Shanghai to Philadelphia with just 10 days in between

Many of the exhibitors here in Philadelphia were in Shanghai just 10 days ago for an impressive show. Filtration & Separation Asia 2010 and the 6^th China International Filtration & Separation Exhibition & Conference” were held from 17^th, Nov. to 19^th Nov. in Index Shanghai.

There were 156 exhibitors. Two of the Philadelphia and Shanghai exhibitors are Mcilvaine and Hollingsworth & Vose whose stands are shown in the accompanying pictures.

 Manufacturing output in China already exceeds the U.S. Total GDP is expected to surpass the U.S. by 2030. India could surpass the U.S. in GDP within the next 50 years. Asia will be the Worlds growth engine through the rest of the 2lst century.

The suppliers of filters and media should not think in terms of domination by one country or region. The filtration market will be increasingly supplier rather than geographic centric.

In 2006 Hollingsworth & Vose installed a wet-laid microglass manufacturing line in its Suzhou, China mill to serve filtration and battery separator markets. In June 2010 H&V announced plans to rebuild one of its production lines at the Winchcombe, UK manufacturing site. This investment will result in step change performance improvements in the microglass media produced at the site, and will more than double H&V’s European microglass filtration and microglass battery separator manufacturing capability. H&V currently manufactures microglass media in the United States, Europe and Asia.

H&V is just one of many filter companies who are global in every sense of the word. So filtration companies should not be asking how to make the U.S. or Japan more competitive but how to make themselves a bigger global player. One of the tasks is to level the global playing field. Two ways to accomplish this are raising the knowledge level of both end users and suppliers and the second is to have precise translations of important concepts in any language.

Over 1 billion people speak Mandarin as the first language. 500 million speak English and 400 million speak Spanish.  With less than 10% of the customers fluent in English there is a big need to provide accurate equivalents of technical words in other languages. The problem is that we don’t even have accurate definitions in English. Mcilvaine has invented the term “liquid macrofiltration as the parent to belt filter presses, filter presses, sand filters, bag filters, gravity belt filters, and candle filters. The parent of liquid macrofiltration is liquid filtration. Two siblings are cartridges and cross flow membranes.  These classifications were painstakingly forged based on the important criteria which link one subject with another. The uninformed neophyte has trouble understanding why a membrane cartridge and an RO module are not lumped together. A system which instantly conveys this understanding would be of great value.

All decision making is classification.  If the end user can be supplied with the proper classifications in a language he understands then he will make more knowledgeable purchasing decisions.  Mcilvaine is undertaking this very ambitious task but will be receiving assistance from the American Filtration and Separations Society and from the China Filtration and Separation committee. In fact the chairman, Wang Yan-xi will be here in Philadelphia. We are also asking suppliers to weigh in on their recommendations for classifications and to review definitions in various languages.

So if you are interested in leveling the international playing field and want more information click on: www.mcilvainecompany.com and then on Free News and Searches.  Then click on “decisive classification”.  Also from the home page you can click on Knowledge Based Sales and find out how to take advantage of the level field.

News release Nov 20

Common metric needed to make choice among body scanners , pat down and other security measures

Travel will always involve risk. Raising the speed limit to 65 mph kills as many people every three years as did 9-11. So reducing the speed limit will clearly save more lives than any security measure. But  the majority of the public is willing to risk  speed to save  time.  So any decision involves weighing the risk/reward balance. The individual has already developed an unconscious metric to make judgements. Mcilvaine is now enabling this to be done on a conscious and organized basis.

 The decisions as to  risk reduction should be made not by politicians or bureaucrats but by people.. First you empower the individual with knowledge of the risk associated with various security measures and then give him a tool to weigh the quality enhancement reductions of various options. Finally you poll the populace and implement the will of the people.

The introduction of full body scanners at airports has generated a big debate with some members of congress calling for them to be banned.? The resolution involves two key issues

·         Who should make the decision?

·         How should they make it?

Who should make the decision?

There are three choices: elected officials, designated experts, and the public at large.  If there was any clear message in the 2010 congressional elections it was mistrust of elected officials. The designated experts are those who brought us the financial melt down and the response to Katrina. So there cannot be much sentiment in favor of this group. The remaining alternative is John. Q. Public.

Joe Klein , writing recently in Time , championed deliberative democracy. He addressed certain educational tools which could be used to assist a revolving group of lay people who made our critical decisions. Mcilvaine has crafted a different approach. So this brings us to the 2^nd question

How can the public will be utilized to make the best decisions?

