THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Fellow Systocrats:

Breaking news: BP corporate subhumans continue to make jackasses of themselves in the Gulf.  Shocking, I know . . .

I just learned that not only is BP using controlled burns to contain the oil in the Gulf, but they are burning endangered sea turtles in the process.  Word is that BP is using fire-resistant booms to enclose a certain quantity of oil and then setting the enclosure on fire. 

I dare say that this is BP jackassery at it's finest.  It's hard to know where to start, but I'm gonna take a stab at it anyway.  First of all, these controlled burns are obviously releasing toxins into the atmosphere.  According to one news source, burning oil releases "toxic gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which result from the incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials such as oil; and volatile organic compounds such as benzene toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene."  It has also been reported that these controlled burns have resulted in huge clouds of black smoke, which carry the toxins on the wind to parts unknown. 

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to breathe in any of that crap.  I'm sure that the thousands of clean-up workers in the Gulf would agree with me.

Then there are the turtles.  According to Credo, members of the endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle species have been burned alive during these controlled burns.  Under the Endangered Species Act, each dead turtle can saddle BP with prison time and up to $25,000 in civil penalties. 

Of course, it's also just plain wrong to view turtlecide as an acceptable by-product of a corporate mentality which dictates that the cheapest, most expedient solution is the best, even if it results in toxic fumes and death by fire to innocent wildlife that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

What really kills me is that BP has recently been presented with better options than burning the oil, namely Ozonix technology and Kevin Costner's sea vacuums.  Why burn oil when you can separate it from seawater and presumably still sell it?  Jackassery, my friends.  Pure and unadulterated jackassery.

Posted by Tom Douglas at 06:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Fellow Systocrats:

Apparently there are more innovative techniques for cleaning up the Gulf than I was aware of.  Turns out that the latest proposed solution was developed to help the natural gas industry with a bad "fracing" situation.  Hallelujah for bad fracs!!  (Any BSG fans out there?  Anyone?) 

I flipped on CNN last Saturday to find Drew Bledsoe hawking a new technique for cleansing seawater called "Ozonix technology" on behalf of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc.  You can check out the CNN interview here.  Turns out that Bledsoe and his pal Troy Aikman are both investors in Ecosphere Energy Services, LLC, a majority owned subsidiary of Ecosphere Technologies. 

Here's how Ozonix technology is supposed to work in a deep water cleanup operation like the Gulf.  According to a pamphlet posted on Ecosphere's website, an Ozonix cavitational reactor uses highly ozonated water (water with ozone gas diffused into it) and a two step cavitation process to generate millions of nano-bubbles (for those of you who, like me, aren't scientists or engineers, cavitation is "the sudden formation and collapse of low-pressure bubbles in liquids by means of mechanical forces, such as those resulting from rotation of a marine propeller.").

These nano-bubbles are released deep beneath the waves to create a "buoyancy blanket," i.e. a column of bubbles that bear oil-contaminated water to the surface, where a second Ozonix machine separates the mixture into highly oxygenated water on the one hand and concentrated oil on the other. 

More specifically, the second Ozonix reactor decontaminates seawater by means of an oxidation process. According to an informational video on Ecosphere's website, after contaminated water enters the reactor, ozonated water decomposes organic and inorganic contaminants.  The nano-bubbles implode, a process that raises the water temperature several hundred degrees in a process known as sonoluminescence.  A secondary oxidation process occurs with the help of submerged electrodes, whereby hydrogen and oxygen are separated from the water and bond together to form hydroxl radicals, which oxidize "leftover organics."  As the water continues its journey through the Ozonix reactor, the electrodes decompose contaminants and kill any remaining microorganisms.  At this point, Ecosphere claims that the water is safe to use and recycle. 

