Burj Khalifa Branded "Pointless" By Germans

Well is it?

In the Middle East, There is generally no business plan involved in building the tallest/longest/deepest structure, it just has to prove you've got money.  This is the reason it was built.  So there is substance to the pointless argument.  American Architect, Samsung C&T of South Korea as the main contractor and "expat" (read Indian, Philipino, Indonesian, etc.) labour.  Let's face it the only local input was money.  It therefore wasn't built to demonstrate the construction prowess of the local community.

All of which means I can't get into the celebration of the building itself, it isn't even particularly pleasant to look at, although tall structures like the Burj Al Arab hotel are, to me, pleasing to the eye.  But from an engineering viewpoint I look forward to the reviews in a couple of years after the initial start up and "running-in" period, if you will.  Then we'll know if there are limits to what we can build in terms of height.

So, not entirely pointless then.

With Thanks to Complete and Utter Zebu

Simon Rose reminded me with this report that if Carlsberg did disingenuous it would probably be the the "green" energy lobby.  In particluar and as Simon demonstrates, the wind power supporters do more than their fair share of manipulation.  Here's some examples from the European Wind Energy Association.  According to this august body the benefits include:

• "Wind power has a light footprint. Its, operation does not produce harmful emissions or any hazardous waste. It does not deplete natural resources, nor does it cause environmental damage, through resource extraction, transport, and waste management.
• In a wind farm the turbines themselves, take up less than 1% of the land area.  Once up and running, existing activities such as agriculture and hiking can continue around them. Farm animals such as cows and sheep are not disturbed.
• Any impacts on the local environment (see below) must be set against the much more serious effects of producing conventional electricity and thereby aggravating the pressures of climate change on the balance of nature."

Okay then let's look at those "benefits". 

• Certainly one turbine has a "light" footprint.  Except you need a lot of them to produce a reasonable amount of power.  True they don't emit any pollutants or gases but unless we re categorize excessive noise as "harmelss emissions" they do present a serious noise hazard.  Indeed the nearest a turbine can be placed to housing is 300m.  Just visulaise that for a minute.  Thats a 300m wide band of valuable land that can't be utilised due to noise.
• The second point is really the first regurgetated.  Loads of space between the turbines but only for deaf cattle and sheep it appears.
• The final point is trite in the extreme.  It assumes that the current methods are "aggravating climate change" which may be true but ignores nuclear energy which in my opnion would be a better method of producing power per M2 occupied.

But this website does not provide a balanced reply to each of its befeficial arguments.  It does do that for the disadvantages though.

• "Wind power’s overall impact on birds, bats, other wildlife and natural habitats is highly site specifi c. In addition, impacts from wind power are extremely low compared with other humanrelated activities. Deaths from birds fl ying into wind turbines represent a small fraction of those caused by other human-related sources such as cats and buildings.  US statistics show 1 billion birds are killed by colliding with buildings each year and up to 80 million by vehicles.  By comparison, it’s estimated that commercial wind turbines in the US cause the direct deaths of only 0.01 – 0.02% of all of the birds killed annually by collisions with man-made structures and activities."

I confess that this one makes me smile.  Apparently we would significantly reduce the amount of birds killed if we get rid of those nasty buildings and cats.  Of course with no buildings there'd be no need for power thus no need for wind turbines.  But the really good bit of the above logic is the stats concerning the percentage of birds killed by wind farms.  Could it just possibly be that there are significantly more square metres of buildings than there are wind turbines in the USA?

In short the wind power lobby is telling porky pies.

Anyone Else Smell a Rat? (Not I'm A Celebrity).

So as I understand it the Royal Bank of Scotland owns a substantial portion of a total of 167 Billion pounds Sterling, yup quite a large lunch that, in overseas, mostly toxic, debt. But what is interesting about this story (as opposed to downright depressing) is this snippet "Similarly striking is the fact that in almost all of the asset classes, the majority of the loans now being supported by the taxpayer were made only very recently, some of them in 2008, only months before the bank was semi-nationalised."

Now you may call me a cynic but considering this is the Royal Bank of Scotland and as we know senior members of our government (for want of a better word) hail from that, actually very pleasant, part of the UK, doesn't it seem mildly coincidental that a lot of these debts were ramped up by the bank, just before it rolled over and swallowed all that lovely taxpayer funding?

Likewise isn't it nice to know that whilst Lloyds Banking Group has returned a large portion of wonga to the Treasury, the Royal Bank of Scotland, is paying it back. When would of course be nice to know, but I doubt we'll find that out during this parliament.

If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it probably is a rat.

