Hello Readers,
This week I am leaving Norwich (where I have lived for the past year) to return to America. As such, I thought it would be good idea to reflect on some of the things from the past year that I've really enjoyed.
Thing 1: Korfball
In the out'n'out fun category, Korfball immediately leaps to mind. If you haven't heard of Korf before, you are not alone. I would suspect 99.999% of the world population hasn't heard of it either. Before I arrived at UEA this year, I hadn't heard of it either. By random happenstance, I decided to join the UEA Korfball Club, and it was an excellent decision.
The sport itself is a bizarre twist on basketball. Legend has it that at the turn of the 20th century a Dutch gym teacher learned about basketball, but decided that he need the sport to be playable by his male and female students at the same time. The end result: Korfball, which has a hoop on a pole in the middle of each half of the court and requires 4 girls and 4 boys on each team. To loosely tie this into the sustainability theme of this blog... it is a great low-carbon (i.e. very little equipment needed), community-building experience. By forcing co-ed teams (and making it so that boys can only guard boys and girls can only guard girls) the sport tends to be very sociable and promotes a non-threatening environment for physical activity.
Thing 2: The Greenhouse
Another random happenstance led to me volunteering at the Greenhouse Cafe this year. It turned out to be another great experience. The staff and other volunteers became very good friends of mine. I was introduced to vegetarian cooking/baking, which I will be sure to continue when I return to the US. In fact, when I get the chance, I may post some of the my own recipes on this website.
In addition to the lessons in the cafe kitchen, the Greenhouse Trust introduced me to an excellent 'business model' for a sustainable, community-based non-profit organization. Their facilities (and good food) provided a place for green-minded people in Norwich to congregate, and the volunteers in the cafe and shop helped to support the sustainable living campaigns put on by the trust.
Thing 3: The City and Countryside
The physical layout of Norwich and the surrounding suburbs and countryside helped to make this year great. By having a compact, walkable city center with loads of restaurants, pubs, music venues, dance clubs, etc., there always seemed to be plenty to do. Also, when I felt like getting away from hectic-ness or just getting some exercise, the miles and miles of running/bike paths through parks and fields were the perfect answer.
Thing 4: My Course and Coursemates
Last but not least, my climate change course and all of my coursemates definitely made my year-long experience in Norwich worthwhile. I learned enough about climate change science to confidently hold an intellectual conversation (or debate) about the topic. Somewhat surprisingly, my most memorable and influential module in my degree was certainly Sustainable Consumption (the instigation for this blog). The subject matter and the interactive nature of the seminars were well designed.
To any of my coursemates that happen to be reading this... well, it was a great year! Let me know if you find yourself in America!
Cheers,
Sean Diamond
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Renewable vs. Nuclear or Renewable plus Nuclear
Hello Readers,
For years now, I've been reading articles, blog posts, and op-ed pieces debating the merits of nuclear and renewable technologies and the use of them in the development of a low-carbon energy grid. Without feeling a need to reference any specific examples, both sides of the debate (which are both arguably environmentalist in nature) seem to universally agree that fossil-fuel power plants are 'evil'; however, neither side can agree on the best alternative.
Both sides of the argument tend to be concerned about the environment in some capacity and agree that reducing carbon emissions and other pollutants is a good idea. Renewable energy proponents (nuclear opponents) tend to disapprove of the radioactive waste and international security issues associated with nuclear. Whereas, nuclear proponents (renewable energy opponents) tend to site the disruption of the landscape/habitats caused by covering vast areas of land (or waterways) with solar or wind (or hydro) technologies. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel proponents (the champions of the status quo) will point to the weaknesses in either argument and completely deny climate change issues to ensure that their investments (either capital or lifestyle investments) are safe.
As a physicist in undergrad (with a basic understanding of radiation and nuclear technologies) and a climate change scientist in postgrad, I have never fully settled on either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate. I have come to acknowledge nuclear power plants -if run responsibly- can be a relatively clean source of power. However, careful geopolitical considerations should be accounted for in the development of any new nuclear power plant (i.e. While I understand the reasoning behind sanctioning Iran, it is hypocritical of the USA to discourage other countries from developing nuclear facilities while simultaneously attempting to reinvigorate its domestic nuclear industry.). On the other hand, massive deployments of renewable generators (on the scale necessary to power even half of the current US demand) will require the disruption of not-insignificant portions of natural landscapes and will require huge infrastructural projects on the electric grids (i.e. the incorporation of energy storage and/or reinforced transmission lines).
