case, and in the absence of a uniform interpretation of supernatural governance, it should be silent on spiritual matters.

The state should have no interest in how married partners conduct their lawful affairs beyond the normal confines of civil and criminal law.

A code defining the responsibilities of married partners in a variety of configurations could be modeled easily. If you accept the premise that secular marriage is confined to the mundane matters that are already contestable in a court, then it is a simple matter to imagine same sex or plural marriages under the same constraints. What is the compelling interest of the state in barring same sex partners from having automatic authority in giving comfort to a dying partner? We already have codes regulating many other kinds of complex relationships between people- corporations, partnerships, LLC’s, government, etc. Minimally, the state should entertain the prospect of recognizing limited entry of some new definitions of marriage to adult parties wanting to be responsible members of society with the rights and responsibilities thereto appertaining.

Verbund Manufacturing

6 Replies

German manufacturing culture does many things very well, but a few things particularly stand out. One of these items pertains to the concept of verbund manufacturing. Verbund simply means “integrated” or “linked”. Verbund manufacturing sites are clusters of manufacturing units that take advantage of proximity. Clustering can offer certain logistic and energy advantages if done intelligently.

A cluster of manufacturing sites can operate and share a co-generation plant for the distribution of steam, waste heat, and electricity. Large capital items like steam plants can be shared so funds can be plowed into larger scale for better economy. Rail operations and other transportation resources can be shared as well. Clustering also provides for the possibility of vertically integrated manufacturing on site and a reduction in transportation costs.

Clustered manufacturing may also have the effect of concentrating the supply of skilled workers for the labor pool. A manufacturing nexus can attract community colleges and other vocational opportunities for the next generation of employees.

The USA has many manufacturing sites where similar industries congregate. Look at the Gulf coast with all of the refinery locations. But the extent to which there are synergistic interactions between companies is unclear.

In the US, corporations tend to behave as the Republic of Exxon or the Republic of the Union Pacific. This kind of a fragmented confederation of corporate states is becoming obsolete as we go up against nationalized business entities that control key resources and trade. The key to future vitality is greater efficiency with resources. Synergistic cooperation is one model that is available. But to do this requires trust and the desire to cooperate for mutual benefit. Competition begets gamesmanship and posturing which works against the verbund model for US businesses.

US corporations have much to learn from this business model.

Let’s get some new archetypes and paradigms. Please?

5 Replies

I viewed the new version of The Andromeda Strain recently. The miniseries is directed by brothers Ridley and Tony Scott and was broadcast on A&E. I really like and respect Michael Crichton for the book and the original movie was quite good. And, Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors.

But this remake is a problem. The production value is excellent and the cinematography is quite inspired in a few places. I couldn’t do better than Ridley Scott, so who am I to complain? But there is the rub. While it is technically competent and visually stimulating, the storyline is a bit … well, I’ll just say it … overwrought. The updated storyline is just too bloody complex. Too many little cul-de-sacs and backstories to keep track of. It has that same manic, runaway train feel as ER. Just like Crichton’s most recent books. I can’t finish them.

Part of the problem with much of contemporary movie making is the persistance of formulaic and over used themes. Tired, threadbare archetypes of reluctant heroes, corrupt politicians, and busty nubiles who are handy with martial arts and firearms. I enjoy watching Angelina Jolie spraying machine gun fire as much as the next guy, but enough! Lets move on to something new.

Which brings me to the latest Indiana Jones movie. This movie proves that even George Lucas is subject to the Peter Principle. The storyline is a patchwork of whatever few baby-boomer oriented euphamisms that haven’t already been hijacked by the trolls at Industrial Light and Magic. It’s a contrived piece of cinema that was apparently designed by MBA’s and industrial psychologists to extract money from your debit card. (But I did enjoy some Milk Duds during the show.)

For Gawd sakes, George, go out back and dig up some of that money you have buried in the back yard and buy a better script next time.

Chemists and Engineers

12 Replies

What would happen to innovation in chemical technology if we had a more intimate comingling of chemistry and the engineering sciences?  What effect would there be on the stream of chemists graduating into the world if more schools had a chemical engineer on the chemistry faculty? Could a single engineer on the faculty actually make a difference in altering the direction of the boat a few degrees?

Why is such a change desirable? One way to change the trend of deindustrialization and economic repositioning of manufacturing out of North America is to stimulate innovation in the industrial sciences. To do this we can rely on business leaders individually to formulate strategic plans to upgrade plants and processes by way of step changes in technology. But for business leaders, the calculation for such a change must also take into account the alternative of moving production to another country. Many times it is easier and faster to move production to China rather than taking a gamble on the invention of better technology. A large amount of pharmaceutical manufacturing has been shifted to China, Mexico, and India for this very reason.

To rely on business leaders (top down) to ramp up innovation really means that one is relying on the market. While letting the marketplace drive the economics and distribution of manufacturing has a certain appeal to purists, the global marketplace is highly distorted by government and taxation. Letting “pure” market forces govern innovation as the sole driver is to bet all of your money on a horse that limps.  Why not find ways to stimulate innovation with an improved stream of chemical innovators and a renewed urgency?