This process has been endorsed by iconic oceanographer and environmentalist Jean-Michel Cousteau to aid the Gulf clean-up effort.  Major selling points of this technology include the following: 1. the process does not rely on chemical dispersants that may harm the environment; and 2. each machine operating on the surface purports to clean approximately one million gallons of water a day.  According to Bledsoe, Ecosphere Technologies is ready to unleash 26 of these bad boys in the Gulf as soon as BP gives them the green light. 

Moreover, these cavitational reactors have already been successfully marketed to the natural gas industry.  According to Ecosphere, over the last 18 months or so, Ozonix technology has been purchased and successfully utilized by natural gas companies to treat contaminated "flowback" water at 150 different sites.  By way of explanation, in order to recover natural gas deep below the Earth's surface, water is pumped into the ground to release natural gas trapped in shale formations, a process called "hydraulic fracing."  Good thing the natural gas industry had this fracing problem and the Ozonix folks figured out how to turn a bad frac into a good one! 

It would seem that Ozonix technology has a leg up on Costner's sea vacuums.  In the first place, Ecosphere has a plan to actually bring the oil to the surface.  We've all read about the huge plumes of oil that continue to spread beneath the waves.   In the second place, if the estimates of both Ocean Therapy Solutions and Ecosphere are to be believed, Ozonix can clean twice as much water per day as the sea vac (a million gallons compared to 500,000 for Costner's largest sea vac model).  Moreover, according to Charles Vinick, Chairman of Ecosphere Technologies, the cleansed water is so highly oxygenated that it can help replenish the environment. 

Even so, given the immense scope of the environmental disaster, I don't think this is an "either/or" situation.  An "all hands on deck" approach is still warranted.  There's enough water in need of degreasing down there to keep the sea vacs and the cavitational reactors busy for some time.

Yes, the new technology is exciting.  Just as important is the fact that in this case, the "free market" is functioning exactly as it should.  The oil companies are run by a bunch of damned sloppy, profit-obsessed, short-sighted nimrods, and as a result these types of environmental disasters occur.  Because to date there really hasn't been a terribly effective option for cleaning up oil spills, an enormous opportunity exists to develop effective new cleanup methods, save the day and reap a tidy profit in the process. 

By no means am I endorsing the profit motive as a worthy end in and of itself - that's how we got into this mess in the first place.  But I am rather pleased to see the "market" produce some innovative solutions to clean up after BP's negligence.  Now, let's all hope that someone takes this market principle one step further and presents an immediate, comprehensive energy solution that does not involve fossil fuels or any other non-renewable sources! 

Posted by Tom Douglas at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Fellow Systocrats:

I just had to weigh in on the madness, the absolute jackassery that's been unfolding in the Gulf.

The AP reported today that since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20, up to two million barrels of oil per day may have been leaking into the Gulf before BP managed to cap the busted well on June 3 and start capturing some of the rogue oil.  In other words, BP has done its very best to foul our environment on an unprecedented scale.  Given BP's rather callous response to the environmental cataclysm they've unleashed in the Gulf, I'm convinced that they, along with their metanat corporate cronies, are secretly constructing a lunar colony on the dark side of the moon, to be completed right around the time they finish rendering this planet unfit for human habitation.  Otherwise, the studied indifference of BP CEO Tony Hayward and his mates to this disaster is hard to fathom. 

Assuming that the planned relief wells work and the massive oilgasm in the Gulf eventually ceases, we still need to clean up this huge mess.  Problem is, our current clean-up techniques are not terribly effective.  We've all seen the pictures of determined folks in Gulf states erecting sand berms, bagging tar balls that wash up on the beaches, using shop vac-like devices to vacuum up oily water, etc.  While I commend these people for getting out there and doing the best they can, these measures are just not going to get the job done. To give you an example, the cleanup effort after the Exxon Valdez dumped over 10 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound utilized the same methods, cost 2 billion dollars and recovered an estimated eight percent of the oil. 

