Secrecy, Obfuscation and Lies

I am in the middle of reading Ben Goldacre's "Bad Pharma" having previously read "Bad Science". The latter didn't surprise me and, perhaps not surprisingly, did not fill me with rage. The former has me seething. For the purposes of this post I'll not delve into the nastily unethical activities of the drug companies themselves - I just urge you to read Goldacre's book. Rather I just want to note that regulators and governments are deep in the mire, too. In some cases it's niaivity, granted, but in far too many regulators and governments appear to be in the pockets of the pharmacutical giants. And one of the ways this is manifested is by their connivance with big pharma in keeping the results of trials secret, in obfuscating the evidence, in approving worthless drugs and more.

What finally triggered me to put finger to keyboard was reading Nick Butler's latest blog post. Readers of this blog will have realised that I have some time for Butler and in his current post he comes with further evidence of a secrecy culture within Whitehall. In this case his target is DECC but the malaise is the same as one of those highlighted by Goldacre.

Butler starts off by noting a report in the Telegraph that claims that a study into the impact of windfarms across the UK is being suppressed by DECC. He then goes on to cite a stack of other energy related reports, working papers, assessments and studies that are not seeing the light of day.

As I have noted before, energy is the starting point of the nation's value chain and we should expect our politicians and civil servants to recognise that fact, to act in the country's best interests and to be accountable to all of us who depend upon their expertise and integrity. Instead we have a culture of silence which might cause one of a suspicious nature to suspect that politicians and civil servants are covering their embarrasment at the failure of policy, at their poor judgement and management, and, indeed, at their total ineptitude.

As for our drug regulators - just don't get ill.

Don't take my word for it - read Butler's blog - read Goldacre's book (and his Bad Science blog).

How Much CO2 For A Tweet?

Sorry about the "CO2" in the title. I can't quickly see a way of putting in a subscript (and the only way I can get anything resembling one in the main text is by using a smaller font). The chemist in me finds this really annoying. Nomenclature in chemisty is important with numerical subscripts, superscripts and those in normal sized fonts having different meanings. A shame on any application that doesn't allow their use. We are breeding a generation that is ignorant of the subtleties.

But that's not the subject of this post.

Mark P Mills, CEO of the Digital Power Group has recently published a report assessing the electrical demand of the global IT system. He argues that just short of 1/10th of all electrical energy usage goes on IT. This is not about the energy required to charge your smarphone or anything like that. This is all about data traffic.

Mills calculates that streaming one hour of video per week to a smartphone consumes more energy annually in the remote data network than running 2 domestic refrigerators for a year. Our "always on" data culture has spawned a huge number of energy hungry data farms and it is these that are contributing to the massive increase in energy usage that Mills writes about.

Makes you think, doesn't it? But does it stop you forever checking your rather trivial Facebook profile, sending meaningless tweets or uploading out-of-focus photographs?

Climate Change Preparedness

Researchers at Newcastle University have recently published an assessment of the climate change preparedness of 30 urban areas in the UK. They have done this by analysing documents published by the relevant local authorities and mapping their content and intent as mitigation and adaptation scores. A very mixed picture results. Some authorities have apparently well developed mitigation and adaptation strategies whereas others are only just embarking along either road. Very striking, and worrying, is the fact that mitigation appears to be the dominant activity in all areas. I think it is acknowledged that climate change is already upon us so, although there clearly is a requirement for mitigation to lessen future impacts, there is also a certainty that adaptation is an absolute requirement. London and Leicester come out as leaders in the latter; other areas would seem to be badly under-prepared.

Better Late Than Never

It's Eric Pickles' mob again! A mere 461 days after consulting on Part L changes there has finally been an announcement. What is it about DCLG that makes one think they are just not with it? The changes pressage a 6% decrease in CO2 emissions from new domestic premises and 9% from non-domestics buildings. There are no changes to provisions for existing homes and, of course, consequential improvements do not feature. The delay in coming to a conclusion means that the new requirements come into force in April 2014 rather than April 2013 as originally planned. It's all rather pathetic, isn't it?

PS (added 18th August). There's a short piece worth reading in Rod Janssen's Blog.

Solar Array Over-performs

There was a post on Edie recently that stated that the Met Office's solar array at Exeter had over-performed last year compared with expectations. This is despite 2012 being one of the wettest and least sunny years on record. My immediate thought was this all begs the question of how the solar array output forecast had been done in the first place.

Being a bit of a nerd I ran a quick assessment before we acquired and had installed our little (about 100 times smaller than the Met Office) array. Because I was looking to test the economic viability of my scheme I was cautious in my outlook. For instance, I assumed that I only got the manufacturer's minimum performance guarantee level. That was pretty certainly going to be worse than year 1 performance. I also rounded the array's orientation and pitch to the nearest 10 degrees in a detrimental direction. Surprise, surprise! My 2012 performance figure outstrips my "prediction" (2570 kWh actual vs 2157 kWh predicted). I'm pleased, of course, because this suggests that payback will probably be quicker than my model forecast but I really should not be surprised - I bent the inputs to make such an outcome likely. Did the Met Office do the same?

Incidentally, a number of friends have used my model (it's in Excel) to assess their projects and I can make it available on a "no prejudice" basis if you drop me an email.

Bonkers Planning Part 2

Just thought I'd post this link. Life is crazy!

Where Do Politicians Come From?

Marc Sidwell's latest post at City AM neatly points up the lack of worldly knowledge possessed by our current crop of politicians. However, I'm not happy with Sidwell's, proposed solution - i.e. a supply side of the economy allowed to let rip. Rather I'd like to see some sort of "experience requirement" placed upon all would be MPs. Not sure how it would work - ideas on a post card, please.

Energy Policy Is A Mess

I am told by one who should know that a recent straw poll at the CBI demonstrated that the two biggest concerns that UK businesses have are the lack of skilled potential recruits and the country's chaotic energy policy. To date I have resisted pontificating on the former, although I have seen local students appallingly let down by their educational establishements and, not so long ago when I was in a position to recruit, I was sickened by the poor CVs of so many new graduates. That is for another day. I have, however, grumbled on about the dreadful state of the UK's energy policy - particularly as it relates to the electricity sector.

The fact that we still don't have a new nuclear programme agreed is just one symptom. For sure, some of this is down to EdF failing to undertand that chaotic energy policy does not necessarily mean that the officers at DECC with whom they are dealing are in a weak position. EdF should realise that a deal at, say £70/MWh, is probably a win-win solution and could form a valuable platform for the company to rebuild its business. Perhaps when the summer sun is not frazzling the Gallic brain sense will prevail.

HMG, of course, does not help itself. As currently organised energy provision is an amalgam of public (i.e. government) policy and private money. If the policy side is not clear the money side will not follow. That is just where we are.

I will not apologise for repeating my argument that the country's value chain begins with the cost of energy. For that to be optimised there is a requirement for a clear and coherent energy policy. It's not rocket science.

Shed of the Year

I just couldn't resist linking to this.