Another Barrier to EV Adoption

Junk-filled garages.

There are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic about electric vehicle adoption here in the US. The current administration has made no secret of its hostility toward EVs and, as promised, has ended as many of the existing EV subsidies and vehicle pollution regulations as it could. After more than a year of month-on-month growth, EV sales started to contract, and brands like Genesis and Volvo have seen their customers reject their electric offerings, forcing portfolio rethinks. But wait, it gets worse.

Time and again, surveys and studies show that fears and concerns about charging are the main barriers standing in the way of someone switching from gas to EV. A new market research study by Telemetry Vice President Sam Abuelsamid confirms this, as it analyzes the charging infrastructure needs over the next decade. And one of the biggest hurdles—one that has gone mostly unmentioned across the decade-plus we've been covering this topic—is all the junk clogging up Americans' garages.

Want an EV? Clean out your garage

That's because, while DC fast-charging garners all the headlines and much of the funding, the overwhelming majority of EV charging is AC charging, usually at home—80 percent of it, in fact. People who own and live in a single family home are overrepresented among EV owners, and data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory from a few years ago found that 42 percent of homeowners park near an electrical outlet capable of level 2 (240 V) AC charging.

But that could grow by more than half (to 68 percent of homeowners) if those homeowners changed their parking behavior, "most likely by clearing a space in their garage," the report finds.

"90 percent of all houses can add a 240 V outlet near where cars could be parked," said Abuelsamid. "Parking behavior, namely whether homeowners use a private garage for parking or storage, will likely become a key factor in EV adoption. Today, garage-use intent is potentially a greater factor for in-house charging ability than the house’s capacity to add 240 V outlets."

Creating garage space would increase the number of homes capable of EV charging from 31 million to more than 50 million. And when we include houses where the owner thinks it's feasible to add wiring, that grows to more than 72 million homes. And that's far more than Telemetry's most optimistic estimate of US EV penetration for 2035, which ranges from 33 million to 57 million EVs on the road 10 years from now.

I thought an EV would save me money?

Just because 90 percent of houses could add a 240 V outlet near where they park, it doesn't mean that 90 percent of homes have a 240 V outlet near where they park. According to that same NREL study, almost 34 million of those homes will require extensive electrical work to upgrade their wiring and panels to cope with the added demands of a level 2 charger (at least 30 A), and that can cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

All of a sudden, EV cost of ownership becomes much closer to, or possibly even exceeds, that of a vehicle with an internal combustion engine.

Multifamily remains an unsolved problem

Twenty-three percent of Americans live in multifamily dwellings, including apartments, condos, and townhomes. Here, the barriers to charging where you park are much greater. Individual drivers will rarely be able to decide for themselves to add a charger—the management company, landlord, co-op board, or whoever else is in charge of the development has to grant permission.

If the cost of new wiring for a single family home is enough to be a dealbreaker for some, adding EV charging capabilities to a parking lot or parking garage makes those costs pale in comparison. Using my 1960s-era co-op as an example, after getting board approval to add a pair of shared level 2 chargers in 2019, we were told by the power company that nothing could happen until the co-op upgraded its electrical panel—a capital improvement project that runs into seven figures, and work that is still not entirely complete as I type this.

The cost of running wiring from the electrical panel to parking spaces becomes much higher than for a single family home given the distances involved, and multifamily dwellings are rarely eligible for the subsidies offered to homeowners by municipalities and energy companies to install chargers.

by Jonathan M. Gitlin, Ars Technica | Read more:
Image: Getty

How Cheaply Could We Build High-Speed Rail?

At the end of April, the Transit Costs Project released a report: it’s called How to Build High-Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor. As the name suggests, the authors of the report had a simple goal: the stretch of the US from DC and Baltimore through Philadelphia to New York and up to Boston, the densest stretch of the country. It’s an ideal location for high-speed rail. How could you actually build it — trains that get you from DC to NYC in two hours, or NYC to Boston in two hours — without breaking the bank?

That last part is pretty important. The authors think you could do it for under $20 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money, but it’s about five times less than the budget Amtrak says it would require. What’s the difference? How is it that when Amtrak gets asked to price out high-speed rail, it gives a quote that much higher?

We brought in Alon Levy, transit guru and the lead author of the report, to answer the question, and to explain a bunch of transit facts to a layman like me. Is this project actually technically feasible? And, if it is, could it actually work politically? (...)