Enter Kevin Costner's sea vacuum.  Around May 20, various sources reported that Costner and his company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, had approached BP with these devices.  Basically the sea vacuum is a giant centrifuge that takes in contaminated water, spins it at speeds generating up to 600 times the force of gravity and spits out 99% pure water on one end and usable oil on the other.  According to Ocean Therapy, each sea vac is capable of cleaning 210,000 gallons of water a day. 

Since this story broke almost three weeks ago, there's been virtually no new word on where things stood between BP and Ocean Therapy until a couple of days ago when Ocean Therapy finally started posting updates on its website.  Two weeks ago, I went to Ocean Therapy's website and registered to receive more information on the company.  To date, I've received nothing.  Not even an email "thanking me for my interest in the company."

Today the LA Times is reporting that the machines still haven't been deployed.  According to Costner, the "deployment of the 2½-ton machines had been delayed by rigorous testing requirements of BP and federal regulatory agencies, as well as engineering challenges posed by leaked oil that had degraded over time into gooey masses with the consistency of peanut butter." 

Regulatory approval?  You're kidding me, right?  Hey, nobody seemed all that concerned about strict compliance with federal regulations when the Deepwater Horizon was being commissioned.  Moreover, as a matter of simple common sense, testing this machine and reviewing its performance for regulatory compliance could have been done in a day, especially given the magnitude of this disaster and the fact that the damn thing is just not that complicated.  "Okay, it spins really fast and separates oil from water, check.   No environmentally harmful waste product - water is 99% pure and oil is captured, check.  Okay people, we're done here.  File the paperwork and get the damn machines on the water!!  Oh, we need to wait two months for approval?  Get me the President on the line!!" 

Thankfully, we finally appear to be past the regulatory and testing phase.  So, why aren't we seeing clips of these machines on the news, heroically cleansing millions of gallons of seawater a day, interspersed with pictures of Costner himself, circa Waterworld?  Apparently, it's because BP has yet to pony up the cash for the sea vacuums.  The LA Times reports that although BP has issued a letter of intent to purchase 32 of Costner's sea vacs this week, Ocean Therapy has yet to be paid.  

The most expensive sea vacuum is reported to go for $500,000.  Assuming that all of the sea vac models are similarly priced, it would cost BP 16 million for the 32 machines that it intends to buy.  I would think that Mr. Hayward could probably find that kind of money under the seat cushions of his car.

But wait, it gets better.  Last Wednesday, Costner showed up on Capital Hill.  Among other things, he testified that his centrifuge cleaning technology has been around for twelve years, and that the oil industry and the government have been aware of both the technology and the fact that it works for a long time.  According to Costner, there's been no interest until now because the sea vacuums were "too expensive."

There it is folks.  Profits before environmental responsibility.

This is exactly the kind of jackassery that we need to do away with.   In a rational world, Exxon, Shell, BP and every other major oil company on the planet would have invested in this technology as soon as it became available after Valdez.  If they had, maybe more than eight percent of the Valdez spill would've been cleaned up, and the sea vacuums could have been employed in the Gulf on April 21, the day after the Deepwater explosion.  Moreover, BP should be commissioning hundreds of these machines, not a mere 32.

The bottom line is that instead of doing the right thing, companies like BP and Exxon would rather save money by cutting corners on safety measures, investing in cheap clean-up measures like skimmers, and fighting claims in court.  Environmental damage is only to be considered insofar as it affects profits. 

This mindset is not only shortsighted and unsustainable, it's just plain dangerous. 

UPDATE - June 16, 2010: ABC News reports today that BP has finally agreed to purchase 32 of Costner's sea vacuums.  BP COO Doug Suttles released a statement saying "We were confident the technology would work but we needed to test it at the extremes. We've done that and are excited by the results." 

Great news!  Now let's see how long it takes BP and Ocean Therapy Solutions to get these machines out into the Gulf.

Posted by Tom Douglas at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Fellow Systocrats:

The following article was forwarded to TSP by the Mesothelioma Cancer Center. 

