• Blog
  • LDS
    • Canada
    • Japan
    • U.K.
    • U.S.
    • World
    • Politicians
  • Site
    • About
    • Archive
    • Best of Rickety
    • Comments Policy
    • Copyright
    • FAQ
    • Feedback
    • Guests
    • Privacy Policy
    • Technical
    • Why Blog?
  • Sundry
    • Comics
    • HyperCheese Help
    • JFHE
    • Projects
      • Book of Mormon
    • Wishful Thinking

Rickety

Mostly about Utah

  • Family
    • Jill
    • Rick
    • Children
      • Daniel
      • Jake
      • Paul
      • Sarah
      • Steven
    • Children’s Spouses
      • Adelaide
      • Derek
      • Megan
      • Rachel
      • Shelese
    • Grandchildren
      • Aurora
      • Benjamin
      • Bryson
      • Caleb
      • Calvin
      • Cassandra
      • Elizabeth
      • Ezra
      • Helen
      • Jameson
      • Ryan
      • Sadie
  • Finance
    • Bank Rewards Checking
    • Credit Union Rewards Checking
    • Debt
    • Employment
    • Money
    • Rewards Checking Posts
  • Government
    • City
    • Elections
    • Federal
    • Military
    • Paul on Politics
    • Politics
    • States
    • Taxes
  • Recreation
    • Competition
    • Food
    • Fun in Utah
    • Games
    • Music
    • Parade
    • Sports
    • Travel
  • Religion
    • Christmas
    • Family History
    • Jesus Christ
    • LDS
    • Marriage
    • Missionary
    • On Religion
    • Preparedness
    • Scriptures
    • Temple
  • Series
    • 100 Years Ago
    • Christmas Letter
    • Epic Excerpts
    • On Religion
    • Past Pictures
    • Daniel’s Mission
    • Jake’s Mission
    • Paul’s Mission
  • Technology
    • Applications
    • Blogging
    • Communication
    • Computer
    • Energy
    • Environment
    • How To
    • Photography
    • Population
    • Transportation

Eco-Friendly Green Paper Shredder

June 6, 2010 by rickety 8 Comments

Eco-Friendly Green Paper Shredder

My eco-friendly green paper shredder was converted from a normal everyday paper shredder you buy at Target. I fed too much paper into it and stripped the gears. My son Paul repaired it by connecting a handle to the shredding mechanism from parts lying around in the garage.

Now I can save the planet by not having to use any electricity when I shred my private papers. I do have to remember to turn the crank counter-clockwise when I shred. It would be more intuitive to crank clockwise but that is not the way it works.

A small price to pay to go green.
Rickety signature.

Filed Under: Environment

Utah Earthquakes

May 14, 2010 by rickety 2 Comments

San Francisco City Hall

Ruins of earthquake-damaged San Francisco City Hall

The intensity of an earthquake can be measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale using a I through XII, with I denoting not felt, and XII total destruction. The values will differ based on the distance to the earthquake, with the highest intensities being around the epicentral area. Data are gathered from individuals who have experienced the quake, and an intensity value will be given to their location.

The following summary includes earthquakes centered in Utah with maximum intensity VII or greater with the exception of Springdale and Randolph.

Ogden 1894 (VI – VII)

On July 18, 1894 walls cracked and dishes were shaken from tables.

Santaquin and Goshen 1900 (VI – VII)

On August 1, near Santaquin, an adobe house was split in two and people were thrown from their beds. A chimney was damaged, dishes were broken, and some plaster fell at Goshen.

Parowan to Richfield 1901 (VIII)

On November 13 a strong earthquake caused brick buildings and many chimneys to be damaged. Earth cracks with the ejection of water and sand were reported; in addition, some creeks increased their flow. The total felt area covered about 129,500 square kilometers. Aftershocks continued for several weeks.

Pine Valley, St. George, and Santa Clara 1902 (VII)

Considerable damage resulted at Pine Valley, St. George, and Santa Clara from an earthquake on November 17, 1902. Chimneys were destroyed at Pine Valley and Santa Clara; additional damage occurred at Pinto and Toquerville.

Garland and Tremonton 1909 (VII)

A series of 30 to 60 earthquakes were reported in the vicinity of Garland and Tremonton between October and December 1909. Some of the shocks were strong enough to throw down chimneys. Two tremors about 30 minutes apart were reported felt over a wide area of northwestern Utah on October 5, 1909.