Of course, either case -if implemented and managed responsibly- will only have a marginal environmental impact compared to the current reliance on fossil-fuels. So it begs the question: how can the renewable vs. nuclear debate turn into what it should be a fossil-fuel vs. non-fossil-fuel debate?
While reading an article about the impacts of climate change on nuclear power plants, a thought occurred to me. Why not attempt to combine the two technologies? Specifically, the article referenced the weakness of many nuclear power plants is the need to use adjacent rivers for cooling. However, this means that the heated water cannot exceed 90 degrees F, which is generally not an issue except on especially hot days (such as those experienced in the USA this past summer). Otherwise, the expelled water would start cooking the wildlife in the river.
Thus, my thought was all new nuclear plants should be coupled with concentrated solar power (CSP) plants to maximize efficiency. The CSP plant, which would need to operate at temperatures of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, could use the expelled cooling water from the nuclear plant as a preheater. This would simultaneously allow CSP plants to produce more energy with fewer/smaller collectors and allow for more significant levels of cooling for the nuclear plant on hot days. Also, This will allow for more energy to be created for every gallon of water used (e.g. up to 800 gal/MWh for CSP), and in a worst case scenario the CSP mirrors could be turned away from the sun to allow the system to act as a massive radiator for the attached nuclear plant.
Such a solution may not fully alleviate the concerns of either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate, but it may help to bring the how to 'solve' climate change debate back into perspective. Ultimately, as both sides of the debate continue to batter each others' weaknesses rather than search for solutions, a stalemate only supports the status quo.
Thanks for reading! Please leave your comments or objections down below.
Sean Diamond
For years now, I've been reading articles, blog posts, and op-ed pieces debating the merits of nuclear and renewable technologies and the use of them in the development of a low-carbon energy grid. Without feeling a need to reference any specific examples, both sides of the debate (which are both arguably environmentalist in nature) seem to universally agree that fossil-fuel power plants are 'evil'; however, neither side can agree on the best alternative.
Both sides of the argument tend to be concerned about the environment in some capacity and agree that reducing carbon emissions and other pollutants is a good idea. Renewable energy proponents (nuclear opponents) tend to disapprove of the radioactive waste and international security issues associated with nuclear. Whereas, nuclear proponents (renewable energy opponents) tend to site the disruption of the landscape/habitats caused by covering vast areas of land (or waterways) with solar or wind (or hydro) technologies. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel proponents (the champions of the status quo) will point to the weaknesses in either argument and completely deny climate change issues to ensure that their investments (either capital or lifestyle investments) are safe.
As a physicist in undergrad (with a basic understanding of radiation and nuclear technologies) and a climate change scientist in postgrad, I have never fully settled on either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate. I have come to acknowledge nuclear power plants -if run responsibly- can be a relatively clean source of power. However, careful geopolitical considerations should be accounted for in the development of any new nuclear power plant (i.e. While I understand the reasoning behind sanctioning Iran, it is hypocritical of the USA to discourage other countries from developing nuclear facilities while simultaneously attempting to reinvigorate its domestic nuclear industry.). On the other hand, massive deployments of renewable generators (on the scale necessary to power even half of the current US demand) will require the disruption of not-insignificant portions of natural landscapes and will require huge infrastructural projects on the electric grids (i.e. the incorporation of energy storage and/or reinforced transmission lines).
Of course, either case -if implemented and managed responsibly- will only have a marginal environmental impact compared to the current reliance on fossil-fuels. So it begs the question: how can the renewable vs. nuclear debate turn into what it should be a fossil-fuel vs. non-fossil-fuel debate?
While reading an article about the impacts of climate change on nuclear power plants, a thought occurred to me. Why not attempt to combine the two technologies? Specifically, the article referenced the weakness of many nuclear power plants is the need to use adjacent rivers for cooling. However, this means that the heated water cannot exceed 90 degrees F, which is generally not an issue except on especially hot days (such as those experienced in the USA this past summer). Otherwise, the expelled water would start cooking the wildlife in the river.
