Vandaag finishte de 12e etappe van de Tour de France op de landingsbaan van het vliegveld van Mende, in de Cevennen. Het vliegveld ligt op een hoogvlakte, het dorp in het dal aan de rivier de Lot. Een steile weg leidt vanuit het dorp naar het vliegveld. Een klim van de tweede categorie, de Côte de la Croix-Neuve, een zeer venijnig ding na een lange etappe zo vlak voor de finish. Garantie voor een spannende finale. Het was niet de eerste keer dat de finish op het Aérodrome de Mende was getrokken.
Precies hier, bovenaan de klim, bezocht ik in 1995, op Quatorze Juillet, voor het eerst de Tour de France.
Vriend Pieter Dijkshoorn en ik waren in de regio op fietsvakantie. De fietsbus had ons in Millau afgezet, vanwaar we door de Gorges du Tarn de Cevennen introkken. Het eerste deel van onze route stond in het teken van Tim Krabbé's wielerklassieker "De Renner." Pieter was er zo enthousiast over, dat het zelfs mij aanzette het open te slaan. Bovendien was het dun, ging het over wielrennen en mocht het meetellen voor de leeslijst op school. Het boek beschrijft een wielerwedstrijd voor amateurs in de Cevennen, rondom de Mt. Aigoual, waarin de auteur een van de kandidaten voor de eindzege is. De koers wordt zo nauwgezet beschreven dat de route vrij eenvoudig te achterhalen is. Naar verluidt zou het uitzicht vanaf de Mt. Aigoual fenomenaal zijn, dat speelde ook mee. Enkele dagen keken we vanaf de top naar de Mt. Ventoux en stelden vast dat het waar was.
Van onze reis hielden we allebei een dagboek bij. Pas jaren later, nadat op 6 mei 2007 Pieter's hart midden in een fietswedstrijd voorgoed stilstond, heb ik zijn voor het eerst dagboek gelezen. Waar mijn schrijfsels feitelijk waren - de route, de temperatuur, dagafstand, dat werk - was Pieter's verslag reflectief, filosofisch soms. Toen we daar bovenop de côte op de tourrenners wachtten waren onze schriften nog nagenoeg leeg, het meeste lag voor ons.
1995 was de laatste keer dat Miguel Indurain de tour won. Hij is nog steeds mijn held. Toen na eindeloos gespannen wachten de renners passeerden was Indurain een van de eersten. Tanden ontbloot, vechtend om in het wiel van Pantani te blijven. Riis zat er dichtbij. In mijn plakboek zit een foto als bewijs. Genomen met een zo'n analoog vakantietoestelletje. De renners zijn meer vegen dan mensen, maar als je het weet dan kun je de wielerlegendes herkennen. Jalabert won. Een legendarische zege. Na 180 km in de aanval bezorgde hij de Fransen een glorieuze overwinning op hun nationale feestdag. Sindsdien heet de Côte de la Croix-Neuve ook wel de Montée Lauren Jalabert. Het was ons niet gelukt Jalabert te kieken. Ik heb toen thuis maar een foto uit een wielertijdschrift geknipt en in mijn plakboek geplakt naast die andere.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Basketballtennis
De World Team Tennis (WTT) kampioenschappen is een verbasketballiseerde vorm van tennis, met commercials, publieksprijsjes, mascottes, cheerleaders en een schreeuwende "yoyoyo"-moderateur. Gelegenheidsteams van (ex-)toptennissers met namen als Washington Kastles en New York Buzz spelen in tijdelijke stadions tussen de wolkenkrabbers. 15-30-40 is hier gewoon 1-2-3. Wie het eerst bij 4 is wint de game, niks geen twee punten verschil. De All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club zou met hangende mondhoeken de neus ophalen - "O, good Lord!" - maar het tennis is (voor mij als leek) indrukwekkend. Baseline rally's, dropshots, lobs, gekreun: alles komt voorbij. Na 5 sets - 1 set per discipline - sturen de Kastles Hingis c.s. met lege handen terug naar New York. Het publiek verdwijnt in de zwoele nacht terwijl de speaker nog buldert: "Refuuuuse to Loooose!"
Women singles match: Venus Williams vs. Martina Hingis, Washington D.C., July 7, 2010.