Salt Lake City 1910 (VII)

A May 22 earthquake damaged many chimneys at Salt Lake City and several old buildings.

Ogden and Farmington 1914 (VII)

On May 13 windows were broken and chimneys thrown down at Ogden; near panic was reported at Central Junior High School. Dishes rattled and furniture moved at Farmington. The shock was felt for an area covering about 20,700 square kilometers.

Elsinore, Monroe, and Richfield 1921 (VIII)

Two strong earthquakes about 12 hours apart shook Elsinore, Monroe, and Richfield on September 29. The first shock, at 7:12 a.m., lasted 7 to 10 seconds and threw down scores of chimneys, tore plaster from ceilings, and fractured walls at Elsinore. In addition, gables of houses were thrown out and the foundation of a new school sank one foot, leaving gaps between the walls and the roof.

Another shock occurred at 7:30 p.m. on the same day. On October 1, there was yet another strong tremor causing further damage at Elsinore. A number of brick and stone buildings were rendered uninhabitable. The Monroe City Hall, built of rock, was severely damaged.

Kosmo 1934 (VIII)

On March 12, at 8:06 a.m., an earthquake originating near Kosmo, on the north shore of Great Salt Lake, affected an area of about 440,000 square kilometers, including much of northern Utah and parts of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming. This tremor could have caused great damage in a densely populated area. There was moderate damage over a broad area, including Salt Lake City, where plaster fell. All chimneys fell in Kosmo and Monument; fissures, holes, cracks, and springs appeared in connection with a belt of fractures at least 8 kilometers long.

Franklin, Lewiston, Logan, Preston, and Richmond 1962 (VII)

An August 30 earthquake cause significant damage at Franklin, Lewiston, Logan, Preston, and Richmond. Cache County was designated a disaster region by the Small Business Administration. The greatest damage occurred at Richmond where at least nine houses were declared unsafe for occupancy, one church was damaged beyond repair, numerous houses lost walls, and 75 percent of the older brick chimneys fell. Four schools in Cache County were seriously damaged. The shock was felt over an area of approximately 168,000 square kilometers.

Marysvale, Koosharem, and Joseph 1967 (VII)

On October 4 an earthquake caused ceilings and walls to crack in numerous houses in Marysvale. At Koosharem, chimneys and plaster cracked. Chimneys were partially knocked down at Joseph. The tremor was felt over 38,800 square kilometers of southern Utah.

Springdale 1992 (VI)

The September 2 earthquake triggered a large landslide which destroyed three houses at Springdale. Felt throughout much of southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona and southeastern Nevada as far north as Richfield, Utah and as far south as Flagstaff, Arizona. Felt west as far as Caliente and Pioche, Nevada and southwest to the Las Vegas, Nevada area.

Randolph 2010 (VI)

An earthquake on April 15 near Randolph shook buildings and caused pictures and other items to rattle and crash to the floor.

Source: Utah Earthquake History
Rickety signature.

Filed Under: Environment

Sustainable Landscaping

May 12, 2010 by rickety 8 Comments

Note: This presentation is currently unavailable. There is no estimated time available for when the files can be restored. We are sorry for this inconvenience.

The ward Relief Society sponsored this presentation on sustainable landscaping by Ann Heath this evening.

Instruction on how to construct giant tomato cages and how to grow and use herbs was also given.

Rickety signature.

Filed Under: Environment Tagged With: Relief Society

Will Coal Power Climate Studies Supercomputer?

December 14, 2009 by rickety Leave a Comment

NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center

NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) will build a new climate studies supercomputer. NCAR is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado but a new $66 million facility that will house the supercomputer will be built in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The primary reason is cheap electricity. In Wyoming for an industrial user the price is 5.16 cents per kilowatt hour. In Colorado it is 6.89 cents per kilowatt hour. This makes a big difference when you will be running one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers, consisting of more than 100,000 processors. It will be 20 times more powerful than the current NCAR computer.

The overall project is called the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC), encompassing the design and construction of a world class center for high performance scientific computing in the atmospheric and related geosciences. Says NWSC:

Our goal is to build a world class scientific supercomputing facility that does not compromise on energy efficiency or sustainability, and that is adaptable to the ever-changing landscape of high-performance computing.

