The Intersection of Cats, Video Games and Conservation

Why is it so difficult to train cats to stop doing something?
As predators, they evolved to deal well with intermittent reinforcement : 9 out of 10 times, it won't catch the mouse, but the 1 time it does is enough to keep it hunting for another day. It it quit every time the mouse escaped it wouldn't be a very good predator.

What do we love about the really addictive video games?

• Just one more turn before I eat lunch (Civ 2)
• I can get one more turn if I eat ancient unspeakable fruitcake (Kingdom of Loathing (KoL)).
• So-and-so has found a lost baby horse, can you give it a home? (Farmville)
• Is that all you got? (Modern Warfare 2) 
• Raining on their Parade and a whole host of other contrived achievements (Team Fortress 2)

More intermittent rewards for making progress against some goal, spaced just right in time to maintain a sense of progress and recorded for ourselves and others to see how much progress we've made.

Why is conserving resources so hard?
Our predator nature loves intermittent reinforcement but conserving resources is, generally, a slow cumulative, silent process.

• There are no achievements, trophies or (annoying) progress messages to your friends.
• No normalizing scoreboard that tells you how well you're doing against "the best" or against "100%."
• No updates, patches, new weapons, armor, new recipes or new quests. No $5 DLC packs.
• Replay value is pretty bad. In fact, the first game never ends.

Why would I play *THAT* game?

Whoever can turn conservation and efficiency into a game, a really good, addictive game, will win for all of us.

A Framework for Sustainable Business

Sustainability

"The ability to provide for the needs of the world's current population without damaging the ability of future generations to provide for themselves. When a process is sustainable, it can be carried out over and over without negative environmental effects or impossibly high costs to anyone involved."

This definition is nice but how to make it actionable?
A checklist would be nice, but that is probably too simplistic. Rather, there seems to be a few key ideas that lead from this definition that give a framework for answering the question: "Is this sustainable?" in whatever context it might arise. The first question is: sustainable for whom? Which leads to...

Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

""People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business. A TBL company conceives a reciprocal social structure in which the well-being of corporate, labour and other stakeholder interests are interdependent."

""Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices. A TBL company endeavors to benefit the natural order as much as possible or at the least do no harm and curtail environmental impact. "

""Profit" is the economic value created by the organisation after deducting the cost of all inputs, including the cost of the capital tied up."

To understand if something has unacceptable costs to anyone involved, you must first identify all of the stakeholders. The simplest embodiment of this idea is in the triple bottom line: Expanding accountability to the stakeholders rather than just the shareholders. Who are the stakeholders?

• Your people
• Your planet
• Your profit (i.e. the economy in which you live and on which you depend).

Once you begin trying to account for all the stakeholders' costs and benefits you are led naturally to...

Full Cost Accounting (FCA)

1. Accounting for costs rather than outlays
2. Accounting for hidden costs and externalities
3. Accounting for overhead and indirect costs
4. Accounting for past and future outlays
5. Accounting for costs according to lifecycle of the product

FCA requires explicit acknowledgement of costs that are typically ignored in traditional cost / benefit analyses. It requires systems thinking to understand the scope and source of these costs. The points of FCA that seem, to me, to be particularly relevant to sustainability are:

• What does it really cost to obtain, use and replace a resource? Natural resource usage is a good example: prices reflect extraction costs rather than replacement costs (it's not sustainable if I run out with no replacement). So using resource price as the cost of resources is insufficient to account for the impact of using that resource. Oil is cheap to extract but difficult to replace.
• Externalities are acknowledged as costs of business rather than someone else's problem. Passing the cost to someone else does not make the cost go away - it's just theft from that person. A good example is the effect of overworking employees. What is the cost of a crumbling family or of the loss of a parent from workplace induced illness or stress related disease? In traditional accounting, such concerns are not the business' concern so efforts to improve employee well-being are are difficult to justify.
• Future outlays to deal with preventing externalities are also planned for. This encourages reuse and encourages building recycling and collection into the product design and business model. It is good business to have people buy a new cell phone every year, until you have to pay for the safe disposal of every one of those phones or the impact on health and environment loss from improperly disposed phones. Wouldn't it be more economically effective to plan on collecting and reusing the materials?