Photos: Merijn Bronsgeest.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Fourth of July
Girl watching fireworks at Washington Monument. Photo: Merijn Bronsgeest.
Crowd on steps of Lincoln Memorial awaiting fireworks at Reflective Pool. Photo: Merijn Bronsgeest.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
RFF seminar: toward a national energy policy
Attended a seminar at RFF yesterday, where scholars presented the results of a study on policy options for climate and energy. Objectives: reducing US oil dependence and domestic energy related CO2 emissions. Options seemed to be somewhat confirming common sense. I was impressed, though, by the eloquence of Jason Grumet, president of Bipartisan Policy Center, who commented on the study. No slides, a coherent story, beautiful sentences. And some insights in catchy phrases, like for example on cap-and-trade: "For cap and trade you basically have to trust two institutions: Washington and Wall Street. Congressmen have to explain to their constituents in the Midwest: listen, we're going to create a new commodity. It's called carbon and it's going to be worth x billion dollars. Those guys at the coast will manage it." He also shared his take on the odds for a climate and energy bill. He said there are elements that enjoy bipartisan support, like electrification of transportation, a shift toward LNG, technology R&D, performance standards, but also a cap on the power sector. About the latter he said: people get it; it's been successfully done before with other pollutants (SO2, NOx). Nevertheless, those elements seem to boil down to the leftovers that define the least common denominator. Besides, they don't include the policies that came out as most effective in the study, i.e. a tax on oil and carbon. Would be better than nothing, though, but enough to trigger the critical mass to save Greenland's ice and the grilling of the Southwest? Hope that the renewed public support for climate and energy legislation in the wake of the oil spill translates into a little more ambition and the opportunity for Obama, with the RFF study in hand, to deliver on his campaign promise prior to Cancún.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Speech 3 at Toastmasters: Oil Spill
Spill of Blame
Today is the 64th day of the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf. On April 20th, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11 people and injured 17. It unleashed an uncontrollable flow of crude, life-destroying oil. Estimates of how much oil is gushing out have been raised repeatedly. The latest number suggests that today again 60.000 barrels are spilled into the waters of the Gulf. If that’s true, more than 3 million barrels have been spilled into the water by now. Despite thousands of ships involved in fighting the spill, the damage is heart wrecking: you have probably seen the pictures of birds covered oil, of Dolphins that have died trying to catch a breath of fresh air above the surface, but finding oil instead. Complete communities whose livelihoods are tied to the Gulf are hopeless. It’s devastating. It should stop and never happen again.
While in the Gulf the people are working hard to deal with the oil coming ashore, in the media and in politics the blame seems to be the national response to the disaster. “Who dun it?” I want to make the case that this is blaming and shaming, this climate of hatred and revenge, is counterproductive, and that the investigations into the root causes require different questions.
In the blame game, everyone is looking for a scapegoat. And with every charge, the accused feel the need to deny the charges and prove the charges wrong with actions the effectiveness of which is of minor concern. It’s an escalating dynamic of showing off and coming out on moral top. In this case moral seems to mean blood-thirsty. And every party is using the situation to proof their own world views. It’s absorbing resources that should be directed to the stopping of the leak and the clean-up.
Understandably, BP is receiving the most severe blows. It’s their well and they’ve acknowledged so. And obviously they have a bad safety record and made many mistakes. But they are a safe target, too. Those British, didn’t we kick them out 200 years ago? For Democrats BP is the embodiment of corporate interests exploiting the commons for profit. Republicans rather attack the Obama administration: how its oversight failed and its response was weak.
I think we need some fair play, here. Let’s suspend the PR battle. The first adversary in the game is not BP; it’s the oil gushing out of the ground. In this game, BP is the striker. I believe BP CEO Hayward when he says he more than anything else wants this thing to be over. Being to blame for the millions of victims, for loss of so much life and hope…I do not envy him. If they want to keep at least some chance to regain their license to operate, the only thing they can do is plug the hole and be nice. We should make sure they can do their work. Not vilification but collaboration. Suspend the accusations and resource consuming investigations. It’s now important that they tell the truth about what they’re doing, that they share the right information and maximize the learning. That they do not need to undertake useless actions just to ‘show’ they ‘do something.’