In 2007, Wyoming’s electricity generation was 45,633,000 megawatt hours. 43,127,000 megawatt hours came from coal and 1,484,000 megawatt hours from renewables. Coal generates 94.5% of Wyoming’s electricity and renewables 3.25%.

I wonder how much of Wyoming’s cheap coal will power the new climate studies supercomputer?

Related Articles

Wyoming gets supercomputer for climate studies
Rickety signature.

Filed Under: Energy, Environment Tagged With: Climate, Coal, Wyoming

Utah Solar Farm Has Potential

January 17, 2009 by rickety 17 Comments

Dixie Solar Farm

I read last January this interesting story in the Deseret News about a Dixie solar farm. It is not quite ready for the masses but should appeal to early adopters and the environmentally sensitive. With the tax credits and the future cost of electricity sure to rise I would be tempted to buy into a similar project if it was offered locally.

More Power To You

The city of St. George Energy Services Department and Dixie Escalante Electric have built a large solar photo-voltaic facility, allowing residents to purchase solar power to supplement the energy supplied by more conventional means. This takes advantage of the 310 days a year of sunlight, increases the use of renewable sources, provides local power, and increases sustainability and energy security for the growing community.

Own Your Own Power Plant

Residents of St. George can now invest their money locally, lower their carbon footprint, and control a portion of their power supply. They can purchase a whole or half SunSmart solar unit of 1 kilowatt installed solar PV capacity and own it for 19 years. Thereafter the panels will be replaced or repaired with the purchaser having the choice to pay the cost. The economies of scale make SunSmart an affordable, maintenance-free way to take advantage of solar power. The power generated by the SunSmart solar farm will be sent to one of the city’s substations and then the power is transported throughout the community via existing distribution circuits.

SunSmart solar panels using existing distribution systems

SunSmart solar panels using existing distribution systems

Solar Credits

Those that own one of the 466 black and gray solar panel units pay no more fees after the initial $6,000 and receive a credit on their monthly power bill. One St. George resident reported in December last year a solar credit of $3.90. A small amount but as electric rates increase in the future, the value of the energy credit will also increase. Each unit is priced to cover the cost of the equipment and installation. The city is not making any money off of this project; all of the savings go to the purchaser. By having a solar farm of this size the purchaser benefits from the economies of scale. Residents have a limit of four units or eight half units that they can buy. One unit will generate about 140 kWh per month and has a guaranteed minimum output of 800 kW hours a year. When I checked today the solar farm had produced 466 kW hours of power. Not bad for the dead of winter. Check to see how much power was produced today.

Sunsmart solar panels

Sunsmart solar panels

Tax Credits

There is a one-time Utah income tax credit of 25% of the purchase price up to $2,000 but no Federal tax credit. The person receiving the tax credit must live in St. George and they must also be receiving the credit of energy. The city worked with the state legislature to make it possible for homeowners to receive state tax credits for renewable energy investment not on the homeowner’s own property. St. George is the only city that currently offers a program that takes advantage of this tax credit for an off-site system. In a refreshing move by the city, it has not forced anyone to pay for the project if they did not want to be a part of it.

Environmental Impact

Every kilowatt hour of solar electricity produced offsets 1.8 grams of nitrous oxides, 0.9 grams of sulfur dioxide, and 986 grams of carbon dioxide, if the kWh was produced at an average Utah coal-fired plant. The offset in carbon dioxide is equivalent to driving 2.2 fewer miles.

The Guv’nor Likes Solar

At the SunSmart solar facility opening ceremony Governor Huntsman cranks out the puns with the words charge and potential:

Utah is poised to lead the charge in energy efficiency, renewable and alternative energy development with new and innovative technologies. Projects like St. George’s SunSmart are the perfect example of our state’s great potential being put into action.

During the late 20th century, Utah had already begun its journey on renewable energy with the development of hydroelectric plants in canyons adjacent to population centers. At present, renewable resources account for about 923 gigawatts of electric generation capacity in the state. This includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro production. The state has supported the growth of renewable energy by funding such projects including the installation of solar panels on the visitor’s center at Goblin Valley State Park, the headquarters for the Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Yuba State Park. The state continues to encourage renewable energy through direct purchase, policy, and incentives.

I agree with the Governor. We have the land, the entrepreneurs, the technology, and plenty of sunlight. With the current move to solar Utah’s star is indeed shining.
Rickety signature.