On February 17, 2009, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law by President Obama. The new law includes extensions of the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives first enacted in 2005 as well as some new tax credits for people building or remodeling their homes using eco-friendly or “green” materials.

Existing homes are eligible for a series of efficiency measures that pertain to the home shell (insulation, windows, sealing) worth 30% of the installed cost (materials only, labor is not included in the credit basis). Homeowners can get tax credits for:

• Replacement windows and skylights, and exterior doors which are equal to or below a 0.30 U factor and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30. Storm windows that meet the IECC in combination with their paired external window are eligible (taking into account the applicable climate zone). Storm doors paired with U-factor rated wood doors are eligible provided they do not exceed the default U-factor requirement for the combination. See the 2009 IECC for details.

• Window films certified by the manufacturer that the product meets the requirements of a "qualifying insulation system."

• Sealing cracks in the building shell and ducts to reduce infiltration and heat loss - these should be sealed so as to be consistent with the 2009 IECC.

• Pigmented metal roofs or an asphalt roof with cooling granules must meet Energy Star requirements.

• Added insulation to walls, ceilings, or other parts of the building envelope that meet the specifications found in the 2009 IECC and supplemental materials.

In some cases, taking these measures will not only help you save money, but your health may benefit as well. For example, most homes built before 1980 contain asbestos. Asbestos was used widely throughout the 20th century for a number of things, but it was mainly used for insulation due to its fire-resistant qualities. Unfortunately, exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of a rare and aggressive type of cancer known as mesothelioma. This type of cancer typically forms in the lining of the lungs and is very difficult to treat effectively. This is because mesothelioma symptoms don’t usually show up until about 15 to 25 years after exposure.

Most people are unaware of the fact that eco-friendly products can cut energy costs by 25 to 35% per year. For example, instead of using expensive and mal-treated wood, interior walls can be made from steel and concrete, avoiding many of the problems associated with asbestos and other insulation methods.  In addition, there are a number of alternative types of insulation that can be used that are more eco-friendly than asbestos and don’t pose any danger to your health.

The United States Department of Energy has a list of insulation “Energy Savers” you can use when making plans to remodel your home.

Posted by Tom Douglas at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Fellow Systocrats:

The concept of a flying automobile has captivated us for decades.  When I was but a wee Systocrat, I remember thinking how cool it would be to own a flying car, like George Jetson's ride or the fusion-powered Delorean featured in Back to the Future.  Recently, an old friend reminded me of our childhood scheme, hatched from an ad in the back of a comic book, to build a hovercraft using a vacuum cleaner engine.  

A flying car.  So cool.  But not practical.  Right?  

In response to one of the comments posted to Systocrat No. 1, I recently found myself visiting the website of the "Natural Step" organization, which defines itself as a a "not-for-profit organization founded with the vision of creating a sustainable human society."  These folks are interested in helping other organizations integrate principles of sustainability into their operations - truly fascinating stuff.  I encourage all TSP readers to check out this website. 

One of the principles that the Natural Step folks use to achieve their goals is a principle that they refer to as "backcasting,"  or "starting first by defining a future point of success, and then taking the most effective steps to arrive at that point."  I'm quite taken with this idea - as the Natural Step folks quite rightly state, backcasting "is more effective than relying too much on forecasting, which tends to have the effect of presenting a more limited range of options, hence stifling creativity, and more important, it projects the problems of today into the future."

So, what is the ideal mode of transportation that we should backcast from?  Systocratic principles dictate that in making this determination, we should take the opportunity to revisit every aspect of our current transportation system, including the infrastructure necessary to support our current mode of travel and the environmental effects of the entire system.

Once we adopt this perspective, the flying car, properly conceived, emerges as a superior alternative to the land-based vehicle.  Here are just a few of the reasons why.

First of all, the modern automobile requires a continuous paved surface in order to function efficiently. 