If you include in the costing the environment as the source of all resources and that a better environment results in more plentiful, higher quality, more productive resources (material and labor), then you reach...

Cradle to Cradle Design

"Cradle to Cradle design perceives the safe and productive processes of nature’s ‘biological metabolism’ as a model for developing a ‘technical metabolism’ flow of industrial materials. Product components can be designed for continuous recovery and reutilization as biological and technical nutrients within these metabolisms."

This is about making the world better with each unit produced rather than just making things "less bad."
While Cradle to Cradle emphasizes product design, to me the idea logically extends to sustainable business processes as well: How do I design a business process that makes my people and customers more fulfilled rather than just "less abused" in pursuit of the company's goals?

• Trust marketing: respect your customers and their interests to build more business.
• Foster and direct intrinsic motivation (Drive... see TED video below) to get the most from employees.

Put another way: sustainability seems to be about approaching business with Aikido in mind (blend and direct) rather than with Taekwondo in mind (block, strike and smash).

Sustainable vs Green

"Green" and "Sustainable" seem to be used as if they mean the same thing in mainstream media. However they are not the same:

Green but not sustainable:
Michael Pollan has a good example of this in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma: industrial organic food. The food is raised without artificial fertilizers or pesticides. However, it is raised in a giant monoculture. This means that a single disease could wipe out the entire crop. It also means that the land is not replenished by the crop growth so more and more fertilizers are needed to keep up yield.

Another example is in the common complaint about LEED not being green enough. I think, this could be a complaint about LEED not being as strong about sustainability as some might like. A recycled, refurbished, bright and airy building with solar panels constructed in the middle of nowhere is not sustainable to operate or for occupants to get to... yet it can still be LEED certified - a "green" building.

Sustainable but not green:
A small community raises pigs and chickens in a factory farm in addition to having a number of farms to supply food to the animals and people. The waste is rotated between a number of storage ponds where the land is severely polluted but the waste is broken down at a rate such that additional land is not required to contain it. The water supply is contaminated but sufficient rain falls that cachement supplies the required amount year-round. By having multiple animal types, a cull due to disease outbreak in one population does not result in a total loss of income or food supply.
This is, I will admit, a bit contrived but is within the realm of possibility for a small enough community without economic growth as a primary goal. It would be impossible to call this situation green but it, arguably, could be sustained.

The relationship between sustainability and green does exist. Namely that it is very hard for a planet of 6.8 billion people to be sustainable without being green because the environmental impact of our current technology is too high. To ensure that we can continue to live here, for human life to be "sustainable", our impact needs to be moderated. The best way we know to do that is by being "green."

It also highlights that "sustainability" is about the entire system. There cannot be "waste" and inputs cannot come exclusively from limited supplies when the population is too large. Or, as William McDonough puts it, "Waste equals food."

Maybe it is fair to say that the missing distinction is that sustainability requires systems thinking while green is about point solutions?

Lighting Labels coming in 2011

Better information for comparing light bulbs is coming next year.

Read this this earlier post to understand what these terms mean.

• Brightness = Luminous flux
• Brightness / Energy Used = Efficacy
• Light appearance = Color Temperature

Comparing Light Sources - LEDs vs Fluorescents vs Metal Halide HID

From the previous post, one could conclude that LEDs, Fluorescents and Metal Halide HIDs were all pretty much the same: High efficacy, OK to good CRI and good color temperatures.

Yet what we see are fluorescent bulbs everywhere.

One way to compare these light sources is by bulb life vs cost per lumen output with efficacy taken into account. That looks like this: "Good" is high and to the left with a larger bubble.

One conclusion that immediately stands out is how expensive LED lights are relative to the alternatives. They may be 2x as efficient and last 5x as long, but they are ~38x - 175x the price. That makes adoption of LEDs very difficult for most applications that don't have some other needs specifically met by LEDs.