 I’m excited for this conversation, largely because although I'm not really a transit nerd, I enjoyed this report from you and your colleagues at the Transit Costs Project. But it's not really written for people like me. I'm hoping we can translate it for a more general audience.

The report was pretty technical. We wrote the original Transit Costs Project report about the construction cost of various urban rail megaprojects. So we were comparing New York and Boston projects with a selection of projects elsewhere: Italian projects, some Istanbul subway and commuter rail tunnels, the Stockholm subway extension, and so on.

Essentially the next step for me was to look at how you would actually do it correctly in the US, instead of talking about other people's failures. That means that the report on the one hand has to go into broad things, like coordination between different agencies and best practices. But also it needs to get into technical things: what speed a train can go on a specific curve of a specific radius at a specific location. That’s the mood whiplash in the report, between very high-level and very low-level.

I think you guys pulled it off very well. Let's get into it —  I'll read a passage from the intro:

“Our proposal's goal is to establish a high-speed rail system on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington. As the Corridor is also used by commuter trains most of the way… the proposal also includes commuter rail modernization [speeding up trains], regularizing service frequency, and… the aim is to use already committed large spending programs to redesign service.”

As a result, you think we could get high-speed rail that brings both the Boston–New York City trip and the New York City–Washington trip under two hours. You'd cut more than a third of the time off both those trips.

And here’s the kicker: you argue that the infrastructure program would total about $12.5 billion, and the new train sets would be under $5 billion. You're looking at a $17–18 billion project. I know that's a big sticker price in the abstract, but it's six to eight times cheaper than the proposals from Amtrak for this same idea. That’s my first question: Why so cheap?

First of all, that $18 billion is on top of money that has already been committed. There are some big-ticket tunnels that are already being built. One of the things that people were watching with the election was if the new administration was going to try to cancel the Gateway Tunnel, but they seem to have no interest in doing so. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy talks about how there’s a lot of crime on the New York City subway, and how liberals want people to ride public transportation more and to drive less, but I have not seen any attacks on these pre-existing projects. So, as far as I’m concerned, they’re done deals.

The second thing is that along the length of the Northeast Corridor, this investment is not all that small. It’s still less than building a completely new greenfield line. With the Northeast Corridor, most of the line pre-exists; you would not need to build anything de novo. The total investment that we’re prescribing in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and most of Maryland is essentially something called a track-laying machine.

The Northeast Corridor has this problem: Let’s say that you have a line with a top speed of 125 mph, and the line has six very sharp curves that limit the trains to 80 mph. If those six curves are all within a mile of each other, there’s one point in the middle of the line where you have six 80 mph curves. That couple-mile stretch is 80 mph, while the rest of the line is 125. Now, what happens if these curves are evenly spaced along the line?

You have a way longer commute, right?

Yes. If you have to decelerate to 80 mph and back five times, that’s a lot slower. That’s the problem in the Northeast Corridor: there are faster and slower segments. Massachusetts is faster. Rhode Island is mostly fast. Connecticut is slow. If you have a line that’s slow because you have these restrictions in otherwise fast territory, then you fix them, and you’ve fixed the entire line. The line looks slow, but the amount of work you need to fix it is not that much.

The Northeast Corridor (red is stretches with commuter rail)

Most of the reason the Northeast Corridor is slow is because of the sharp curves. There are other fixes that can be done, but the difficult stuff is fixing the sharp curves. The area with the sharpest curves is between New Haven and southern Rhode Island. The curves essentially start widening around the point where you cross between Connecticut and Rhode Island, and shortly thereafter, in Rhode Island, it transitions into the fastest part of the Corridor.

In southeast Connecticut, the curves are sharp, and there’s no way to fix any of them. This is also the lowest-density part of the entire Northeast: I-95, for example, only has four lanes there, while the rest of the way, it has at least six. I-95 there happens to be rather straight, so you can build a bypass there. The cost of that bypass is pretty substantial, but that’s still only about one-sixth of the corridor. You fix that, and I’m not saying you’ve fixed everything, but you’ve saved half an hour.

Your proposal is not the cheapest possible high-speed rail line, but I want to put it in context here. In 2021, there was a big proposal rolled out by the Northeast Corridor Commission, which was a consortium of states, transit providers, New Jersey Transit, Amtrak, and federal transportation agencies. Everybody got in on this big Connect Northeast Corridor (Connect NEC) plan, and the top line number was $117 billion, seven times your proposal. And this is in 2021 dollars.