Thus, my thought was all new nuclear plants should be coupled with concentrated solar power (CSP) plants to maximize efficiency. The CSP plant, which would need to operate at temperatures of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, could use the expelled cooling water from the nuclear plant as a preheater. This would simultaneously allow CSP plants to produce more energy with fewer/smaller collectors and allow for more significant levels of cooling for the nuclear plant on hot days. Also, This will allow for more energy to be created for every gallon of water used (e.g. up to 800 gal/MWh for CSP), and in a worst case scenario the CSP mirrors could be turned away from the sun to allow the system to act as a massive radiator for the attached nuclear plant.
Such a solution may not fully alleviate the concerns of either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate, but it may help to bring the how to 'solve' climate change debate back into perspective. Ultimately, as both sides of the debate continue to batter each others' weaknesses rather than search for solutions, a stalemate only supports the status quo.
Thanks for reading! Please leave your comments or objections down below.
Sean Diamond
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Age of Stumped
Hello Readers,
Earlier in the year I was assigned a debate topic that revolved around the 'documentary' the Age of Stupid. The premise of the movie is that a man (living a few decades from now in a remote arctic archive) is looking back on the history of the world leading up to the severe climate change during the coming decades.
In the movie, the narrator flips through a number of real news clips portraying severe weather events prior to 2010. The effect of condensing several sensational news stories together is meant to indicate that these were obvious precursors to even more severe weather to come. The narrator, who is looking at his past (our future), calls the time we are living in "The Age of Stupid". He asks, "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"
The rest of the film offers several paradoxical stories of people in contemporary society. Each story pointing to how 'stupid' we are being. In the film, it is obvious that we are missing all of the signs of impending disaster. While this movie simplifies the complexities of resolving the issues that are causing anthropogenic climate change, it makes no question about whether there are issues (and hopefully this will be the case for public opinion sooner rather than later).
During my debate about the film, I took issue with these over-simplifications. I also did not think that smashing several real-world news clips about weather-related disasters was a proper motivator for actionable change. However, over the past month or so... when the actual daily news started to look like the movie's montage of news clips (See the "Hell and High Water" article on Climate Progress), I began to wonder if the dramatic weather events associated with the changing climate was the only tangible warning we were going to get.
Certainly, pointing to every passing storm and drought as an indicator of climate change is the wrong way to encourage social and behavioral change. Especially when - to be scientifically accurate - every legitimate representation of an extreme weather event requires the disclaimer "not directly caused by climate change", it seems impossible to use the facts as a public motivator without moving into the realm of fear mongering. How can the messaging get past this barrier?
Perhaps it will take related messages, such as the announcement last week by NASA scientists that plant growth will not necessarily continue to benefit from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to tip the scales of public opinion and motivate action. Unfortunately, articles (e.g. the related article in the Christian Science Monitor) about such findings are drenched in the term "uncertainty", which means something different to scientists and the general public. This again dulls the meaning of the findings in the minds of most readers.
Thus, I think the 'Age of Stupid' might be a bit harsh when describing the state of affairs today. Instead, I would like to offer the title the 'Age of Stumped'. Wherein those who know what is going on are unsure of how to communicate the issues in terms that others can understand without sounding alarmist.
On a side note, the term 'alarmist' makes me think of a t-shirt I once saw. The t-shirt read "I am a Bomb Technician, If you see me running, try to keep up!" So I have to ask: is there a time to simply start 'running'? I certainly don't think now is the time, but will there be if things do not change? At what point does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being practical?
I do not know the answer to these questions. Instead, I will leave you with a quote from Douglas Adams:
"Don't Panic"
Thanks, for reading along. I'd love to hear your comments on the subject.
Sean Diamond
Earlier in the year I was assigned a debate topic that revolved around the 'documentary' the Age of Stupid. The premise of the movie is that a man (living a few decades from now in a remote arctic archive) is looking back on the history of the world leading up to the severe climate change during the coming decades.
In the movie, the narrator flips through a number of real news clips portraying severe weather events prior to 2010. The effect of condensing several sensational news stories together is meant to indicate that these were obvious precursors to even more severe weather to come. The narrator, who is looking at his past (our future), calls the time we are living in "The Age of Stupid". He asks, "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"
The rest of the film offers several paradoxical stories of people in contemporary society. Each story pointing to how 'stupid' we are being. In the film, it is obvious that we are missing all of the signs of impending disaster. While this movie simplifies the complexities of resolving the issues that are causing anthropogenic climate change, it makes no question about whether there are issues (and hopefully this will be the case for public opinion sooner rather than later).