Some of those special needs:

• LEED certification 
• LED lighting is more efficient so it can be used towards energy efficiency credits (EAc1). If 25% of a commercial building's electricity usage goes towards lighting and you can cut that by 50%, that's a 12.5% reduction in electricity cost.
• LED lighting is more easily controlled (dimmable) to allow for controllability of systems - lighting (EQ6.1).
• Flicker
•  For some tasks and working conditions, 60Hz cycling from fluorescents can cause eye strain, especially if it is used with other visual equipment that runs off 60Hz AC. LED lighting has a 120Hz cycling which means it is much more difficult to detect flicker and it is less likely to beat with other equipment running at 60Hz.
• Dimming
•  Commercial use fluorescent bulbs (T8, T10 and T12) are not easily dimmable due to the construction of the ballast that keeps them lit. LEDs are dimmable using standard dimming equipment. This is important for applications where light level control is desired.
• Directionality
•  LEDs are point sources that can be configured more easily to provide a variety of lighting patterns (focused to diffuse) while fluorescent bulbs are generally quite long making it more difficult to use as task lighting or for other special lighting purposes.
• Toxic waste disposal concerns
• Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury which is a hazardous substance. LEDs do not contain mercury, though they are still eWaste and need special handling for disposal.

• Low temperature operation
• LED lighting performs better at lower temperatures. In fact, life time if greatly reduced if they operate at too high temperatures (hence all the heat sinks on the LED bulbs). This makes LED lighting a natural fit for lighting refrigerated displays.

• Green image
• The current perception of LED lighting is that it is the next big thing in energy efficiency and is, therefore, green. Using this perception to advertise your greenness is good marketing.

While Metal Halide HID compares well on the cost/lm vs lifetime graph, it does have a major strike against it, besides the borderline CRI: restrike time. This is the time it takes for the bulb's arc tube to cool sufficiently to restart the plasma. This can be several (1 - 15) minutes. A long restrike time makes such bulbs very difficult to use in locations where individual light control is required (e.g. office spaces or residential). Using fast starting HIDs greatly shortens the life of the bulb.

So as the cost of LEDs drop (cost comes in line with alternatives), energy costs rise (efficacy difference becomes more important) and green building codes become more prevalent (raising the minimum energy efficiency requirements for new buildings), the ROI of LED lighting will rise vs fluorescents until LED lighting makes economic sense. 

It's just not quite there today.

Comparing Light Sources

One of the low hanging fruit in energy efficiency is replacing incandescent lights with fluorescent ones.

OK.

Then there is much news about how big LED lighting, outside of TV and LCD monitor back-lighting, will be:

"LEDs will account for almost half of a $4.4 billion market for lamps in the commercial, industrial and outdoor stationary sectors by 2020."

So LED lighting is where it's at.

OK.

So which is it and why?

First some terms:

How lighting is measured:

• Photometry: The science of radiated energy as observed by the human eye. Metrics of photometry incorporate wavelength and sensitivity of the human eye at various wavelengths (luminosity function).
• vs Radiometry, which is the science of radiated energy without regard to human perception of the radiated energy.
• Luminous Intensity: measured in Candela (cd). Defined as:
• The luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 × 10¹² hertz (~550 nm) and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of ¹⁄₆₈₃ watt per steradian
• Luminous Flux: measured in Lumens (lm). The light produced by a light source that emits one candela of luminous intensity over a solid angle of one steradian. Light bulbs usually label the output of the bulb in Lumens somewhere on the package.
• Illuminance: measured in Lux (lx) or Foot Candles (fc). The total luminous flux incident on a surface, per unit area.
• For metric units: Lux = lm/m^2
• For English units: Foot Candles = lm/ft^2

How light sources are characterized:

• Efficacy: The amount of illuminance generated per watt of energy input.
• Color Temperature (CT) / Correlated Color Temperature (CCT): The "whiteness" of light generated from a source. Correlated to the color of light produced by a radiating black body of that temperature (K).