They didn’t think that they could do Boston to New York and New York to DC in two hours each, either. There are two different reasons for their high price tags. The first reason is that they included a lot of things that are just plain stupid.

For example, theirs involved a lot of work on Penn Station in New York. Some of it is the Gateway Project, so that money is committed already, but they think that they need a lot beyond the tunnel. They have turned Gateway into a $40 or $50 billion project. I’m not going to nitpick the Gateway spending, although I’m pretty sure it could be done for much cheaper, but they think they need another $7 billion to rebuild Penn Station, and another $16 billion to add more tracks.

And you don’t think that’s necessary.

No. We ran some simulations on the tracks, and it turns out that the Penn Station that currently exists, is good enough — with one asterisk — even if you ran twice as much service. You can’t do that right now because, between New Jersey and New York Station, there is one tunnel. It has two tracks, one in each direction. They run 24–25 trains per hour at the peak. This is more or less the best that can be done on this kind of infrastructure. (...)

Unfortunately, they think Penn Station itself can’t handle the doubled frequency and would need a lot of additional work. Amtrak thinks that it needs to add more tracks by condemning an entire Midtown Manhattan block south of Penn Station called Block 780. They’re not sure how many tracks: I’ve seen between 7 and 12.

To be clear, the number of additional tracks they need is 0, essentially because they’re very bad at operations.

Well, let’s talk about operations. You say one way to drive down the cost of high-speed rail is just better-coordinated operations for all the trains in the Corridor. The idea is that often fast trains are waiting for slow trains, and in other places, for procedural reasons, every train has to move at the speed of the slowest train that moves on that segment.

What’s the philosophical difference between how you and the rail managers currently approach the Corridor?

The philosophical difference is coordinating infrastructure and operations. Often you also coordinate which trainsets you’re going to buy. This is why the proposal combines policy recommendations with extremely low-level work, including timetables to a precision of less than a minute. The point of infrastructure is to enable a service. Unless you are a very specific kind of infrastructure nerd, when you ride a train, you don’t care about the top speed, you don’t care about the infrastructure. You care about the timetable. The total trip time matters. Nobody rides a TGV to admire all the bridges they built on the Rhone.

I think some people do!

I doubt it. I suspect that the train goes too fast to be a good vantage point.

But as I said, you need 48 trains per hour worth of capacity between New Jersey or Manhattan. You need to start with things like the throughput you need, how much you need to run on each branch, when each branch runs, how they fit together. This constrains so much of your planning, because you need the rail junctions to be set up so that the trains don’t run into each other. You need to set up the interlockings at the major train stations in the same way. When you have fast and slow trains in the same corridor, you need to write timetables so that the fast trains will not be unduly delayed.

This all needs to happen before you commit to any infrastructure. The problem is that Connect NEC plans (Connect 2035, 2037) are not following that philosophy. They are following another philosophy: Each agency hates the other agencies. Amtrak and the commuter rail agencies have a mutually abusive relationship. There’s a lot of abuse from Amtrak to various commuter rail operators, and a lot of abuse by certain commuter rail operators, especially Metro North and Connecticut DOT against Amtrak. If you ask each agency what they want, they’ll say, “To get the others out of our hair.” They often want additional tracks that are not necessary if you just write a timetable.

To be clear, they want extra tracks so that they don’t have to interact with each other?

Exactly. And this is why Amtrak, the commuter railways, and the Regional Plan Association keep saying that the only way to have high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor is to have an entirely separate right of way for Amtrak, concluding with its own dedicated pair of tunnels to Penn Station in addition to Gateway.

They’re talking about six tracks, plus two tracks from Penn Station to Queens and the Bronx, with even more urban tunneling. The point is that you don’t need any of that. Compromising a little on speed, the trip times I’m promising are a bit less than four hours from Boston to Washington. That’s roughly 180 kilometers an hour [~110 mph]. To be clear, this would be the slowest high-speed line in France, Spain, or Japan, let alone China. It would probably be even with the fastest in Germany and South Korea. It’s not Chinese speed. For example, Rep Moulton was talking about high-speed rail a couple of months ago, and said, “This is America. We need to be faster. Why not go 200, 250 mph?” He was talking about cranking up the top speed. When we were coming up with this report, we were constantly trying to identify how much time a project would save, and often we’d say, “This curve fix will speed up the trains by 20 seconds, but for way too much hassle and money.” The additional minutes might be too expensive. Twenty seconds don’t have an infinite worth. (...)