Universities do this all of the time. But it is my sense that other disciplines perhaps do this better. It is all too easy for we chemists to invent a reaction or composition, publish it, and then move on to the next outcropping of opportunity. We do this thinking that surely somebody will pick up the ball and run it to the end zone of commerce.

But for any given paper published in SynLett or JOC or ______, the likelihood of commercialization is low. It is not automatically the role of academic science to drive its work towards commercialization. That has been the role of engineering. 

What has been lacking is more significant early overlap of the two disciplines. For a chemist to truly be a part of bringing a transformation to the manufacturing scale, the chemist has to begin thinking about how to prepare the chemistry for the big pots and pans. This is what the art of scale-up is about. And in scale-up, the practice of chemistry has to overlap with the practice of engineering.

Industry already provides for itself in this way by training chemists to do scale-up work. This kind of work has always been beyond the scope of academic training.  But what if there were a course of study wherein chemistry faculty and students could more thoroughly address the problems of chemical manufacture? What if engineering concepts would be allowed to creep into the training of chemists?

Chemistry faculty would begin writing grants for process oriented research. Schools without engineering departments might start hiring the odd engineer or two in an effort to “modernize” the chemistry department.  Gradually, a department might become known among recruiters and donors for producing a strain of BS, MS, and PhD chemists who are already adapted to process research.

It is important to stress that the goal is not to plop conventional engineering curriculum into the chemical course of study.  That will not work. But what is possible is to build a minor in industrial chemistry applications. This pill will be easier to swallow for the P-chemists because in short order it would be apparent that chemical engineering is heavily loaded with physical chemistry.

I have tried to make a case that one way to make a positive influence in chemical innovation in North America is to begin a grass-roots effort to stimulate the culture of chemistry. I believe that providing an avenue of study that includes early exposure to engineering and process economics will stimulate many more students and faculty to make significant contributions to entrepreneurism and industry.

The Chemistry Curriculum

21 Replies

It is time to have a frank talk about the fundamental merits of the college chemistry curriculum. This plan of study has remained substantially unchanged for decades (see comment by bchem). Certainly minor changes occur through nudges and bumps here and there pertaining to details. But in the last generation has there been a dialog or debate on the fundamental assumptions of the common curriculum? And I refer specifically to the ACS certified curriculum, which has been the gold standard across the country. Major changes that I have been witness to mainly accomodate an increased emphasis on biochemistry or new computerized instrumentation. 

The undergraduate chemistry curriculum is a very logical and thorough survey of the three pillars of chemistry- Theory, synthesis, and analysis. This covers the fields of inorganic, organic, physical, analytical, and biochemistry. Along the way we teach a few other areas of specialty by way of electives.

The current program of chemical pedagogy is certainly true to itself. There is genuine concern and care to avoid dilution of the content and over-inflation of grades, generally. The core domains of the subject are sorted out and given special consideration. Much work has been done to spark interest in the field and textbooks seem to be written quite well as a rule.  Resources like J. Chem. Ed. are a continuous stream of clever tools and tricks to make the subject more plain.

Our colleges and universities have been quite good at churning out chemical scholarship. And students are given scholarly exposure in their learning program. Not surprisingly, scholars are very good at producing more scholars.

But has the academy been keeping up with the role of chemistry in the world?  Just look around. How many CEO’s and upper executives in the top 100 chemical companies are chemists? I have not seen this statistic tabulated. But I am confident that relatively few chemists populate those ranks. Those that do often arise through marketing or finance channels.

But why should they? The field of chemistry attracts people interested in science, not business. Chemical educators have a responsibility to educate chemical scientists with a minimum proficiency in the field.  That requires a minimum number of semester hours of coursework within a 4 year period. There is only so much a department can do and so much a student can absorb.

Yet, the purpose of a college education is to prepare a student for a productive life. A learning program that is internally consistent but blind to the needs of the external world is a fantasy. Have we come to value programmatic tidiness more than practicality?

Chemistry is a highly practical field. It involves problem solving and production. Chemists make stuff. Chemists solve problems. Chemists are specialists in the transformation of matter. But chemists do not operate in a vacuum. They do their work for organizations, and there is the rub.

By training, chemists are woefully prepared to function outside the laboratory. And as a direct result, chemists are poorly prepared to leave the lab and function elsewhere in the organization.  Traditionally, education in the organizational arts has been considered on-the-job training. In a sense this is not unreasonable. How can educators anticipate the needs of a student 5 years into the future? 

What is under appreciated by educators and students alike are the many opportunities that will follow for a chemist in industry. Many if not most chemists will come to a fork in the road in their careers. Will they stay in the lab or will they go to the business side? Usually, the path to greater opportunity in a business organization is the business side. Technical sales, customer service, marketing, procurement, management, etc.

I am not proposing that chemistry faculty teach coursework that cover such material. I am trying to suggest, however, that chemistry departments take a closer look at what an industrial career really looks like and try to anticipate a few needs that will arise as a result of this career path. Advisors can talk to students about the possibility of a business minor. An accounting or marketing class could be very helpful for a student who is uncertain about his/her career path. These are painless actions that can be of great use to a graduate.