This question needs to be further sub-divided into  (1) how do you educate the individual to select the best option (2) how do you ascertain the selections of  hundreds of millions of people.

The development of  a common metric to measure the benefits or  harm of any initative is the key element in educating the individual. Mcilvaine has developed an  ideal metric :“Quality Enhanced Life Days (QELD)”.  How can we be so sure this is ideal. ?  Because it merely gives a name to what we already do.. Every day we make decisions which statistically shorten our life but enhance it.

Statistics show that every minute we spend in an automobile will reduce our life by one minute. So when we travel  for fun we are  trading life quantity for life quality.  To further develop the metric we can compare enhancement decisions which do cause life reductions with enhancement decisions which don’t. So we are capable,for example,  of deciding how many vacations we would sacrifice to save the polar bear.

QELD has been utilized by hospitals in making decisions relative to reusable or disposable surgical gowns.  An article recently appeared in one of the hospital magazines

http://www.healthcaredevelopmentmagazine.com/article/quality-enhanced-life-days-a-new-metric-for-hospital-sustainability.html

The wider use of QELD in energy and other fields is covered at

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/SURS/subscriber/Default.html

Since we continually trade life quantity for quality we will travel by air unless the risk exceeds the reward. If we  are confident that we are statistically only reducing our life by a few minutes by taking a particular trip then we will continue to travel . But this is only if the enhancement of the trip is positive enough to justify the risk.  One individual may determine that a full body scan is so offensive as to eliminate the enhancement of travel. Another may  view it as a minor inconvenience.

Risks of air and automobile  travel will never be completely eliminated. In fact travelers have shown a preference to increase risk to enhance travel.  A recent study shows that  by increasing the speed limit to 65 mph we are killing an additional 1245 people per year in the U.S.  ( But the average individual who is already risking a life minute for every minute traveled is willing to add the 1.2 seconds  in order to benefit from the reduced travel time.

So  on one hand individuals gain QELD in terms of longer lives with body scanners but they lose QELD due to the enhancement reduction of the procedures both in time and embarrassment. We therefore have to balance the life quantity reduction  with the life enhancement reduction.  The individual and not Congress or the “experts” should decide how much of a life enhancement reduction is involved in pat downs or body scanners. What the experts can do is provide the individual with accurate statistics on  life reduction with one alternative versus another.  Congressional debate can center on the risks of one approach or another but leave the final decision making to the individual.

The individual can be empowered to make the best decision if he is provided with good estimates of the risk. With a common metric he can then compare the risks to his own perceived enhancements. So we do not need to educate the public in a comprehensive way. All we need is to provide them with the proper measurement tool and they can make a better decision than any other group.

How do you ascertain the preferences of hundreds of millions of people.?  Today this task is simple compared to 1956 when Robert Mcilvaine wrote his senior thesis at Princeton University on the advisability of televising congressional sessions.  Todays digital world makes public preferences instantly clear.  Dancing With the Stars overrides the judges decisions with instant polling of many millions of people. Likewise the security preferences for airport travelers can be obtained with every ticket issued or by general polling on line. Congressional representatives who want to be re-elected can implement the decision reached by this method.

Replace Old Coal-fired Power Plants with New Ones and Convert the 250 Million Tons of Coal Saved to Gasoline

If we change the way we use coal we can create two million jobs and improve the environment. We can also greatly increase the energy security in the U.S. We are sending out a news release on this subject today. http://home.mcilvainecompany.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151

There are some reasons to hope that this very logical program has some legs. First of all there are many new congressmen who favor clean coal. Secondly, the program does not negatively impact any long term greenhouse gas goals. The way forward is with facts and clarity. The result can be support from the moderate environmentalists. It is essential however, that a common metric be used to evaluate all the benefits and harms of this and other options. The metric can be “tons of CO₂ equivalent” or “Quality Enhanced Life Days” (QELD). It has already been demonstrated that this approach works. The $1 billion surgical gown industry was switching to reusable garments because of the greenhouse gas generated by manufacturing single use gowns. A supplier engaged McIlvaine to write a white paper which showed that the depletion and contamination of water from gown washing created more equivalent tons of CO₂ than the single gown manufacture. This logical approach proved very persuasive and has changed the momentum back to single use gowns. This white paper is displayed at  

http://mcilvainecompany.com/SURS/subscriber/Text/White%20Paper%208-17-09.pdf

The general approach is described at

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/SURS/subscriber/Default.htm

Creating two million jobs should be incentive enough to fund the proper white paper. But there is even a more important reason. The inability of Congress and the Administration to come to agreement is very largely due to the lack of a common metric to evaluate any option. Without this metric, opposing sides rely on “absolutes” and it is impossible to compromise. With a common metric the arguments can be rational debate over specifics such as “How many tons of CO₂ equivalent is a 10 million gallon oil spill?” McIlvaine solicits comments and suggestions for moving forward with this program.