I want to go back to something you said earlier. You were contrasting the aesthetic of this proposal with Representative Moulton’s proposal, who wants our top speeds to be faster than Chinese top speeds. How do you get voters to care about — and I mean this descriptively — kinda boring stuff about cant angles?

Voters are not going to care about the cant angle efficiency on a curve. They’re not going to care about approach speed. However, I do think that they will if you tell voters, “Here's the new timetable for you as commuters. It looks weird, but your commute from Westchester or Fairfield County to Manhattan will be 20 minutes faster.”

With a lot of these reports, the issue is often that there are political trade-offs. The idea of what you should be running rail service for, who you should be running it for, that ended up drifting in the middle of the 20th century.

But also, the United States is so far from the technological frontier that even the very basics of German or Swiss rail planning, like triangle planning of rolling stock/infrastructure/operations, that's not done. Just doing that would be a massive increase in everything: reliability, frequency, speed, even in passenger comfort.

 The main rail technology conference in the world, it's called InnoTrans, it's in Berlin every two years. I hear things in on-the-floor interviews with vendors that people in the United States are just completely unaware of.

by Santi Ruiz and Alon Levy, Statecraft |  Read more:

Image: uncredited

[ed. Fascinating stuff! (I think, anyway). And, for something completely different, see: How to Be a Good Intelligence Analyst (Statecraft):]

***

I think the biggest misconception about the community and the CIA in particular is that it's a big organization. It really isn't. When you think about overstuffed bureaucracies with layers and layers, you're describing other organizations, not the CIA. It is a very small outfit relative to everybody else in the community. (...)

What kinds of lessons were consistently learned in the Lessons Learned program?

There's an argument that the lessons learned are more accurately described as lessons collected or lessons archived, rather than learned.

Because learning institutionally is hard?

Learning institutionally is hard. Not only is it hard to do, but it's also hard to measure and to affect. But, if nothing else, practitioners became more thoughtful about the profession of intelligence. To me, that was really important. The CIA is well represented by lots of fiction, from Archer to Jason Bourne. It's always good for the brand. Even if we look nefarious, it scares our adversaries. But it's super far removed from reality. Reality in intelligence looks about as dull as reality in general. Being a really good financial or business analyst, any of those kinds of tasks, they're all working a certain part of your brain that you can either train and improve, or ignore and just hope for the best.

I don't think any of those are dull, but I take your point about perception vs. reality.

I don't mean to suggest those are dull, but generally speaking, they don't run around killing assassins. It's a lot less of that.

Design Your Own Rug!

For my wedding anniversary, I designed and had hand-woven in Afghanistan a rug for my microbiologist wife. The rug mixes traditional Afghanistan designs with some scientific elements including Bunsen burners, test tubes, bacterial petri dishes and other elements.

I started with several AI designs, such as that shown below, to give the weavers an idea of what I was looking for. Some of the AI elements were muddled and very complex and so we developed a blueprint over a few iterations. The blueprint was very accurate to the actual rug.

I am very pleased with the final product. The wool is of high quality, deep and luxurious, and the design is exactly what I intended. My wife loves the rug and will hang it at her office. The price was very reasonable, under $1000. I also like that I employed weavers in a small village in Northern Afghanistan. The whole process took about 6 months.

You can develop your own custom rug from Afghanu Rugs. Tell them Alex sent you. Of course, they also have many beautiful traditional designs. You can even order my design should you so desire!

by Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution | Read more:
Images: the author

Optical Glass House, Hiroshima Japan

NAP Architects has designed Optical Glass House located in Hiroshima, Japan.

from NAP Architects:
This house is sited among tall buildings in downtown Hiroshima, overlooking a street with many passing cars and trams. To obtain privacy and tranquility in these surroundings, we placed a garden and optical glass façade on the street side of the house.

The garden is visible from all rooms, and the serene soundless scenery of the passing cars and trams imparts richness to life in the house. Sunlight from the east, refracting through the glass, creates beautiful light patterns.