Deal with the accusations later, in the second game, when we investigate if BP really is the only adversary. I think, it turns out that it won’t be that simple. It’s hardly maintainable that this case is an incident. The fundamental causes that led to the great human and environmental disaster may have to be found in a much larger domain than BP’s internal culture. It could have happened to other companies, too. There are 1000 similar wells around the world. And as a hearing of Big Oil CEOs in Congress revealed: no company has an adequate battle plan for a disaster like this.
So, besides the investigation into the actions that lead to the disaster, we may want to ask questions like the following:
➢ Why are the plans for dealing with an oil spill so inadequate?
➢ What incentives made that the engineers felt a need to compromise on safety? How is that in other companies?
➢ How is it possible that conflicting interests infested the institutions so deeply?
➢ Why do we doubt that BP cares for the Gulf’s people and wildlife? If so, why have we allowed them to operate there? Can we trust other companies better?
➢ What makes us allow oil exploration and production in ever more risky and pristine environments? There’s no doubt that technological progress is improving the safety of oil exploration and production. But the end of easy oil is driving us toward deeper and colder places, where risks are greater. Can safety keep up with the thirst for oil?
➢ For who are the oil companies exploring those difficult sources, anyway?
Answering those questions would likely lead to substantial controversy. But I hope it won’t be avoided and the temptation of returning to business-as-usual as soon as possible is resisted. An urgent, long-term public investigation into the fundamentals of the oil spill lies ahead, leading to a broad debate on the US energy future, and the role of corporations and government. But first, let’s stop the oil from flowing, clean-up the beaches and help the victims.
[1] Poul Anderson, quoted in Donella H. Meadows, "Thinking in Systems," Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2008, p.11.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Hocus POTUS
Today the president is discussing Health Care reform in a much talked about televised 6-hour meeting with representatives from both parties. I went to the White House to spot some senators and maybe the president himself. The pedestrian area on the North side of the White House, including the Lafayette park, was closed with fences. Even the 'live by the bomb, die by the bomb' protester tent, which has been in front of the White House ever since I first got there (and who knows how long before that), and which stood through three snowstorms this winter, was relocated to a far corner of the park. I encountered the greatest activity on the West side, at Pennsylvania Avenue and 17th Street. Some 100 protesters and 10 TV crews had gathered there. As 10AM approached, the police started directing everyone further away from where the president would pass. Their authority was undisputed; onze senior officer took ownership of the crossing and with resolute voice and gestures directed his juniors, the protesters and the press, who backed off without complaints.
It all went quite peaceful, except for one man who was put to the ground, handcuffed and arrested by three policemen, while relentlessly shouting "Stop Obama! Stop Obama!" Maybe the police overreacted a little bit, but that uncompromising attitude may as well be safeguarding that undisputed authority. The man's shouts faded as he was led away from the scene. Most protesters were against health care reform. Their signs read things like "Hocus POTUS" (POTUS being the acronym for President Of The United States), "Socialism Failure," "Hands off health care!," "This summit is a shame," "All bills off the table, start all over," and "Obamacare no! America can't afford it." And I saw a couple of Gadsden flags (Enter: the Tea Party?). The most awful sign called for Obama's impeachment and showed Obama with a Hitler moustache next to the words: "One small man, one big disasters for mankind." Apparently, the education system doesn't cover all either. It's a mystery to me why these protesters so fiercely oppose their beloved nation finally doing something about that stain on its civilization.
With the moment of the president's passage coming closer, the outbursts of shouts from the protesters got more frequent and louder. Then, a little past 10, quite suddenly lenses raised and a high-held microphone came wobbling behind some black government SUV's. That should be him. I pierced over the cameras, but in the three seconds he was in view I couldn't tell him apart from his company. Camera crews I was standing behing took their cameras off their shoulders and began packing their stuff. Was this it? The crews had to take their shots 150 m away from their target. "He was walking with Biden," one cameraman said. Thanks for the info, now I can check them both. With a little sarcastic smile on his face, a German sounds man said: "That was worth waiting three hours in the chilly morning for." I guess he doesn't have to worry too much, as he likely enjoys good and reasonably priced coverage in case he catches a cold.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Why aren’t there any solar PV panels in DC?