COAL – WORLD

Expansion Joints for Gas Turbines - Free Hot Topic on December 8

McIlvaine will be hosting a discussion of expansion joint selection for gas turbines on December 8. This webinar will be available free of charge and the recording will be posted on the free McIlvaine knowledge site.

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/Default.htm

The purpose will be for utility expansion joint users to learn and ask questions about the initial selection as well as the maintenance and repair of the expansion joints utilized in both the hot and cold sections of gas turbine systems.

McIlvaine will lead the discussion with findings from its research and from InterWEBviews conducted with the suppliers and consultants. Participants will have access to this research and the recorded InterWEBviews ahead of time. There will be no formal presentations during the webinar. McIlvaine will encourage a number of experts to act as panelists and answer questions posed by McIlvaine and participants. Debate and discussion will be encouraged. Areas of discussion will include variables in the design of the system that can make a specific joint application unique. Examples would be various diverter and HRSG designs as well as peaking vs. base load plants.

Another subject will be the selection of materials for each of the classified applications. Where does metal play a role? Is one fabric better than another? Is there a tradeoff between initial cost and joint life? Is failure likely to be the result of the geometries of the joint and system as opposed to the materials selected? What role do cycling, temperature, condensation, and other physical factors play? How long should the joint structure last? How long should the fabric last? Who should the utility utilize to monitor and repair the joint systems:  the turbine supplier, the joint supplier, or specialist repair and outsourcing firms?

Participants will have the ability to view the information on gas turbine expansion joints on our free site prior to the meeting. You can access the data by product, company, application and other subjects. Here is the search by application.

Data Search by Application

Every item posted to the site is assigned key words according to “Decisive Classification.” Applications are very specifically identified with a unique classification string. You will note that we have pinpointed three expansion joint applications as bypass, HRSG, and pre-diverter. During the webinar we would like to obtain some consensus as to the best choice of descriptors for each application area.

You can search other data in various ways. Here is a search under “Analysis”

• Design Criteria for Gas Turbine Exhaust Fabric Expansion Joint Assembly
• Analysis of Metal and Fabric GTX Expansion Joints
• Problems & Solutions with Expansion Joints in Gas Turbine Exhaust Systems
• Analysis of Gas Turbine Expansion Joint Companies and Products
• Specification for High Temperature and Acid Resistant Terpolymer Fluoroelastomer

The analysis of expansion joint companies and products will continually be updated. We seek corrections on this. To register for this webinar click on http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/brochures/hot_topic_hour_registration.htm

it was a busy week with three hot topic webinars . One was on increasing SO2 removal with dibasic acid.. Mcilvaine points to the situation in LA

Reasons for 99% SO2 removal

(1) PM 2.5 ambient standards:  1 ton of SO2 creates 13 billion micrograms of sulfates

(2) Others are much less including the transport rule, SO2 ambient, Utility MACT

Example of what is in store with PM 2.5

industrial facilities in the Los Angeles area will face stricter emissions caps for SO₂ beginning in 2013 under changes to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) emissions trading program.  On November 5^th SCAQMD unanimously adopted revisions to the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), the cap-and-trade program for NO_x and SO₂ launched in 1993 as an alternative to command-and-control rules.

SCAQMD is setting tighter SO₂ limits to assist that area achieve the federal health-based standards for fine particulate pollution (PM_2.5).  The revisions apply to the area's 11 largest sources of SO₂, specifically six refineries, a petroleum coke processing facility, two sulfuric acid plants, a container glass plant, and a cement plant.  The facilities emit a combined 9.3 tons per day of the pollutant, 93 percent of all the SO₂ emitted by the 32 RECLAIM facilities in the area.  SCAQMD is requiring cumulative reductions in RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs) for sulfur oxides of 5.7 tons per day that will be phased in between 2013 and 2019, more specifically, 3 tons a day by 2013, and 4 tons a day by 2014, 5 tons a day by 2017, and 5.7 tons a day by 2019.