Rain striking the water-basin skylight manifests water patterns on the entrance floor. Filtered light through the garden trees flickers on the living room floor, and a super lightweight curtain of sputter-coated metal dances in the wind.

Although located downtown in a city, the house enables residents to enjoy the changing light and city moods, as the day passes, and live in awareness of the changing seasons.

Optical Glass Façade

A façade of some 6,000 pure-glass blocks (50mm x 235mm x 50mm) was employed. The pure-glass blocks, with their large mass-per-unit area, effectively shut out sound and enable the creation of an open, clearly articulated garden that admits the city scenery.

To realize such a façade, glass casting was employed to produce glass of extremely high transparency from borosilicate, the raw material for optical glass.

The casting process was exceedingly difficult, for it required both slow cooling to remove residual stress from within the glass, and high dimensional accuracy.

Even then, however, the glass retained micro-level surface asperities, but we actively welcomed this effect, for it would produce unexpected optical illusions in the interior space.

Waterfall

So large was the 8.6m x 8.6m façade, it could not stand independently if constructed by laying rows of glass blocks a mere 50mm deep. We therefore punctured the glass blocks with holes and strung them on 75 stainless steel bolts suspended from the beam above the façade.

Such a structure would be vulnerable to lateral stress, however, so along with the glass blocks, we also strung on stainless steel flat bars (40mm x 4mm) at 10 centimeter intervals.

The flat bar is seated within the 50mm-thick glass block to render it invisible, and thus a uniform 6mm sealing joint between the glass blocks was achieved. The result　—a transparent façade when seen from either the garden or the street.

The façade appears like a waterfall flowing downward, scattering light and filling the air with freshness.

Captions
The glass block façade weighs around 13 tons. The supporting beam, if constructed of concrete, would therefore be of massive size. Employing steel frame reinforced concrete, we pre-tensioned the steel beam and gave it an upward camber.

Then, after giving it the load of the façade, we cast concrete around the beam and, in this way, minimized its size.”

by Karmatrends |  Read more:

Images: NAP Architechs

[ed. See also: Optical Glass House, Hiroshima, Japan (Architectural Review).]

So You Want To Look Rich?

So, you want to look rich? Well, you’ve come to the right place. And no, I won’t be peddling any “quiet luxury” nonsense here (barf). I’m here to show you the cheapest way to get the biggest, boldest piece of artwork in your home. Because nothing says “Daddy Warbucks” quite like art that eats an entire wall for breakfast.

“HoOooOoOw does this make meEeeeeEe look riiiiicCccCCh?” you ask. Well, if you’ve ever tried to frame anything in this godforsaken town, you know it’s astronomically expensive. And sure, I respect the craft—cutting glass, sanding wood, fastening a perfect corner joint? Not easy. My wallet, however, does not share the same sentiment and admiration for *~craft~* (one day). Large-scale framing is expensive, so having large-scale art in your home must = wealth. Is this girl math?

Lucky for you, I’m scrappy/good at connecting dots and figured out a workaround that gets you art + a frame for around $200(ish). And when we’re talking large-scale art? That’s not not highway robbery!!!!!!!!

So, here’s a breakdown of exactly what you’re going to do:

Step 1:

Buy this huge-ass frame from IKEA. As someone who has spent far too much time on the hunt for large-scale frames at a kind price, let me tell you, this frame is a godsend.

Step 2:

Head to the National Gallery’s website and dive into their free image archive. I first discovered it in college thanks to my genius art history professor Brantl (miss you, legend). Their open-access archive lets you download high-res images of various works, totally free. Pro Tip: make sure the free image download filter is turned ON.

Feeling overwhelmed by the options? Don’t panic, hun. That’s what I’m here for. Below are some solid search terms and filters to get you started:

Search Terms: Horse Race, Shaker Drawings, Edgar Degas, Flora and Fauna, Alfred Stieglitz, Post Impressionist, Pierre Bonnard, Holger Hanson, Tamarind Institute, Robert Frank, Spanish Southwest, Realist, George Bellows, John Sloan, Abstract Expressionist, Mark Rothko, Kenneth Noland, John Frederick Peto, Realist (Subject>Still Life, Photography (Themes>Motion), Landscape, Painting (Subject>Place Names), Ernst Kirchner, Charles Logasa, Drawing (Subject>Objects), Paul Klee, Walter Griffin, Drawings (Subjects>Flora & Fauna), Index of American Design, Mina Lowery.