Our local, state and federal governments spend billions of dollars annually for the construction and maintenance of roads for two-dimensional vehicles to travel on.  For example, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") budget request for fiscal year 2009 totaled 40.1 billion dollars.  Up to 39.4 billion of the FHWA budget can be spent on the Federal Aid Highways Program, which provides financial assistance to states for the construction and improvement of the National Highway System, urban roads and bridges. 

In the Hovercar Age, little or no road maintenance is required. The ideal flying car of the future will be able to travel over virtually any surface or grade, rendering a continuous paved surface completely unnecessary and eliminating nearly all of the FHWA costs set forth above. 

The hovercar system also makes it easier and cheaper to add additional lanes of traffic.  Aside from the costs of displacing existing infrastructure in congested areas, which can be considerable, it will be vastly easier and cheaper to create additional "flyways" to ease the flow of traffic in highly congested areas when one is not required to pave the whole continuous distance.  Specifically, to create a flyway, each travel lane will have to be cleared, graded and marked, perhaps with markers set 3-4 feet above the road at regular intervals.  Flyways will not have to be paved, however, which will eliminate a significant portion of the costs in building new roads.

This is a big deal, people.  You might be astonished to learn that most interstate highways in the United States cost at least a million dollars per mile to build.   Depending on the terrain and/or the necessary displacement of currently existing infrastructure, the cost can be much, much more.  The cost of the Big Dig in Boston, the most expensive roadway ever constructed, has been estimated at a billion dollars a mile, and in mountainous regions like West Virginia, the cost of highway construction can be up to 15 million per mile. 

We should also talk about the superior aspects of the hovercar system with respect to winter weather.  In the Hovercar Age, there will no longer be a need to expend money and resources to clear snow and ice covered roads - the hovercar will just glide over them.  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that winter road maintenance accounts for about twenty percent of state DOT budgets and that over 2.3 billion dollars is spent by state and local agencies annually on "snow and ice control operations." 

The hovercar system also renders winter travel far safer than it is now.   The FHWA estimates that "Over 1,300 people are killed and more than 116,800 people are injured in vehicle crashes on snowy, slushy or icy pavement annually. Every year, nearly 900 people are killed and nearly 76,000 people are injured in vehicle crashes during snowfall or sleet."  The hovercar reduces or eliminates these concerns in all but the most severe weather conditions. 

Another advantage of the hovercar is that it will not depend on rubber/synthetic tires, which are a pain in the ass to dispose of in an environmentally sound manner. Although the hovercar may have a minimal set of tires that essentially act as landing gear or serve as emergency ambulation, by evolving into a hovercar system, we can make the bulky rubber tires of today a thing of the past.

Discarded tires pose an enormous environmental hazard.  The  "Scrap Tire Cleanup Guidebook," issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2006, states that in 2003 there were over 275 million tires in stockpiles across the U.S. and that 295 million new scrap tires are generated each year.  With respect to the environmental and health hazards created by scrap tire stockpiles, the Cleanup Guidebook provides as follows:

Large scrap tire stockpiles present a threat to human health and the environment for several reasons.  They present an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes, which can carry and transmit life-threatening diseases such as dengue fever, encephalitis, and the West Nile virus. 

Stockpiles may also catch fire as a result of lightning strikes, equipment malfunctions or arson.  Some experts no longer consider the question of "if" a stockpile will catch fire, but when it will burn . . . When ignited, scrap tire piles generate dense, black smoke containing partially combusted hydrocarbons.  The smoke plume can negatively impact residences and businesses in its path as well as the air quality in a broad area for a long time.  In addition to smoke, some tire fires produce large quantities of pyrolytic oils which contain hazardous compounds.  Under certain conditions, these oils can penetrate porous soils to contaminate groundwater that may be used as drinking water.  The oils can also reach surface water and cause substantial fish kills, as the oils quickly deplete dissolved oxygen levels.  Finally, the residuals (ash, wire and unburned rubber) from a tire fire often require special handling and disposal. 