Filed Under: Energy, Environment Tagged With: Solar Power, St. George, Utah

Ask Rickety: What is the Global Warming Petition Project?

December 20, 2008 by rickety 19 Comments

East lake near Wuhan University

Global warming?

What is the Global Warming Petition Project?

It is a petition signed by 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with PhDs. It can be found at the Petition Project website.

What is the purpose of the petition?

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

What does the petition say?

The entire petition is as follows:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

What are the qualifications of the signatories?

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

Who finances the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

Are all the petition signatories scientists?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as it was discovered.

Is there any evidence that global warming is not harmful?

A twelve page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. The factual information cited in the article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. The article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

What does this review say?

The review is called Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and its abstract reads:

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

What do you make of all this, Rickety?

With over 30,000 signatories the petition deserves a decent review. Even if only a quarter of the signatories are bona fide scientists that is still an impressive number. This to me confirms what I have thought for years, that is, the jury is still out on the effect of hydrocarbon use on the environment. In the review, mention is made of the effect of the sun on temperature which one cannot easily dismiss.

Many people seem to have made their minds up based upon the popular fads of the day. I think it better to keep an open mind and to continue scientific research. Keep the politics out of the debate and examine all scientific research. See also the report of another 650 dissenting scientists.

Photo Credit: wumai on Flickr

Related Articles

Methods designed to reduce climate change questioned Address of a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member.
Rickety signature

Filed Under: Environment Tagged With: Global Warming, Research

Electricity Generation and the Obama-Biden Plan

December 2, 2008 by rickety 28 Comments

Energy and the Environment

Electricity generation is generally not one’s first priority when it comes to reading. However, I admit that I found it interesting when perusing Change.gov to find, among many, these three energy/environmental goals:

  • Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Develop and deploy clean coal technology.
  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

The first consideration is to ask what large energy sources are you going to replace? Nuclear (19.4%) and hydroelectric (6.0%) are more desirable than coal (48.5%) and natural gas (21.4%). It would appear that coal would be the main target to be replaced. In the chart below is a breakout of energy sources for the generation of electricity, measured in Gigawatt hours. A Gigawatt hour is a unit of electrical energy equal to one billion watt hours or one thousand megawatt hours. In 2007 the United States generated 4,166,507 Gigawatts of electricity which is enough power to light almost 8 billion 60 watt bulbs for a year.

Electricity Generation in the USA by Energy Source.
Source: Energy Information Administration

.

25 Percent from Renewables by 2025

By examining current electricity generation we can determine how feasible the goals are. Let’s look at the first goal in our list. Hydro-electric and other renewables make up 8.5% of the total. A goal of 10% by 2012 would therefore be quite doable. There is nothing like an easy goal attained in the early stages of a project to give one energy to proceed to the next level. To reach a goal of 25% would take some effort. How likely in the current climate are new large hydroelectric projects? Not very encouraging. For example, consider the Glen Canyon Institute that wants to decommission Glen Canyon Dam. What about other renewable sources? Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines “other renewables” as:

Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photo-voltaic energy, and wind.

These sources would have to compete with coal. The levelized energy cost (LEC) is a cost of generating energy for a particular system. It is an economic assessment of the cost the energy-generating system including all the costs over its lifetime. Using the LEC, coal is seen as costing one half as much as wind power and a third as much as solar thermal. Photo-voltaics cost four times as much as coal. Clearly, if these goals are met we will be paying much more for our electricity. However, I do believe that advances in technology and economies of scale will close the gap.

Clean Coal Technology

Our second goal aims to improve coal, which is a wise move considering that it is responsible for almost half of electricity generation. It has been estimated that commercial-scale clean-coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) cannot be commercially viable and widely adopted before 2020 or 2025. The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups maintain that it is a public relations tactic that presents coal as having the potential to be an environmentally acceptable option. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another.

Whether clean coal technology makes coal more acceptable will remain to be seen. Because powerful environmental groups are opposing its use it seems that there will be as much progress in this arena as there is in building new dams.

