Colorado Vacation

Jodie and I just got back from a great vacation in Colorado. We were fortunate enough to be able to stay with my Uncle and Liza at their home in Glenwood Springs. We also spent a couple nights with my cousin and his wife, who live in the same town, and a night in Steamboat Springs. Glenwood was a great home base for many activities, including a day trip to Moab, Utah and a four day backpacking trip to the Maroon Bells - Snowmass Wilderness outside Aspen.

Here's an itinerary of what we did. I'll post some trip reports in the hiking section when I get a chance. In the meantime, you can look through some of our photos.

7 July Saturday
- Arrived in Denver, escorted by Uncle David to Boulder and Flatirons, then to Leadville (highest city in US at 10,200ft), to Camp Hale (site of 10th Mountain Division), and eventually to Glenwood Springs where we took a brief tour of the Hotel Colorado.

8 July Sunday
- Guided by Uncle David and Liza
- Hot Springs Pool in Glenwood Springs
- Tram up to adventure park
- Glenwood Cave Tour
- Alpine Slide
- Jodie did the giant swing over the canyon
- Visited the Doc Holliday Memorial in Glenwood

9 July Monday
- Day trip to Moab, Utah. Drove in route 128 and back via route 91. Went to the Fischer Towers (with view of Castleton tower), Arches National Park, and slickrock trail (though didn't bike)

10 July Tuesday
- Hiked to Hanging Lake in Glenwood Canyon.
- Drove up a dirt road outside Dotser, above the canyon

11 July Wednesday
- Climbed Mt. Sopris, ~12 miles round trip, 4000+ of elevation gain

12 July Thursday
- Hot Springs pool in Glenwood
- Paragliding off Red Mtn in Glenwood (Jodie only)
- Rafting of Glenwood Canyon (Shoshone rapids to West Glenwood)
- Dinner with Ken, Melanie, and Uncle David

13 July Friday - 16 July Monday
- Four Pass Loop backpacking trip from Maroon Lake outside Aspen.
- Night 1 at Crater Lake
- Night 2 at Snowmass Lake
- Night 3 in Fravert Basin

17 July Tuesday
- West Ridge of Quandary Peak (14er) attempt (Pat only)
- Shopping/sightseeing in Frisco and Breckenridge
- Stayed with Ken and Melanie

18 July Wednesday
- Ran part of the Scout Trail in Glenwood Springs and along the River Trail
- Played mini golf
- Dinner with Ken and Melanie

19 July Thursday
- River Trail run in morning
- Drive to Steamboat Springs, CO
- Hike to Fish Creek Falls

20 July Friday
- Biked river trail
- Strawberry Park Hot Springs
- Drove to Denver

21 July Saturday
- Flew back to Boston and then to NH

Good Reading on Goodreads

I've started to use the website goodreads. It's a pretty neat site, where you can rate books you've read, add them to your virtual bookshelves (i.e. read, currently reading, to-read), and connect to your friends.

My favorite aspects of the site are the "to-read" bookshelf and the friends feature. With the "to-read" bookshelf, you'll never forget the title of that good book you hear about a few months ago. It's also nice to see what your friends are reading and what their favorite books are.

I put links to both my goodreads page and Jodie's goodread page on the sidebar of this site.

Year In Review

I always find year end lists interesting. The Google Zeitgest is a summary of popular searches and they have published the most popular searches of 2006.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2006.html

Climate Change Report by Economist Sir Nicholas Stern

Sir Nicholas Stern, Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003, released a climate change report on 30 October 2006. The report suggests that the global economy could be forced to shrink by 20% due to the effects of climate change. However, the report says taking action now would only reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 1%.

I've heard of several previous studies on the economics associated with climate change prevention policies, and most suggest a small reduction in economic growth to make dramatic impacts on our emissions. A lot of the information in the Stern Report is not new, but this is definitely the first global economic report produced by such a prominent economists.

Are there any more excuses left for not pursuing climate change prevention policies? Initially, lack of scientific evidence for climate change was cited as a reason not to take action. There is an overwhelming abundance of data supporting climate change, so that excuse certainly won't work. Another excuse often used is that climate change prevention is too costly, but as the Stern Report and others have shown, the cost is minor, and the cost of not taking action is significantly higher. The only excuses left are self-interest and shortsightedness, which are not good excuses at all - unfortunately they tend to be powerful ones.

Here are some of the findings of the report

- "The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs"

"Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be."

- "Scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual paths for emissions."

"The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution."

- "The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed - the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead."

- "Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth."

- "Policy to reduce emissions should be based on three essential elements: carbon pricing, technology policy, and removal of barriers to behavioural change."

- "An effective response to climate change will depend on creating the conditions for international collective action."

- "There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now."

Below is a link to a BBC article on the Stern Report's release and a link to a 27 page summary of the report.