During my debate about the film, I took issue with these over-simplifications. I also did not think that smashing several real-world news clips about weather-related disasters was a proper motivator for actionable change. However, over the past month or so... when the actual daily news started to look like the movie's montage of news clips (See the "Hell and High Water" article on Climate Progress), I began to wonder if the dramatic weather events associated with the changing climate was the only tangible warning we were going to get.
Certainly, pointing to every passing storm and drought as an indicator of climate change is the wrong way to encourage social and behavioral change. Especially when - to be scientifically accurate - every legitimate representation of an extreme weather event requires the disclaimer "not directly caused by climate change", it seems impossible to use the facts as a public motivator without moving into the realm of fear mongering. How can the messaging get past this barrier?
Perhaps it will take related messages, such as the announcement last week by NASA scientists that plant growth will not necessarily continue to benefit from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to tip the scales of public opinion and motivate action. Unfortunately, articles (e.g. the related article in the Christian Science Monitor) about such findings are drenched in the term "uncertainty", which means something different to scientists and the general public. This again dulls the meaning of the findings in the minds of most readers.
Thus, I think the 'Age of Stupid' might be a bit harsh when describing the state of affairs today. Instead, I would like to offer the title the 'Age of Stumped'. Wherein those who know what is going on are unsure of how to communicate the issues in terms that others can understand without sounding alarmist.
On a side note, the term 'alarmist' makes me think of a t-shirt I once saw. The t-shirt read "I am a Bomb Technician, If you see me running, try to keep up!" So I have to ask: is there a time to simply start 'running'? I certainly don't think now is the time, but will there be if things do not change? At what point does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being practical?
I do not know the answer to these questions. Instead, I will leave you with a quote from Douglas Adams:
"Don't Panic"
Thanks, for reading along. I'd love to hear your comments on the subject.
Sean Diamond
Friday, August 13, 2010
A New Beginning
Hello Readers,
I have now turned in my dissertation and taken a short break from typing, well, anything really. In light of this new beginning, I've taken the time to change the colors of the blog to some more earthy tones. I hope you enjoy them. Over the coming months, I am going to try to bring this website into its own by developing a more distinct (and hopefully refined) style.
I am still not entirely sure of the final format that this blog will take, but I figure letting it grow naturally will be better than trying to force it in any particular direction. To help me keep organized and to make this website more useful, I am going to expand the permanent (non-blog post) pages of the website to include a list of other useful websites on various sustainability topics. I know having a "useful links" page is not particularly novel, but I figure it couldn't hurt.
With those notes aside, I'd like to move onto an actual topical post...
Earlier this week, another New York Times headline: "But Will It Make You Happy?" caught my attention. Recently, the NYT has had a string of interesting philosophical articles, so I clicked the link and much to my surprise it was not a philosophical article at all. Well, not intentionally. The article refers to a decline in conspicuous consumption (i.e. a sociological concept wherein consumers purchase things to show off their social status) and goes on to laud the savvy retailers who are capitalizing on consumers who are spending more time at home and looking for interactions with family and friends.
In order to make a story out of these concepts, the article starts to highlight the story of Tammy Strobel - a convert to minimalism (kind of the arch-nemesis of materialism and conspicuous consumption) and simple living. Digging a little deeper on Ms. Strobel's blog (RowdyKittens.com) I discovered that she is actively following the fundamental concepts of simple living by choosing to avoid the "work-spend treadmill" (see the Story of Stuff). I have just started to look through her blog, but it looks promising.
In particular, Ms. Strobel's post about the 100 Thing Challenge, which happened to be the first post I saw, brought an interesting idea to my attention. The concept is to limit yourself to 100 personal possessions for a certain period of time (I would guess that ideally the period of time would be indefinite). Similar to the idea in the NYT article, limiting the things you have around you would encourage more social interaction, which ultimately should lead to a happier and more sustainable life.
Of course, with some ironic thanks to airline luggage restrictions, I have been living this past year within the confines of the 100 lbs. challenge if not the 100 thing challenge. Aside, from clothing I've had few material goods to compete with my friends for my attention. Thus, my eminent return to the US - now that my coursework is complete - forces me to reflect upon the possibility of returning to "stuff" and all of the "stuffness" it has to offer.