• Color Rendering Index (CRI): The ability of a light source to correctly reflect accurate colors in the environment. CRI = 100 is perfect reproduction. CRIs in the range of 75-100 are considered excellent, while 65-75 are good. The range of 55-65 is fair, and 0-55 is poor.

I plotted the source characteristics for some common light sources below to show how they relate to each other. "Good" translates to high, to the right(ish) and with a large sized bubble.

What does that mean?

• Incandescent and halogen bulbs are what most homes use today so they are the baseline against which all other lighting is most easily compared. 
• It has good CRI, medium-low CT and very low efficacy. 
• i.e. objects appear to be the "right" color when illuminated and the light itself is "warm (reddish)" but takes significant energy to produce very much of.
• Fluorescent lights are very common, particularly in commercial lighting and are the other light source which you've probably encountered frequently. There is large variation in the characteristics available depending on phosphors used but:
• Newer bulb types have reasonably good CRI, a wide range of CCTs (med - high) and high efficacy.
• i.e. objects appear to be nearly the right color, light can be anywhere from "warm" to "cool (white)" (depending on the bulb) and energy is efficiently converted to light (~5x incandescent).
• Metal Halide High Intensity Discharge (HID) are more common as outdoor lighting (and a variant - Xenon HID in car headlights).
• It has borderline good CRI, medium CT and high efficacy. 
• i.e. objects appear to be the "almost right" color when illuminated, the light itself is "cool (white)" and energy is efficiently converted to light (~7x incandescent).
• Low Pressure Sodium lighting is the the yellow street lamp you've probably seen in the parking lot that made it impossible to figure out which car was yours because they all looked grey.
• It's very good at converting energy to light, but it's not light you want to look at... unless you are an astronomer and want to filter out the city of San Jose's light pollution from your observations...
• LED lighting is still fairly rare but is starting to show up in some more efficient building designs,  vending machines and refrigerated display cases.
• Newer LED types have reasonably good CRI, a wide range of CCTs (med - high) and high efficacy.
• i.e. objects appear to be nearly the right color, light can be anywhere from "warm" to "cool (white)" (depending on the phosphor used) and energy is efficiently converted to light (~10x incandescent).

Conclusion: modern fluorescents are quite good from a light quality standpoint, modern LEDs are similar as are (some) HID lamps. LEDs are clearly more "efficient" but adoption is still low. From this basic data one would expect that HID penetration would be higher too. Why is it not?

I'll get into more characteristics of these light sources later to better understand why the lighting situation looks like it does today, but hopefully this post went a good way towards explaining why the forerunners are what they are.

At least this proposed light bulb label should now makes sense:

Interesting Mixed Metaphor - BP Oil Spill and Energy Efficiency

This story from Treehugger highlights an interesting quantification of the BP Oil Spill in terms of energy being wasted.

• The estimated cost to clean up the oil spill ($40 B) is many times greater than the cost to retrofit 75,000 houses ($1 B) and save the energy equivalent of the gulf oil spill every year.
• 75,000 houses = mid-sized U.S. city or large suburb of a major city, like Chattanooga, Tenn. or Providence, R.I.
• A typical home energy retrofit costs around $10,000 per house -- before any utility or governments energy rebates are applied.  

Of course, wasted energy is only a small part of the problem. There is the matter of millions of barrels (>114 million gallons = ~2.7 million barrels in worst case estimate or ~30M gal for a more conservative estimate) of crude oil in the water:

• Oil washing up in coastal habitats killing animals, destroying ecosystems and heading towards Florida and the Atlantic Ocean.
• Tons (>1.2 Million gal) of toxic chemicals being sprayed on it (dispersants) with unknown long term impact
• The effect of the dispersed oil droplets sinking in the water column impacting sub-surface life.
• Tons of methane, >20x more potent than CO2 as a green house gas, that have been released (around 2900 cu ft of methane per barrel of oil = 7.8 billion cu ft = ~112,000 metric tons = ~ equivalent to green house gas effect of emissions from 20,400 cars)
• Increased hyopxic "dead zone" in the gulf (between 8% and 30% larger than normal) possibly from all the methane being pumped into the water along with the oil, further impacting the ecosystem.
• The short and long term cost of health effects from the oil, chemical and gas exposure on clean up volunteers.
• The resulting economic and job loss throughout the market chain as people cannot catch fish, sell fish, buy fish, so fishermen can't buy things thereby hurting local businesses which rely on the fishermen's income. (1% of Lousiana's economic output according to NPR)
• More economic loss from the moratorium on deep water drilling (16% of the economic activity of Louisiana according to NPR).
• The loss in stock value of BP impacting the retirement income and viability of retirement portfolios for large numbers of people, bringing further economic hardship on people already in the middle of one of the worst recessions in recent history.

So interesting comparison: yes... but sort of missing the big picture.

In the thrall of old ideas

This TED Talk by Sir Ken Robinson on changing education to better suit the needs of today struck me because of its relevance to the thread of intrinsic motivation and discovering what each of our "things" are: what is my superpower?

The key ideas that I took away were:

• Dis-enthrallment: Recognizing the assumptions that we do not question and questioning them.
• Linear vs Organic processes: Go through education in this order ("University begins in Kindergarten") and you are set for life vs. organizing to meet the need for diversity in type and timing of talent.
• Conformity vs Uniqueness:  Fast food (McDonalds) vs customized food (Zagats and Michelin Star rated restaurants) and the "value" associated with each.
• The need to move from a mfg / industrial based model of education to one based on agriculture - "Human flourishing is not a mechanical process but an organic process.... [Like farmers, the goal is to] create the conditions under which they [students] will begin to flourish."

As the limits of the "old" economic model become clearer, the limits of the assumptions on which that model is based also become clearer.
I don't know what the "new" rules are or what they will become.
I do know that as the various systems in which we live crash and stumble towards a new (if temporary) equilibrium, dealing with this kind of chaotic rearrangement will require more flexibility than the old system allows.
Ideas like these speak some truth for me in dealing with the new condition.

Microgeneration (almost) meets Microconsumption - In Biotech

I gave an example of how microgeneration could be useful to power wireless networks and sensor devices to provide data for building automation control systems. Here is an example where microgeneration is applied to biotech devices.

In this story from MIT Tech Review:
A team has shown that they can generate power (~6.5uW) from a fuel cell embedded in the tissue of a rat. The fuel cell uses glucose from the bloodstream to generate power.
A pacemaker requires ~10uW of power to run so this is not quite ready for prime time but it suggests an approach that makes embedded medical devices much easier to live with (no external battery packs or replacement needed).

An Experiment with Virtual Daylighting

I'm not crazy after all!

I posted earlier about the idea of virtual daylighting and it looks like someone has gone and actually done something about it.
From Inhabitat:

  

"one innovative designer is experimenting with LED lights to create fake sunlight reflections on interior walls. Using over 3,000 LED lights, which give off the natural color of sunlight, Daniel Rybakken is designing lighting fixtures in the shapes of parallelograms, which give the impression of sunlight coming in through a window and reflecting off a surface.

Before, the entrance was a dark, dank, scary sort of place, and afterwards, with the white walls and reflecting light on the stairwell, you’d think they had added windows and a skylight. This light shift makes a huge difference on the psyche and even though all you see is a distorted rectangle light reflection, it looks exactly the way actual sunlight would reflect in through a window on a wall. "

Micro generation meets micro consumption - Energy Scavenging Wireless Networks

 In a previous post I wrote a bit about wireless mesh networks as a means to cost effectively retrofit sensors into a building to allow feedback control and continuous monitoring of environmental conditions to reduce energy usage.

One problem with wireless: batteries.
While they may last for years, they do need to be replaced eventually. If you have truly adopted a full building installation of sensors, that would be hundreds of nodes and batteries tucked into all kinds of hard to access locations where the HVAC, power distribution, and other systems are located or routed.
Replacing all those batteries in all those places: not trivial.