Here are some fun ones I found:  [ed. more...]

Step 3 (Edited):

Hit! That! Download! Button! And throw your chosen artwork into Photoshop. Crop it to your frame size (78.75" x 55"), then head to ‘Image Size’ and bump the resolution from 72 to 300 PPI to keep things crisp. Then (important!) grow the artwork by 3 inches, bringing it to 81.75" x 58". That extra bit will help it sit just right and tight in the frame.

Step 4:

Next, head to www.bagofloveuse.com (I’m serious), toggle over to the Fabric & Leather Printing menu, and upload your artwork under the “Print on Fabric” section. You’ll want to input custom dimensions and choose a fabric that prints rich, saturated color with zero shine. I went with the 6.28oz cotton twill and can’t recommend it enough. It has weight, texture, and looks way more expensive than it is. Also, because you added that 3-inch border around your artwork, you can opt for the “uneven scissor cut,” which is free (I swear I’m not usually this cheap).

One note: Bags of Love now caps their print width at 57.09 inches, but since that’s still wider than your frame, you should be fine. You’ll just have to be a bit more precise when snapping it in. Horizontal images still work best, but if you’re feeling bold with a vertical, go for it. You do you.

Step 5:

Time to get that m-effer in the frame! I recommend doing this with a friend (free labor, obviously) because getting the fabric pulled taut and snapped cleanly into the back of the frame is much easier with an extra set of hands. Like most things IKEA, the setup is pretty painless and requires little to no tools.

Step 6:

Honestly, I wish there was more to it, but that’s it. Hang it up and you’re done. You look rich, and now everybody wants to be your friend!

Anyway, without further ado, here are some gorgeous examples of large-scale artworks in homes I love. May they inspire your walls: [ed. more..]

by Juliana Ramirez, Search Terms | Read more:
Images: Andy Williams; John Decker, Green Plums, 1885; Peter Henry Emerson, Marsh Weeds, 1895.

[ed. See also: Everyone’s Moving (thoughtful gifts for new beginnings). Lots of good links.]

Supersize Me: Amazon’s Biggest Data Center For AI

A year ago, a 1,200-acre stretch of farmland outside New Carlisle, Ind., was an empty cornfield. Now, seven Amazon data centers rise up from the rich soil, each larger than a football stadium.

Over the next several years, Amazon plans to build around 30 data centers at the site, packed with hundreds of thousands of specialized computer chips. With hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber connecting every chip and computer together, the entire complex will form one giant machine intended just for artificial intelligence.

The facility will consume 2.2 gigawatts of electricity — enough to power a million homes. Each year, it will use millions of gallons of water to keep the chips from overheating. And it was built with a single customer in mind: the A.I. start-up Anthropic, which aims to create an A.I. system that matches the human brain.

The complex — so large that it can be viewed completely only from high in the sky — is the first in a new generation of data centers being built by Amazon, and part of what the company calls Project Rainier, after the mountain that looms near its Seattle headquarters. Project Rainier will also include facilities in Mississippi and possibly other locations, like North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Project Rainier is Amazon’s entry into a race by the technology industry to build data centers so large they would have been considered absurd just a few years ago. Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is building a two-gigawatt data center in Louisiana. OpenAI is erecting a 1.2-gigawatt facility in Texas and another, nearly as large, in the United Arab Emirates.

These data centers will dwarf most of today’s, which were built before OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot inspired the A.I. boom in 2022. The tech industry’s increasingly powerful A.I. technologies require massive networks of specialized computer chips — and hundreds of billions of dollars to build the data centers that house those chips. The result: behemoths that stretch the limits of the electrical grid and change the way the world thinks about computers. (...)

Just a few months after OpenAI released ChatGPT in late 2022, Amazon was in talks with electrical utilities to find a site for its A.I. ambitions. In Indiana, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, or AEP, suggested that Amazon tour tracts of farmland 15 miles west of South Bend that had been rezoned into an industrial center. By the end of May 2023, more than a dozen Amazon employees had visited the site.

By early 2024, Amazon owned the land, which was still made up of corn and soybean fields. Indiana’s legislature approved a 50-year sales tax break for the company, which could ultimately be worth around $4 billion, according to the Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer and environmental advocacy organization. Separate property and technology tax breaks granted by the county could save Amazon an additional $4 billion over the next 35 years.