BBC Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

Report Summary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf

Entire Report: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Facts

It's hard for me to believe the debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still going on. I suppose some people would say it'll continue until they finally decide to drill it. But anyway, it has been going on for years. My wife wrote a thesis on the rhetoric of the photography used during the debate, basically how pictures are used to convey different meanings and feelings. And just like pictures, the facts are construed to convey different meanings. At the heart of the debate is the amount of oil in the wildlife refuge and whether it is worth drilling.

According to the Dept. of Interior, there are 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the ANWR [1]. According to the Dept. of Energy, there is a 95% likelihood of there being 5.7 billion barrels, a 5% likelihood of there being 16 billion barrels, with an average estimate of 10.3 billion barrels [2].

Now, ten billion barrels of oil sound like a heck of a lot, huh? Well, the US consumed 20.7 million barrels a day in 2004 [3]. So doing the math, the ANWR only has enough oil for 502 days or 16.5 months. That's not much.

10.4 billion barrels / 20.7 million barrels per day = 502 days

I personally don't think it's worthwhile to disturb the ANWR for a little more than a years worth of oil. The oil is located in vital Caribou habitat [4]. But before we make any hasty judgments, lets look at what the proponents of oil exploration say. According to anwr.org, "ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply" [5]. Now somebody has to be lying. We just showed it won't even last 2 years. Well, not exactly. We aren't going to pull 10 billion barrels of oil out of the ANWR all at once, so there probably will be 30 to 50 years of production, which could also be seen as 30 to 50 years of direct environmental impact. But let's assume that we do drill in the ANWR and take oil for 30 years, how much is that a day?

10.4 billion barrels / (30 yrs * 365.25 days per year) = 0.95 million barrels per day

The daily production from the ANWR would be less than 5% (0.95/20.7) of 2004 US oil consumption. Assuming oil consumption grows in the future, the ANWR oil would be an even more insignificant portion of the total oil. But we need oil and every little bit helps, right? Well, how about we reduce consumption instead. We could put 5% more ethanol in our gasoline, we could drive 5% less, or we could have more efficient vehicles. For example, the average passenger car gets 27.5 mpg [6]. If that average was increased to 29 mpg, passenger cars would consume 5.5% less gasoline - BAM no need for ANWR oil.

So, bottom line, there isn't much oil in the ANWR, so we might as well leave it there and start putting our resources to reducing oil consumption.

[1] US Department of Interior: http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
[2] US Department of Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/
arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/anwr101.html
[3] US Department of Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html
[4] US Fish and Wildlife Service: http://arctic.fws.gov/carcon.htm
[5] http://www.anwr.org/case.htm
[6] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

Septic Work

We had our septic system replaced this past week. We had the money in escrow from when we bought the house, so it didn't really cost us anything. We had a guy up the street do the work. I was surprised how big and deep of a hole he dug. I knew the leach field was pretty good size, but I guess I didn't think that he would dig so deep to put sand below the crushed stone. Anyway, he did a really nice job cleaning up afterwards, so the yard still looks nice. That's one less thing to worry about.

Energy Resources - Stock and Flow

There are two main components to an energy resource, stock and flow. Stock is the amount of the resource that is built up, and in the case of oil this would be the total amount of oil we have on the planet right now. The flow is the incoming amount of the energy resource that replenishes the stock. In the case of oil, there is basically no flow, because oil is created on the order of millions of years. In the case of solar energy, the stock is the sun itself, while the flow is the energy emitted by the sun.

If an energy resource has no flow, no matter how low the consumption rate, the resource will eventually be exhausted. Therefore, the sustainability of an energy resource is solely dependent on the flow. As long as the consumption rate is less than or equal to the flow, the energy is being used in a sustainable manner.

Since oil essentially has no flow, there is no way to use oil in a sustainable manner. No matter how much we increase the efficiency of gasoline engines, we will eventually run out. The only variable is when. The oil picture is bleak because consumption rates continue to rise even though we have reached the peak of our oil production (in 2005 in fact - see Hubbert Peak Theory and Deffeyes). As demand continues to increase and supply drops, price will rise, so clearly oil will become an energy source of the past.

The real question we face is not whether to move away from oil, but when and to what. We need to find an energy source, or mix of sources, that have a flow large enough to match our consumption (or we need to change consumption to match the available flow).

Adding more complexity to the situation is the third factor in energy use, the endogenous limit, or the limit created by the earth itself. There may be a limit to the amount of carbon dioxide the earth's atmosphere can contain and still be suitable for human life. Therefore we may want to move away from oil before it naturally runs out.

Scientific American Special Issue on Energy

The September volume of Scientific American has many articles on the energy and environment debate. Several of the articles are a high level overview of the problem. There are some articles that talk about specific technologies, such as Nuclear and Hydrogen, but still at a high level. The articles are easy reads and interesting.

Here's some of the articles from the table of contents

A Climate Repair Manual
A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check
Fueling Our Transportation Future
An Efficient Solution
What to Do about Coal
The Nuclear Option
The Rise of Renewable Energy
High Hopes for Hydrogen
Plan B for Energy

The bottom line in all the articles that I've read is that we need to do something to change our energy usage, and we need to do it now.

You can read some of the articles online at www.sciam.com