These are just a few of the reasons why the hovercar sytem, properly considered, is a superior alternative to our current two-dimensional transportation system. 

So, how do we build the car of the future?  I'm no engineer, but here are a couple of thoughts re: how we can trace our steps backwards from the hovercar described above to what's possible today.  

Besides being able to fly, the hovercar of the future should feature a clean, cheap, renewable energy source. That means no bullshit petroleum/hybrid nonsense.  Right now, my best guess is that the car of the future runs on electricity provided by some clean, cheap, abundant source of power.  For example, hydrogen will fit the bill once a more efficient technique is perfected for extracting it from the environment. 

In order to maximize efficiency, the hovercar of the future will also have to be built from lighter composite materials, like the thermoplastic advanced composite materials currently being marketed by Fiberforge, an offshoot of the Rocky Mountain Institute formerly known as Hypercar, Inc.  Fiberforge claims that its composite material is 60% lighter and 600% stiffer than steel and 30% lighter than aluminum. 

In his excellent book 2002 "The Hidden Connections," Fritjof Capra discusses some of the benefits of using ultralight composite materials instead of steel in the construction of the Hypercar developed by the Rocky Mountain Institute:

Making a car ultralight generates a cascade of secondary effects, many of which result in further weight reductions.  A lighter car can function with a lighter suspension to support the reduced weight, a smaller engine to move it, smaller brakes to decelerate it, and less fuel to run the engine.  Moreover, certain components do not merely become smaller but are eliminated altogether.  Power steering and power brakes are not needed in ultralight vehicles . . . The new fiber composites are not only ultralight but also extraordinarily strong.  They can absorb five times more energy per pound than steel.  This is, of course, an important safety element . . . In addition to protecting their own occupants, lightweight cars are also less dangerous for the passengers in the vehicles they collide with.  

Believe it or not, there are a few "flying cars" in existence today.  First, there's the Skycar, billed as the world's first bio-fueled flying car, which elevates by means of a rear propeller and a flexible fabric wing.  There's also the Terrafugia Transition, a car with retractable wings which completed its first successful test flight on March 5, 2009. 

I think the flying car of today that most resembles my flying car of tomorrow, at least in theory, is the Moller M200G Volantor.  This car achieves its lift by virtue of 8 fans beneath the car, which in turn are each powered by a rotary engine.  The altitude of the car is limited to 10 feet, and it can fly over any surface - land, water or ice - with equal ease.   Apparently, the M200G is also built with composite materials and can run on an ethanol/water fuel mixture.  All steps in the right direction. 

So, you probably want to know why I'm not cruising around town in my tricked out M200G, right?  First of all, this thing is not really fuel efficient.  Eight separate motors - yikes!  Second, although Moller has reportedly not sold a single one of his "volantors," the projected price is around $100,000 per unit. 

Most importantly, Mr. Moller has a history of overstating the capabilities of his flying cars, which recently landed him in hot water with the SEC.  Although there are a few grainy videos on the Internet which purport to demonstrate the M200G in operation (attached to a crane . . . ), there are at least as many allegations of fraud circulating as well.  In sum, the M200G may be nothing more than a cool idea that has not yet been fully realized.

So . . . although we are not yet at the immediate threshold of the Hovercar Age, it seems to me that three-dimensional travel should be the ultimate goal of any proposed private transportation system, given the significantly reduced costs, increased safety and relatively minimal effect on our environment.  However, by no means do I claim a monopoly on "out-of-the-box" ideas in this regard.  The purpose of this post was to hopefully inspire the reader to think about other "ideal" solutions, using the principles of backcasting and systocratic thought. If you have a proposal for an "ideal" private transportation system, please send it to me at td@systocracy.com or post a comment below. 

Posted by Tom Douglas at 08:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)