The modifications also established lower levels for best available retrofit control technologies to make the program consistent with state and federal laws. New set-aside

credit accounts will be available for facilities to tap if market prices for credits spike above $50,000 per ton.  When fully implemented in 2019, the new caps will cut actual sulfur oxide emissions by over 5.4 tons a day, a level equivalent to the emissions from 3.8 million passenger cars, the SCAQMD said.  Under RECLAIM, annual emissions limits declined from 1993 through 2003 for each of the facilities that emitted sulfur oxides.  In 2005, SCAQMD adopted changes to RECLAIM to reduce NOx emissions by an additional 7.7 tons per day from over 300 facilities by 2011.  The district estimated annual compliance costs at between $32 million and $42 million a year. 

the power points by Invista and the full webinar are accessed various ways on the website. Here is the link by the company name

Data Search by Company

• Invista DBA Dibasic Acid for Flue Gas Desulfurization

• Dibasic Acid from Invista for Higher SO2 Removal Efficiency

Our concept of decisive classification and sequencing could change world productivity by precisely identifying the right product for an application. But there is an equally important role-- making better decisions. It turns out that no one fully appreciated the ability of activated carbon and sodium bicarbonate to remove  selenium. The reason was that the problem was classified as removing pollutants from the water.  Instead the proper classification was the combination of removing pollutants from the air and PREVENTING THE TRANSFER OF POLLUTANTS FROM THE AIR TO THE WATER. It also turns out that activated carbon can be used in the scrubber slurry to PREVENT EMISSION OF POOLUTANTS FROM WATER TO AIR.  When the problem is properly classified and sequenced there is the very important transfer of engineering information.  So just one number in a parent -child software program provides multiple value. Since it is just one number the translation into any language is very easy.

Kleroterion for greenhouse gas decisions

Joe Klein writing in the September 13 issue of Time magazine expressed disappointment in blue ribbon commissions to study the federal deficit. It is a way to avoid the tough decisions and the consensus which is necessary. He suggests we benefit from the wisdom of the Greeks who made decisions by utilizing a random selection of the populace (kleroterion). He references a modern version of the concept championed  by  Stanford professor James Fishkin.

The complexity of modern issues is addressed by support of experts to provide briefings. Fishkin has helped one district in China adopt this “deliberative democracy” .  the Texas wind power program support was also strengthened with his approach.  Klein quotes Fishkin as stating that “People are tired of the elites telling them what to do”

The comments by Klein and Fiskin are heartening because the whole basis of Quality Enhanced Life Days is to determine the aggregate will of the populace.  The choice between  saving the polar bear as opposed to extending healthcare benefits with those funds should reflect the aggregate will rather than be an elite decision.

Mcilvaine believes that a number of new tools will encourage wise choices by the populace. These tools are

·         An extensive template making it clear that every action by individuals is already rated in Quality Enhanced Life Days.  This means that a decision to save the polar bear can be framed in specific rather than abstract alternatives e.g the number of summer vacations which might be sacrificed to accomplish this

·         Important Event Odds. The world will not come to an end if we do not curb global warming. The decision maker needs to know the odds for each of the potential negative results

·         Tribal Value considerations.  The decision maker needs to know to what extent any event will impact him, his family, and his country ( in this case the U.S). A respect for minority rights has to be upheld but beyond this decisions about global warming to help people along the equator will not be as popular as ones which help U.S. citizens.

·         Discounted Future Value.   Money spent now to reduce global warming may not have a positive impact for decades whereas money spent on healthcare may have immediate results. The decision maker needs to consider the whole concept of discounted future value.

Given these tools, the average American should be making the big political decisions. So we heartily agree with Klein and Fishkin.

“Hospital Sustainability and Healthcare just  published a feature article written by Tom Tschanz and myself  A concept called “quality enhanced life days” has had major impact on the issue of single use vs. reusable surgical gowns, but it is equally useful for determining energy sources. 

One common metric: Quality Enhanced Life Days ( QELD) can be utilized to measure all life’s choices.  It is completely credible because it is only a mathematical identification of values already determined. The average human could increase his life span from 80 to 100 years if he avoided all risks such as traveling in an automobile or kissing another person.  But we chose life quality over quantity.