After having spent nearly five months in the capital of the United States, I suddenly realized that I hadn’t seen any solar panels on rooftops or facades. This observation cannot be proof that there are none - there likely are some – and, besides, it’s hard to spot rooftop-mounted panels in a city with tall buildings. But I haven’t seen any on normal houses with inclined roofs either. DC is definitely no Germany. By my personal, Northwest European standards, Washington enjoys plenty of sun. And data confirm that Washington has more potential per square meter than also the sunnier parts Germany [7]. So, why is solar-PV so dominantly absent here?
In 2008 some 200 kW of solar-PV capacity was installed in the District of Columbia, bringing the total to 700 kW [1]. The average grid-connected residential PV installation in the US had grown from 2.5 kW in 1999 to 4.9 kW in 2008 [1]. So, there must be around 200 installations in DC…somewhere. That isn’t a lot and, hence, it’s not strange that I haven’t seen any. And those high buildings downtown do not hide many from pedestrians’ eyes, either.
Until now, solar-PV in Washington must have been a hobby for those who could spare something extra for the environment’s sake, or for the thrill of the technology or being energy independent. No serious incentives have been in place for Washingtonians to install solar panels, and an adequate contracting process for supplying excess solar energy to the grid has been lacking [6].
But things seem to be changing. Only recently, in 2008 and 2009, local government moved forward and put in place more serious regulation. In October 2008, the Clean and Affordable Energy Act (CAEA) amended the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), requiring utilities that supply Washingtonians to have at least 20% renewable energy in its electricity sourcing portfolio in 2020, including 0.4 % solar [2]. In 2009 a rebate scheme was opened for distributed solar and wind installations [2]. Under this program, there will be $ 2 million available each year from 2009 to 2012. The aim is to support at least 100 installations per year. The scheme is budget neutral to the city government, as it is paid by a surcharge on natural gas and electricity consumer bills. This budget neutrality is a success factor that the scheme has in common with the successful German feed-in system. However, a second success factor was not copied: the rebate scheme is not open-ended. The sum is limited to $ 2 million per year, which appeared to be way too little to meet the demand. Only two months after the program was opened, the city had to close it for the year, because the applications had exceeded the allotted funding [3].
The incentives program allows $3/W for the first 3 kW installed capacity, $2/W for the next 7 kW and $1/W for the next 10 kW. With an average system size of 4.9 kW, the subsidy is $ 12,800 per system. With the apparent demand for the subsidy, can we safely expect full use of the yearly $ 2 million over the next years? In that case, assuming people don’t install systems when they can’t get a rebate, we could see around 150 systems added in the District each year. So, solar systems will expand quickly, but it might take a while for those beautiful blue panels to claim their presence in views of Washington.
In addition to the incentives program, there’s a net metering regulation, allowing a PV owner to supply excess electricity to the grid and let his meter spin backward. The utility only charges the net energy delivered over a billing period. And then there’s a 30% federal tax credit for consumers who install solar electric systems [2]. (I should calculate if the stimuli make a financially compelling case for buying a PV-system.)
In 2020 solar power should generate 0.4 % of DC’s electricity. Taking current electricity consumption in DC buildings as the baseline, which is 11.4 billion kWh per year, 0.4% would amount to 46 million kWh [4]. This would require 30 MW of installed solar PV capacity, which is 43 times the present day total. With the rebate program adding 0.7 MW a year, the target is not going to be met. However, this likely is too linear a projection for 2020. Anticipating higher fossil fuel prices, maybe some price on carbon and cost reductions in solar PV, the future looks brighter. But 0.4%?! Come on…
The most famous DC solar panels are ones that aren't there anymore. Jimmy Carter installed a set of solar water heaters (not PV) on the White House's West Wing in 1979, but Ronald Reagan later removed them. They are on a Unity College cafetaria in Maine now, but out of service. Under Bush jr., in 2003, a modest PV system was installed on the White House's maintenance building. Photo credit: www.whitehousemuseum.org
[1] Larry Sherwood, “US Solar Market Trends 2008,” Interstate Renewable Energy Council, July 2009
[2] http://www.dsireusa.org
[3] http://www.mdv-seia.org/dc_news.html
[4] District Department of the Environment, “District of Columbia Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2006 Calendar Year Baseline.”
[5] http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-insolation-window.html
[6] Washington Post, 2/11/2007, "Going solar isn't easy in the District.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)