Now there is a word I have not seen lately. And, it struck me as refreshing, but a bit odd that the wind industry would be the one to point out that Iowans are gullible if they swallow the idea that wind creates jobs. As we have all learned, there is almost always more the to the story. It was especially remarkable that the article uses the famous movie The Music Man to illustrate the gullibility.
Read what National Wind Watch has to say.
The word gullible is used to describe people who are easily duped or cheated. I couldn’t agree more, but why stop with Iowans … why not simply tell everyone in the US and around the world for that matter that the emperor is nude.
But, there is more to this than that. The underlying reason we become gullible is more sinister. We fall prey to this when we lose our curiosity for the rest of the story and we accept superficially appealing notions to capture the argument.
Our national lack of dialogue around energy issues rests on our gullibility. What is worse, those in leadership positions will not “disturb sleeping dogs” when they think the gullibility is in their favor on an argument.
We live in a democracy where we need an informed electorate. Gullibility is a formidable enemy to its success.
Most of us are fully aware of the concerns about methane released into our environment. It has over 30 times the influence on trapping heat in our atmosphere. So, it was without surprise that the cattle industry came under scrutiny and criticisms for methane release, which is called “bovine flatulence.” Money was being spent studying this, which included research on reformulating the grasses as feedstock to see if these natural emissions could be reduced.
A much less obvious but extremely large methane release comes from mining coal. This article is an excellent review of the size and possible remediation methods associated with coal mine methane releases:
Read the article in Climate Change News.
But almost nothing is said or done about these sources. Unlike bovine flatulence, mine methane can be tapped and used as a fuel source. It just isn’t sexy. Plus, it is technically challenging to do because it requires a huge investment in projects to remediate the problem. However, it might just make a bigger difference in the outcome while we are all trying to mitigate with our solar and wind energy advocacy.
Holistic least-cost planning seems to have fallen out of favor. Planning itself seems to have been left to the invisible hand of the market forces. The recent warning out of California about trusting this hand should be a wake-up call.
Read what Daily Energy Insider has to say.
“Fewer and fewer customers are getting power from the traditional large regional utilities and the central decision making that we use for keeping the grid reliable, safe, and affordable is splintering, becoming the task of dozens of decision-makers,” CPUC President Michael Picker wrote in the cover letter to the report. “In the last deregulation, we had a plan, however flawed. Now, we are deregulating electric markets through dozens of different decisions and legislative actions, but we do not have a plan. If we are not careful, we can drift into another crisis,” Picker wrote.
Plans are good. Better than just hoping that invisible hand does the right thing.
A recent Facebook video of Sr. Ken Robertson’s TED Talk struck a nerve. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.”
He opened with one of my favorite stories of a 1st grade teacher going over to a young girl and asking her what she was drawing as her idea for a picture in art class. The girl stated she was drawing a picture of God. The teacher blurted out a defensibly accurate statement: “But no one knows what God looks like!” The girl never looked up and simply stated: “They will in a minute!”
He goes on to point out how the fear of being wrong disables creativity in modern organizations. Being wrong is punished rather than being viewed as an opportunity to learn. Instead, we seem all too happy doing nothing creative.
IBM Bet Billions That Watson Could Improve Cancer Treatment. It Hasn’t Worked.
The Wall Street Journal(USA) August 11, 2018
Big Blue spent billions on its Watson artificial intelligence product with a focus on cancer care. Sometimes, it didn’t say more than doctors already knew. In other cases, Watson was tripped up by a lack of data in rare or recurring cancers and rapidly evolving treatments.
This comes as no surprise to me. I have spent my entire career as an engineering mathematician looking at cause and effect and how to predict things that can go wrong ahead of them failing. First under Admiral Rickover in the nuclear navy working on avoiding a repeat of the Thresher disaster where the submarine and 129 crew were lost during sea trials, then for the New York City Hospital Association predicting for staffing purposes who will show up in the emergency room on a hot summer evening, then for Mechanical Technologies advance equipment designers predicting bearing failure to enable predictive maintenance in offshore high-speed rotating equipment, the story is always the same.
You have to start with “training data” to drive the analysis. It is not about some big black box, or in this case a Big Blue box that somehow works a miracle, despite what the IBM ads seem to indicate in the commercials we often see on TV. That is marketing hype and the realities do not live up to that hype.
We at Apogee have a long history of training data from our staff’s collective careers studying first-hand energy use in homes and businesses. I have personally field audited almost every type of large US industrial plant. We know what is hidden in bills and meter data because we have seen it operate and then seen it show up in electrical and fuel use.
That is why our analytical engine was shown by EPA, DOE, and LBL as twice as accurate as any other in the world in their year-long testing. The idea that someone can simply throw data into a box, stir it around and get useful results is nonsense.
Thank you IBM for finally admitting it.
It seems we now celebrate diversity in our society. We are working on cracking the glass ceiling for women in the workplace and finding new balances in the ethnic makeup of almost all elements of our society. We have crossed a few barriers I once held sacred, like women serving on the front lines of our armed services, but I guess I am OK with most of where we are going.
Most importantly, we are embracing the idea that our past bias for who is best qualified for a job is being discussed. We even seem to celebrate the idea that kids no longer have to recite the pledge of allegiance in schools (the latest here in Georgia) and of course the idea that it is OK for athletes to kneel rather than stand for our National Anthem at professional football games. I am still having difficulty with that, but that is not my point in this blog.
I am not a chef by any means but I enjoy cooking. It is therapy compared to my “thinking job” all day long and it is often social with my wife and son joining in. My usual role is to be the primary “slicer and dicer” taking vegetables and fruit from their natural forms to something reasonably uniform to enter the recipe.
As I read and watch the recipes for many dishes it struck me that you almost never see the statement: just beat one egg or something like that. It is very common to treat the yolk and white of the egg separately and to prepare them with extreme care (e.g., beating the egg whites to a froth) before putting them in at precisely the right time to the recipe.
Perhaps there is a bigger lesson here in our culture of diversity as we try to get people to work together to make the best decisions for our organizations. Right now, we tend to put everyone in the same bowl and turn on the mixer. We may get a nice composite but we fail to take advantage of the differences in that diverse group. Is it possible that the senior engineers who know the history of the business might think differently from the millennials just entering this world? Is it possible that the men in the group might see things differently from the women? I think so.
Then, perhaps you need to mix these ideas together at the right time in the recipe. Perhaps it is time to recognize that the result from the group will be far different if it is approached this way rather than just taking everyone into the discussion and hoping that the average of those opinions is best.
Celebrate the diversity of your teams by honoring the unique contribution they each can make.