But there is more than the passive approach of suggesting alternatives to undergrads. There is a more active approach that would definitely serve the needs of students and society alike.

Elective coursework covering intellectual property and patents, business law, the regulatory world (TSCA, EPA, OSHA, CERCLA, REACH, etc.), industrial hygiene, and perhaps most importantly an introduction to chemical engineering. This last item I cannot overemphasize.  Chemical engineering includes the basics of unit operations, process economics, thermodynamics, and controls. I would offer that the whole package could be called Industrial Chemistry. 

There are junior college programs for chemical operators that do provide exposure to some engineering concepts. But this isn’t necessarily for management track graduates.

I would offer that the department with an industrial chemistry program would be very successful in job placement as well as attracting new majors.  Comments?

 

Poorer Living from Better Things

5 Replies

I’m not an apologist for the chemical industry. Chemical industry has a checkered past in many ways. The pesticide, petrochemicals, and mining industries have left a deep and abiding foul taste in the mouths of many communities. In a previous era, heavy industry has fouled rivers, lakes, air, and ground water. It has lead to illness, death, and loss of livelihood to many people.

But in the modern era much of this wanton issuance of hazardous industrial material into the air and waters has been halted or greatly diminished. At least for the US, Canada, and the EU. And it is not because industry suddenly found religion. The “regulatory environment” became so compelling a liability cost factor that industry set its mind to engineering plants into compliance. 

I would make the observation that today, the major chemical health issues before us are not quite as much about bulk environmental pollution by waste products. Rather, I would offer that the most important matter may have to do with the chronic exposure of consumers to various levels of manufactured products. High energy density foods, particularly, high fructose corn sweeteners; veterinary antibiotic residues, endocrine disrupters, smoking, highly potent pharmaceuticals, and volatiles from polymers and adhesives to name just a few.

Modern life has come to require the consumption of many things.  A modern nation must have a thriving chemical industry to sustain its need for manufactured materials. It is quite difficult and isolating to live a life free of paint and plastics or diesel and drugs. Choosing paper over plastic at the supermarket requires a difficult calculation of comparative environmental insults. Pulp manufacture vs polymer manufacture- which is the least evil? I don’t know.

Our lives have transitioned from convenience to wretched excess. Our industry has given us an irresistable selection of facile ways to accomplish excess consumption. Individualized portions meter out aliquots of tasty morsels that our cortisol-stressed brains cry out for. These same portions are conveniently dispensed in petroleum- or natural gas-derived packages within packages within packages. These resource depleting disposable nested packages are delivered to our local market in diesel burning behemoths because some pencil-necked cube monkey decided that rotund Americans needed yet one more permutation of high fructose corn syrup saturated, palm oil softened, sodium salt crusted, azo dye pigmented, extruded grain product on Wal-Mart shelves.

Enough already.

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2008.

Vatican Astronomer Approves Belief in Aliens

3 Replies

Vatican Astronomer, Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, stated in an interview that, essentially, belief in aliens was not incompatible with Catholic Doctrine.

“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?” Funes said. “Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,’ and ‘sister,’ why should we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother’? It would still be part of creation.”

In the interview by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion “doesn’t contradict our faith” because aliens would still be God’s creatures. Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like “putting limits” on God’s creative freedom, he said.

This is quite a thing to hear from the Vatican. Rev. Funes stated that he felt that the big bang theory seemed quite reasonable to him, provided that the universe was an act of creation rather than chance. The Vatican has come a long way from the trial of Galileo, resulting in what John Paul II called a “tragic mutual incomprehension.”

In honor of Pope John Paul II passing awayI still see you too man I just think its funny to refer to the pope as a celebrity. peek-a-boo, pope

Photo pilfered from Collegehumor.com. 

Aviation Deathmatch- Boeing vs Airbus vs PR of China

2 Replies

China has announced that it will enter into the passenger jet manufacturing business.  China Commercial Aircraft is expected to produce 150-passenger aircraft by 2020. 

This is a big deal.  And a big time challenge to the primacy of the US aviation industry. China’s aim is to achieve self-sufficiency in all high tech sectors. If it were just that, it would be less threatening. But what it really means is global market domination, not just self-sufficiency.  This is just competition, but how it plays out for the US will depend on how US industry acts to hold on to its marketshare beginning right now.

The USA retains talent and ability in the entertainment and aviation industries. I believe that US influence of the petrochemical industry is in decline, due in part to the rise of nationalized oil companies in much of the oil producing world. It looks as if our aviation industry will feel competition by a nationalized aircraft manufacturer as well.

The rise of Chinese competition in the marketplace in inevitable. What the west must come to grips with is the inherent leverage that China has with its low wage labor force and the ability to channel resources into projects of national pride such as this.

China will also have the benefit of a century of jet engine and aeronautical research paid for by other nations. I imagine that more than a few of its engineers will have western universities listed on their resumes. Can’t do much about this either. But we in the west can use this example to strengthen our resolve to not go the way of tired and anemic empires.