Cap-and-Trade Program

The last goal again takes aim mostly at coal. A cap-and-trade program is often seen as a better approach than direct regulation or a carbon tax. For existing industries cap-and-trade can be cheaper because the initial allowances can be issued by taking into account the history of the emissions from that sector. Politically it can also be more appealing. Presumably most of the money is spent on environmental activities. However, there are critics:

The notion that emissions trading is going to make a significant dent in global warming is deeply flawed, they say. Current emissions-trading schemes have proved to be little more than a shell game, allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world. (“The Carbon Folly“, Newsweek, 2007)

Because 2050 is so far out anything is possible. We may well reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by that year. I would like to see smaller percentage goals for years closer at hand. That way, progress can be tracked and timely adjustments made to reach the goals.

Summary

The energy goals on Change.gov are commendable. I have only covered three of them. However, I would like to see a table with goals for each year, starting in 2009. Each goal would state clearly its objective, along with measurable data, including costs, to track progress. I would like to see nuclear power expanded. I have no objection to wind and solar power generation even though it is much more expensive than coal. I believe the costs of solar will decrease significantly. One goal that is missing is to greatly expand telecommuting where one moves bits and not bodies. And the best goal of all is: “I will be a little less fanatical about global warming this year.” Now that would really clear the air.

External Articles

Exposing the Myth of Clean Coal Power
Nuclear’s Comeback: Still No Energy Panacea
Oil’s Expanding Frontiers

Rickety signature

Filed Under: Energy, Environment Tagged With: Obama

Sprawled Out

September 10, 2008 by Ada

Urban Sprawl
My guest writer is Derek Moss of Osmossis.

It has been asked, what are the problems with sprawl? There seems to be a lot of benefit from it and the suburban neighborhoods in which we live are quite desirable. What are the problems associated with our current pattern of growth? This is my attempt to answer these questions. Most of the material is taken from Andres Duany’s Suburban Nation (2000). Please note, I will clarify my position on most points in the conclusion.

Sprawl Defined

It consists of five parts. The defining characteristic of sprawl is that the parts are strictly segregated. The first is housing subdivisions. They are residential zones comprised of single, and if you’re lucky, double access. The second part is the shopping center. The third is the office or business park. The fourth is civic institutions, like public buildings. In Utah this is debatable simply because our churches, meeting houses, and town halls are often integrated into residential zones, contradictory to sprawl. The fifth, on the other hand, is quite prevalent, and consists of the roads “that are necessary to connect the other four disassociated components” of sprawl. Sprawl is the direct result of an idea, followed by the implementation of policies that made it inevitable.

What is Wrong with Sprawl?

Congestion. Roads in the suburbs are arranged in a street hierarchy, including feeders, primary and secondary collectors, and finally arterials. The system forces all or most of the traffic onto one or possibly two major roadways. Even in small towns, because we have designed the system this way, there are signs of congestion and overwhelming traffic. Do not confuse this with main street America, discussed below.

Accessibility. In relation to the system of roads that have been created is the idea that single access and cul-de-sacs means separation. City planners have decided that we don’t want to live near retail or office space, so we’ve created this illusion by allowing for single access only. Although the shopping center may be right next door, it is all too often inaccessible by walking and the user is forced to drive to the spot, which also happens to be surrounded by a sea of asphalt. Shopping and working has developed a stereotype of being large, busy, congested, and undesirable, therefore encouraging its separation from our residences.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: City, Environment, Rickety Picks Tagged With: Main Street, Sprawl, Telecommute

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

Recent Comments

  • Judy Crowe on Ten Artists Paint Old Testament Women
  • Angela on The Twelve Stones of The Apocalypse
  • Angela on The Twelve Stones of The Apocalypse
  • AllHailKingJesus on The Twelve Stones of The Apocalypse
  • Microwave guy on Make a Halloween Costume from a Microwave Oven
  • Anonymous on Arduino AVR High-Voltage Serial Programmer
  • Anonymous on The Twelve Stones of The Apocalypse
  • Randall on Parrish Canyon Fremont Pictographs
  • Jon on Testing Our APack Ready Meals
  • Jennifer Danelle Sexton on Missionary Dan Email #3 from Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Who is this Rickety?

Rick at homeI'm Rick Willoughby. I live in Utah, a retired Software Engineer. I'm a Mormon, married with 5 children and 12 grandchildren.

I emigrated from England in my late twenties, bringing with me one small suitcase and a few dollars. I appreciate the opportunities America has given me and the friendliness of the people to new citizens.

I blog about my family as well as politics, religion, finance, technology, and other topics.

Copyright © 2025 · Lifestyle Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in