Balance

A lot of us tend to look at the oil and gas majors as being money makers with no thought for the impact on the lives of the people who they either employ or who live in areas where they work. In other words they care little about the environment. The BBC produced this somewhat sensationalised programme in 2004. Among the inaccuracies was that accusation that the oil trains running through the region belonged to the BTC company. They didn't. Thus the arguments surrounding the railway slums were inaccurate to say the least.

It is true that these companies are driven by money. Clearly they wouldn't build a pipeline unless it could transport valuable product to a suitable location. Nor would they build a refinery in a location where there was no infrastructure or means of moving the refined product to other destinations. Politically these companies need to show the countries in which they work, that the project is a valid and important one for the country and indeed the company's shareholders. Many things have imposed themselves on these projects over the years, not least environmental impact and health and safety, both political hot potatoes.

In 1996 the western world was coming to terms with the collapsed Soviet Union, but knew strategically that relying on putting oil through the Russian Federation carried risks to the supply. At around that time I worked on the Western Route Pipeline which runs from Baku in Azerbaijan to Supsa in Georgia. The Russians had previously built a pipeline along the route and this was a replacement for an old and inefficient facility. At the time that this project was muted a more ambitious project was taking shape. It became known as the BTC Pipeline and ran from Baku, through Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey on the Mediterranean coast. I worked on that one too.

I tend to get involved in larger projects these days and after a spell in Russia on a project in the Arctic Circle I found myself here in Doha working on one of three Mega LNG projects. You can find the public info here. I'm working on the last one to be commissioned which is due in 2010.

My particular project is employing upwards of 20,000 people from all parts of the world (yes you read that right 20k). Apart from the Middle East countries they come from India, Pakistan, Turkey, America, Europe, Australia, Philippines, you name it they come from there. A diverse and seriously multi cultural workforce. As expected this creates a logistical nightmare for those who have to deal with housing, feeding and the general welfare of all of these nationalities.

Something we must never forget is the level of expectation that these people have. From the UK or US or any of the "western" nations, we expect good quality service, good food and health care and good accommodation. It is also likely that the definition of these concepts is vastly different for those from the emerging countries such as India and Pakistan, or Thailand etc. So, my employer has concluded that it is of major importance to ensure as far as is practicable, the workforce enjoys the best possible living conditions. To this end there are certain minimum standards set by the Qatari government. These standards have been enhanced by the company that runs the location where the project is being constructed (a sort of local council if you will). You or more particularly the BBC, may argue that these are ultimately politically and PR motivated measures, you are entitled to hold that opinion. But then again a happy and safe workforce is more efficient and easier to manage.

So are the Oil and Gas companies the heartless brutes we or the BBC think they are? If I told you how much money is expended on making sure these people (I include myself here) get to finish the project healthy and hopefully more wealthy than when they arrived, your eyes would water. So I ask that when you see headlines screaming about the nastiness of these projects, take a moment to consider what the companies are trying to do for their people.

Space - The Only Frontier?

Anyway to all those climate change folks I need an answer to the following.

How many Km2 do you need for a wind farm to produce the power of (let's say) Fiddler's Ferry Power Station?

Only it appears to me, that if we were to move over to offshore wind power we'd need to shove an awful lot of concrete and steel into those oceans to the extent that the displacement may well raise the sea levels, just so that we can provide enough power to energise our solar panels in the winter.

Or have I missed my guess here?

Re-Develop Donington Park? How silly can you be?

Donington Park in Leicestershire was the first permanent "road" type race circuit in the world; pre dating Indianapolis by a year Brooklands, where the majority of British motor races were held in the 1930s was a large banked oval track in Weybridge Surrey. It closed to motor racing in 1939 with the onset of the Second World War and would not open for racing again. Interestingly this is where the RAF WW2 bomber the Wellington was produced thus it is not a little ironic that Mercedes Benz now has a museum and test track there.

But Donington was also quite famous, not least for two major races(both known as the Donington Grand Prix) involving the German Mercedes Benz and Auto Union teams in 1937 and 1938. There was a bit of an outcry at the time because of course these two teams were used by the Nazi government as nothing more than propaganda machines. Indeed there was great play made of the fact that one of their drivers was a british man by the name of Richard Seaman. As with Brooklands, racing ceased in 1939 and the circuit was used as a vehicle store by the ministry of defence, eventually falling into disrepair. Which is why in 1971 the late

Tom Wheatcroft, a construction contractor and motor sport enthusiast who was born in Castle Donington, bought it and reconfigured the track into a 1.9 mile circuit. The first meeting of the new era was a motorcycle meeting in 1977. From then many motorcycle and car meetings have taken place, including major touring car events such as the Tourist Trophy (TT) 500km, GT and Sports Prototype races, Moto GP and Superbikes and famously in 1993 the European Formula One Grand Prix.

