Category Archives: Security

Energy, Sailing, Security

Financial impact of ethanol for boaters

Leave a comment

The Press of Atlantic City has some good first-person accounts in their story on the ethanol problem for motorboats. The citations are a little suspicious because they say things like “Thomas estimates” without ever identifying who Thomas might be…. Anyway, they make a good attempt at trying to quantify the per-boat damage and costs from the sudden introduction of ethanol in New Jersey:

“It’s been a nightmare,â€? said Michael Advena, owner of Newport Marine Inc. in Ventnor. “During the first week this summer, we had 11 boats towed in. Out of those 11 boats, nine of them were fuel-related (problems).â€?

[…]

Thomas estimates that a carburetor ruined by fuel residue can cost about $700, plus a few hours of labor, to replace.

“You also get into towing fees,� Thomas said. “If it actually breaks down offshore.�

Fuel tanks can be even more costly. Boaters unwilling to wait for the ethanol to wash all the residue out of the tanks may choose to remove the fuel tank completely and have it power washed. Add on the expense of tearing up the boat deck to get to the fuel tank and the price tag can add up to several thousand dollars.

It is funny how biofuels are said to “clean out” the engines. Bio-diesel in an car or truck with high mileage often scrubs out all the old dirty petroleum waste, which obviously clogs filters. It is not unusual for a biofuel distributer to recommend that users change their filters more often. This seems like a minor inconvenience to me since a cleaner-running engine is a good thing both for health and maintenance. But the problem on boats is significantly greater.

My guess is that most pleasure boats do not have very clean filters to begin with (most people change their commuting/work vehicle oil regularly, but neglect motors for hobbies and toys) and their tanks are also not kept clean so the first blend of ethanol is more likely to cause problems than in automobiles. And that is not to mention that vehicles are far less susceptible to water than boats, as discussed earlier.

Energy, Security

The danger of a fuel cell infrastructure

Leave a comment

A cursory review of the “Comparison of hydrogen, methanol and gasoline fuels…” in the Journal of Power Sources 79 (1999) 143-168, brought up a curious argument. Joan Ogden, Margaret Steinbugler and Thomas Kreutz suggest the following, on page 166:

Defining ‘infrastructure’ to mean all the equipment (both on and off the vehicle) required to bring hydrogen to the fuel cell, we find that the cost is comparble for hydrogen, methanol and gasoline POX fuel cell vehicles. Hydrogen appears to entail the lowest capital costs.

By how much? And what does that cost look like relative to other more stable and safe sources of fuel that also do not require long-haul centralized distribution? They do not say. Instead, they back away from their own conclusions by offering optimism about hydrogen.

The cost and efficiency estimated for various types of fuel cell vehicles depend on our assumptions, which may change as technology progresses. For example, future improvements in onboard fuel processor technology or development of fuel cells with higher performance on reformates could increase the vehicle efficiency for methonal or gasoline vehicles; better methods of hydrogen storage might lead to lower cost for hydrogen vehicles.

The last sentence is especially important. The amount of security required to properly distribute and store hydrogen fuel is not actually difficult as much as it is incredibly expensive. And the expense is not because of the materials involved, but rather due to the need to retrofit or build out a new system with a constant state of surveillance to avoid loss or damage of this form of energy. Compared to energy sources like biodiesel, which are actually used to clean up petroleum spills and distributed as one of the most environmentally stable forms of fuel, a highly expensive and centralized system of hydrogen seems like exactly the wrong thing to build in a climate of fear from terrorist attack or sabotage.

Since the article is focused on which fuel cell technology is best, it lacks important perspective on whether a fuel cell is really the right choice among all alternative sources. While the US military is running all their engines now on diesel, and spending billions on improvements to supply-chain logistics, this article gives a prediction about fuel cells that is hardly based on real-world experience and thus rather uninspiring:

The capital cost of developing hydrogen refueling infrastructure is comperable to or less than the total cost (on and off the vehicle) for methanol or gasoline fuel cell vehicles. The lifecycle cost of transportation is slightly less for hydrogen than for gasoline or methanol fuel cell vehicles. Like compressed natural gas or methanol, hydrogen faces the issue of reaching beyond centrally refueled fleet markets.

Fuel cell vehicles, even hydrogen, will have to be more realistic before their claims can be validated. For example, today’s gasoline engines could be more efficient, but the car manufacturers and the petroleum companies do not seem inclined to make it happen. They blame the consumer, but no matter who is at fault the fact remains that there has been little/no progress made for over a decade even though the capability exists. And I think we all know that most Americans, especially those driving on the open road at high speed, prefer large, heavy and “safe” feeling vehicles. So economic and cultural factors are important. On the other hand, electric vehicles have long been known to be capable of long distance travel at high-speeds in spite of the efforts by the car manufacturers and petroleum companies to undermine their development. So, with this in mind I have to ask why this report did not point out the more obvious conclusion that hydrogen power-plants fueling electric vehicles would solve the problems of hydrogen distribution as well as power-plant and vehicle emissions. The hydrogen fuel dream could thus be realized, but only as a competitor to other plants but not on an individualized level. Then, after the means of securing the energy had been developed and tested extensively, it would be more reasonable to propose extending it to consumer fueling-stations. Although in the meantime, people might also realize that a diesel-hybrid is far more practical, inexpensive and safe.

History, Poetry, Security

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Leave a comment

I was reading a critique of literature this morning and noticed that the author was being rather negative and critical of others for being too negative and critical. S/he seemed oblivious to the contradiction, as their writing bemoaned the lack of more positive writing.

A stark problem with the success of the 419 fraud schemes is that the perpetrators often say they do nothing more than let people give them money. The victims fall into a trap of optimism, believing that they have actually found something for nothing. Alas, a little more critical thinking might be just what the doctor ordered for the new and less familiar risks people face online or to deal with a world where common hallmarks of universal rights are being seriously challenged (i.e. the Geneva convention):

Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN’s chief anti-torture expert says.

[…]

Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.

Writing will be positive when people feel safe and prosperous (again). On what basis would a person manufacture a positive outlook in the face of great moral, financial or even physical danger? Conversely, prosperity and positivity also brings heightened risk in the forms of threats and vulnerabilities, painfully illustrated by the tragedy of the Cathars. Should proper caution and controls lead to a more universally safe and stable foundation, positive writing may again someday flourish. Until then, attacking people for being too negative is little more than the pot calling the kettle black.

Security

Company Reps Arrested for Ivory Coast Toxic Waste

Leave a comment

This is an interesting development in the story about the Ivory Coast toxic waste disaster. The BBC reports:

Two senior French officials of the company whose toxic waste has been dumped in Ivory Coast have been charged with poisoning, an official says.

Dutch-based company Trafigura Beheer BV says it is “shocked” and says the two had gone to help those affected by the waste, which has left seven dead.

Trafigura has always maintained it paid Ivorian firms and officials to dispose of the waste safely.

The timing of their arrest seems to have been a result of them trying to leave the country as much as actual culpability in the disaster. This echoes the already difficult position the French have been playing in the Ivory Coast as peacekeepers, as explained here by the BBC:

In recent years a quiet, relatively prosperous French client state has descended into chaos, and Paris has found it impossible to impose its authority.