All these quality over quantity choices provide an ideal template for a system to measure all choices.  Each day in an automobile statistically reduces life span by an hour.  After we drove

3 days on our last vacation, we have determined that at a minimum life enhancement of  the summer vacation = 3 life days.  Next year we may decide that painting the living room is more desirable than spending the same money on a summer vacation.

Painting the living room does not reduce life quantity, but since it is equal to or greater than the vacation, its value is at least 3 life days.  So mathematically:

                        Life enhancement A = life deduction X

                        Life enhancement B = life enhancement A

                        Life enhancement B = life reduction X

For determination of greenhouse gas taxes the question becomes how many summer vacations would you give up for the snail darter?  How many for the polar bear? How many to avoid displacing Polynesian islanders?

In general, the right choice becomes the most “quality enhanced life days” but certain modifiers such as “tribal value”, “future value discount” and “minority rights”.also need to be addressed.

The  article on QELD appearing in the September issue of  Sustainable Healthcare is shown at

http://www.healthcaredevelopmentmagazine.com/article/quality-enhanced-life-days-a-new-metric-for-hospital-sustainability.html

In the blog yesterday thre was an error. the investment in new coal plants would bd $ 600 billion not trillion. We would need 300 plants at $ 2 billion per plant. This takes into account the fact that some existing  plants could be modified. Several boiler companies are offering designs to convert sub critical to super critical units. Some plants could be built at the existing sites. They would be able to take advantage of existing coal handling, cooling , raw water delivery and wastewater treatment  facilities which already exist.  On the other hand many units are very old and would be replaced with new units located at the mine mouth or at some other site more strategically located.

How an energy tax might be a good idea

Nina Eason of Fortune magazine reminded readers in the September issue that two Republicans had introduced a carbon tax. Further she explained that many free market economists endorse the principle.  . When an economic transaction imposes a cost or benefit to a party who is not part of the transaction the outcome will not be efficient. This leads to the idea that institutions should be charged for external costs they impose on others.

Inherent in this thinking is that it is better to tax consumption rather than income. Any tax on emissions would be offset with reductions in other income related taxes. We will not tackle the question of the value of this approach but will weigh in on some necessary tools to make it work.

The greatest problem in implementation is to determine the magnitude of the external cost. Mcilvaine has tools which will be quite valuable . One is “Important Event Odds” There has to be some consensus as to how many people will be affected and to what extent  by a transaction.  How many Pacific Islanders will be displaced by Global Warming? Because of another economic concept “Discounted Future Value” it is also necessary to determine when they will be displaced.

 Next it is necessary to determine the quality of life reduction for these islanders when displaced. Mcilvaine has a brand new metric to measure this reduction: Quality Enhanced Life Days ( QELD). We then come to a really sticky question. We call it the “tribal value discount”. Nations near the equator will benefit from the tax. Nations at some distance from the equator may experience no benefit. So a Northern nation instituting this tax is indirectly providing “foreign aid”. Voters and rate payers are prone to apply a tribal value discount to such proposed expenditures.

These ideas need more debate and exploration. The value is demonstrated by the Mcilvaine article appearing in Power Engineering “ Replace all old Coal Plants with New Ones. This shows that the external costs of old coal plants are double those of new coal fired plants.  This is because the difference in  mercury, NOx, SO2, an many other pollutants is large. New plants can be built and then retired in 2040. In the meantime they will have reduced external costs by the equivalent of 4 billion tons of CO2 every  year . This is twice the  CO2 emissions of the existing coal plants.

 The $ 600 trillion in capital expenditures would greatly boost the economy but not raise electricity prices. The more efficient new plants would use only 70% of the coal used in existing plants. If there were a tax on all emissions based on the true harm of each then the tax on old plants would be double that of a new plant and would spur the construction program. In the next Blog we will discuss how one generates the support for the best environmental choices.

Information on the relevant Mcilvaine tools is found at

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/SURS/subscriber/Default.htm

The Power Engineering article on replacing old coal plants with new ones is found at

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/355443/articles/power-engineering/volume-113/issue-3/features/how-new-coal-plants-help-achieve-environmental-goals.html

An article on QELD appearing in the September issue of  Sustainable Healthcare is shown at

http://www.healthcaredevelopmentmagazine.com/article/quality-enhanced-life-days-a-new-metric-for-hospital-sustainability.html