Moving forward to 2007 and the British GP at Silverstone, where the then President of the FIA Max Mosley, announced to what can only be described as general amazement, that from 2010 the British GP would be held at Donington. It seems that Bernie Ecclestone the supremo of Formula One had been in discussion with the leaseholder of Donington Park Circuit, a company known as Donington Ventures Leisure Limited (DVLL) and they had signed a contract to host the GP from 2010 for a period of 17 years.

We must Take nothing away from Donington Park as a circuit but if the location and logistical issues represented to anyone wishing to host an event where at least 70,000 people would turn up on one day a "difficulty", the amount of work required to re configure the track, build the necessary infrastructure, pits complex and grand stands, presented at the time what can only be described as a serious challenge. In particular the proposed method of financing the scheme was novel in its approach, involving banks and individuals who would buy debentures for rather large sums. Of course at the time of the announcement, very few people realised that the financial institues would be entering meltdown within a year, the feeling among many was that whilst a massive task the scheme was (just) possible.

That was 2007; by March 2009 the full effects of the worldwide recession were being felt and even if Gordon Brown felt it necessary to blame our American cousins, his stance made little difference to us in the UK or indeed anyone else in the world. By this time (20 months after the initial announcement) we had little indication of any work at the circuit other than the installation of an access tunnel under the track. This it turned out would prove a major headache for DVLL because the design of the tunnel created a dangerous section of the track and therefore resulted in the eventual removal of the track licence until such time as it was reconfigured. A further problem was the stability of the tunnel which lead to a collapse of the track surface and therefore remedial work in order to support it. An inauspicious start tot he 2009 season and a prtent of waht was to come. By now of course even staunch supporters were more than a little concerned.

I last raced at Donington on 23 August 2009, after it had been through a truamatic season associated with cancelled races and track licence problems due to that tunnel. To say it was run down would be an understatement but the general lack of enthuisiasm around the place was sad. Furthermore apart from the tunnel there was little evidence of any attempt to get on with the major work involved in the required improvements. Of course we were now 11 months away from the 2010 GP and worryingly DVLL had not yet announced the funding deal. But by end September 2009 the infield had been largely excavated and things did appear to be moving on apace! Indeed trenches for services have been cut across the track and barriers removed etc.

The skeptics among us (me included) just could not see how the miracle, at the time delayed by a year, could ever be realised. Well we know now that it cannot be realised because sadly DVLL has been put into administration, possibly owing many millions of pounds as we understand it, and of course the construction has ceased.

So what are we left with?

It is currently uncertain as to who will take over the reins of this circuit, or indeed if anyone will at all! At best we can expect an uncertain race calendar for 2010 and at worst it means the loss of a major motor sport asset to the UK and motor sport enthusiasts far and wide. But let us not forget, this destruction of what was Tom Wheatcroft's dream has been perpetrated on the altar of greed, nothing more nothing less.

Rest in Peace Tom.

Ans: Beat it, but I prefer letting it stand for a day.

I twittered that to someone last night. As a double entendre it has a certain flare don't you think?

It is also a great example of how something perfectly normal may be misconstrued by many.

Unfortunately in this era of authoritarianism and political correctness, our lives are regularly controlled by people who are more than willing to take perfectly good situations and construe them in a way that suits the agenda of the day. Notwithstanding the current furore surrounding the "climategate" e mails, (why is everything perceived as "scandalous" now a gate?) there's the light bulb scam in the UK perpetrated by the EU and supported by the government (although that is a loose description of the bunch of nincompoops currently trying to run the country). The deal here was to reduce the use of energy by ceasing the production and sale of traditional tungsten light bulbs. These would be replaced by the low energy "long life" type of bulb. In turn this would mean people would have less need to replace the bulbs thereby providing two savings, energy for lighting and production of bulbs.

Of course the makers of these bulbs that are much more expensive than tungsten bulbs, are delighted because you see, they produce less light than a tungsten bulb, therefore people are going to install additional light fittings and of course light bulbs, thereby increasing the profit of the makers. We can also assume that the cost in energy terms for making these bulbs is increased due to quantity although I suspect (hope?) the energy required per bulb is lower. Here's a link to one article on the subject. And what about the risk of mercury from discarded bulbs? Pravda er sorry, the BBC had this report concerning the toxicity of these light bulbs in January this year. No doubt we can expect a "green" tax to be levied on individuals who try to dispose of these bulbs in future.

So the EU's environmental credentials are as ever questionable (along with its ethical and moral credentials) and indeed Gordon Brown and his mob have questions to answer, yet will never do so.

Anyway the question that elicited the answer in the title was "How do you tenderize beef?"