Fortunately, I sold or donated most of my possessions (including my car) before moving to England for the year, so I do not have to go through that process again. However, will I be able to avoid the allure of gathering belongings once again? It seems that only time will tell. Of course, through random happenstance, I overheard a couple of ladies in a local cafe discussing how one of their sisters had moved with her husband from the UK to the US some time ago and how it had fast-tracked them onto the "work-spend treadmill" (obviously not in those words). The discussion read like a chapter out of a "the symptoms of consumerism" medical guide. The sister and husband were now making more money than they had before but barely had any time to relax. Thus, they went on vacation (returning to England) and were able to relax (or more specifically to not do anything but sit around) with their family for a couple weeks before returning to their fast-paced lifestyle.
Naturally, this discussion was only on side of the story, and it was possible that the sister was completely happy with her material-rich lifestyle. However, the tale, which I heard just a day after reading the NYT article, encouraged me to focus on avoiding such a trap when I return home.
That's it for now. Please take a look at the links on the new page and check back soon!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond
I have now turned in my dissertation and taken a short break from typing, well, anything really. In light of this new beginning, I've taken the time to change the colors of the blog to some more earthy tones. I hope you enjoy them. Over the coming months, I am going to try to bring this website into its own by developing a more distinct (and hopefully refined) style.
I am still not entirely sure of the final format that this blog will take, but I figure letting it grow naturally will be better than trying to force it in any particular direction. To help me keep organized and to make this website more useful, I am going to expand the permanent (non-blog post) pages of the website to include a list of other useful websites on various sustainability topics. I know having a "useful links" page is not particularly novel, but I figure it couldn't hurt.
With those notes aside, I'd like to move onto an actual topical post...
Earlier this week, another New York Times headline: "But Will It Make You Happy?" caught my attention. Recently, the NYT has had a string of interesting philosophical articles, so I clicked the link and much to my surprise it was not a philosophical article at all. Well, not intentionally. The article refers to a decline in conspicuous consumption (i.e. a sociological concept wherein consumers purchase things to show off their social status) and goes on to laud the savvy retailers who are capitalizing on consumers who are spending more time at home and looking for interactions with family and friends.
In order to make a story out of these concepts, the article starts to highlight the story of Tammy Strobel - a convert to minimalism (kind of the arch-nemesis of materialism and conspicuous consumption) and simple living. Digging a little deeper on Ms. Strobel's blog (RowdyKittens.com) I discovered that she is actively following the fundamental concepts of simple living by choosing to avoid the "work-spend treadmill" (see the Story of Stuff). I have just started to look through her blog, but it looks promising.
In particular, Ms. Strobel's post about the 100 Thing Challenge, which happened to be the first post I saw, brought an interesting idea to my attention. The concept is to limit yourself to 100 personal possessions for a certain period of time (I would guess that ideally the period of time would be indefinite). Similar to the idea in the NYT article, limiting the things you have around you would encourage more social interaction, which ultimately should lead to a happier and more sustainable life.
Of course, with some ironic thanks to airline luggage restrictions, I have been living this past year within the confines of the 100 lbs. challenge if not the 100 thing challenge. Aside, from clothing I've had few material goods to compete with my friends for my attention. Thus, my eminent return to the US - now that my coursework is complete - forces me to reflect upon the possibility of returning to "stuff" and all of the "stuffness" it has to offer.
Fortunately, I sold or donated most of my possessions (including my car) before moving to England for the year, so I do not have to go through that process again. However, will I be able to avoid the allure of gathering belongings once again? It seems that only time will tell. Of course, through random happenstance, I overheard a couple of ladies in a local cafe discussing how one of their sisters had moved with her husband from the UK to the US some time ago and how it had fast-tracked them onto the "work-spend treadmill" (obviously not in those words). The discussion read like a chapter out of a "the symptoms of consumerism" medical guide. The sister and husband were now making more money than they had before but barely had any time to relax. Thus, they went on vacation (returning to England) and were able to relax (or more specifically to not do anything but sit around) with their family for a couple weeks before returning to their fast-paced lifestyle.
Naturally, this discussion was only on side of the story, and it was possible that the sister was completely happy with her material-rich lifestyle. However, the tale, which I heard just a day after reading the NYT article, encouraged me to focus on avoiding such a trap when I return home.
That's it for now. Please take a look at the links on the new page and check back soon!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)