Energy scavenging to the rescue!
Using versions of the technology that power your kinetic watch (mechanical micro-generators) or that can be stuffed into a shoe (piezoelectric), enough power can be generated from ambient vibrations to power the sensors. It's not a lot of energy, but it's probably enough for low power network devices:

• MCU + Transceiver for ZigBee (IEEE 802.15.4) draws somewhere between ~20mA and <200mA (say 50mA) (at ~3.3V) when transmitting with <1 uA in sleep mode
• Transmissions last a few tens of milliseconds (~15ms - 48ms) and sensors may transmit ~1/min.
• Energy required is, therefore ~7.9 mJ per minute (for 48ms transmissions).
• Micro-mechanical energy generators produce on the order of a few (1-5-ish... say 2) mW of power. This could yield up to ~120 mJ of energy per minute (depending on the consistency of vibrations).

So, even with a smaller or less efficient generator than I found in a few minutes of searching, with a small battery or capacitor to store the micro-generator's energy you're in business without battery changes.

image credit: inhabitat

The Spaghetti Sauce Tribes

In a previous post, I focused on what would influence me with regard to moving to full cost accounting. This focus suggested that there was, perhaps, a "right" answer for getting everyone to make this move.

As much as I'd love for that idea to be true: that there is some Platonic argument that would sway everyone, at least two minds greater than my own who have done much thinking on this topic would disagree:

• Malcolm Gladwell talking about the lessons of spaghetti sauce: "There is no best spaghetti sauce, only best spaghetti sauces."
• Seth Godin thinking about 
• the non-existence of the Tribe of Average: "Heretical thoughts, delivered in a way that capture the attention of the minority--that's the path that works."
• and marketing to the average: "Be picky. Make great stuff. Work with amazing people. Just don't expect everyone to love what you do."

Galdwell's advice is easy: Some people prefer sauce that is pragmatic, purely cost based and some prefer sauce that is high on ideals, justice and aspiration. Ok. Fair enough. Finding more ways to interpret the value of something the better.

So what do I do with Seth Godin's insight into niches and tribes when I need to motivate "everyone" to participate in the project?

• If I want to give up, I can say that only a few groups are capable of being mobilized in any meaningful way and target those groups.
• If I want to take the hard road, I can look for the thousand segmentations that pick off the non-average from any given grouping.

Somewhere in the middle probably lies the reasonable path: target a few with special messages, the more the better, and mass market to the rest.

I suppose that is basically the same conclusion as Gladwell and one that really shouldn't surprise anyone in marketing: know your audience and craft the value statement appropriately. If you have more than one audience, you should know that too.

The sad part is, maybe it doesn't work for saving the planet:

"There was no evidence, Bradshaw said, that rich nations — which have greater access to clean energy technologies — have a reduced environmental impact because of increased environmental awareness." 

Daylighting with "Alternative" Financing (PTO)

I tried to persuade my management to consider a daylighting experiment in our office. A small area covering around 18 workers' desks would require ten 21" solatubes to achieve a minimum 25 ft-candle illumination level. Total estimate ~$16.5k.
Among other reasons for not proceeding (e.g. it wouldn't be fair to everyone else, we've looked at ROI and electricity savings would be marginal, etc...) , no budget had been set aside for this kind of thing.

$16.5k is in the rounding error for the finances of a company the size of where I work, but assuming that it was not, is there another to pay for it? What about Paid Time Off (PTO) hours? Would employees be willing to give up a certain number of accrued hours to fund daylighting? It certainly seems more likely than asking them to give up cash to do it. Especially if you have a substantial  PTO balance and little prospect of using it all in the near future. PTO is a bit like funny money that way.

If I assume that those PTO hours are worth ~$48/ea ($200k/yr*employee with half as salary and half as benefits and taxes which must be paid), that means each employee would need to give up ~19 hours to fund the project.

Two and a half days in exchange for improved mood and productivity for years to come.
Sounds like a trade you could convince many people to make.