The exact cost of developing the data center complex is not clear. In the tax deal, Amazon promised $11 billion to build 16 buildings, but now it plans to build almost twice that.

by Karen Weise and Cade Metz, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Visuals by A.J. Mast

[ed. Crazy. Wouldn't more people enjoy a nice golf course instead?]

Seeing Our Future in China’s Cameras

I heard some surprising refrains on my recent travels through China. “Leave your bags here,” a Chinese acquaintance or tour guide would suggest when I ducked off the streets into a public bathroom. “Don’t worry,” they’d shrug when I temporarily lost sight of my young son in the crowds.

The explanation always followed: “Nobody will do anything,” they’d say knowingly. Or, “There’s no crime.” And then, always, “There are so many cameras!”

I can’t imagine such blasé faith in public safety back when I last lived in China in 2013, but on this visit it was true: cameras gawked from poles, flashed as we drove through intersections, lingered on faces as we passed through stations or shops. And that was just the most obvious edge of the ubiquitous, multilayered tracking that has come to define life in China. I came away troubled by my time in some of the world’s most-surveilled places — not on China’s account, but because I felt that I’d gotten a taste of our own American future. Wasn’t this, after all, the logical endpoint of an evolution already underway in America?

There was a crash course on the invasive reality of a functionally cash-free society: credit cards refused and verge-of-extinct paper bills spurned. I had to do the thing I’d hoped to avoid, link a credit card to WeChat. That behemoth Chinese “super app” offers everything from banking to municipal services to social media to shopping, and is required to share data with the Chinese authorities. (Elon Musk, by the way, reportedly wants to turn his own app, X, into an invasive offering modeled after WeChat.) Having resigned myself to all-virtual payments, I knew I was corralled like everyone else into unbroken visibility, unable to spend a single yuan or wander down a forgotten side street without being tracked and recorded.

Crisscrossing China as a chaperone on my son’s school trip, I felt that a country I’d fondly remembered as a little rough-and-tumble had gotten calmer and cleaner. A part of me hated to see it. In my own mind, I couldn’t separate the safe, tidy streets from the repressive system of political control that underpins all those helpful cameras.

The Chinese Communist Party famously uses surveillance to crush dissent and, increasingly, is applying predictive algorithms to get ahead of both crimes and protest. People who screen as potential political agitators, for example, can be prevented from stepping onto trains bound for Beijing. During the Covid pandemic, Chinese health authorities used algorithmic contact tracing and QR codes to block people suspected of viral exposure from entering public spaces. Those draconian health initiatives helped to mainstream invasive surveillance and increase biometric data collection.

It would be comforting to think that China has created a singular dystopia, utterly removed from our American reality. But we are not as different as we might like to think. (...)

As my face was getting scanned all over China, Elon Musk’s minions with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency were ransacking federal agencies to seize Americans’ data and sensitive information. Legal experts maintain that accessing this data is illegal under federal privacy laws, which broadly forbid government agencies from disclosing our personal information to anyone, including other parts of the government, without our written consent. But, in the event, neither the law nor our lawmakers protected us.

Mr. Musk’s team moved to access Social Security Administration data containing medical and mental health records, bank and credit card information, and birth and marriage certificates. This month, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed DOGE to access sensitive Social Security records. That means that DOGE staff, under the vague slogan of eliminating wasteful spending, can peruse files containing the most jealously guarded details of millions of American lives — everything from salary to addiction and psychiatric health records. (...)

The government’s enthusiasm for this emerging technology is disquieting. A.I. could help to supersize the surveillance state, offering the potential to quickly synthesize and draw inferences from massive quantities of data.

“The really powerful thing is when personal data get integrated,” said Maya Wang, associate China director at Human Rights Watch. “Not only am I me, but I like these things, and I’m related to so-and-so, and my friends are like this, and I like to go to these events regularly on Wednesdays at 6:30. It’s knowing relationships, movements and also any irregularities.” 

by Megan K. Stack, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Gilles Sabrié for The New York Times

Forced to Relocate by Climate Change, These Southwest Alaska Villagers Found a New Crisis

Newtok’s relocation to the new site of Mertarvik, where much of the infrastructure is already failing, highlights the nation’s failure to prepare for the ways climate change is making some places uninhabitable.

A jumble of shipping containers holds all that remains of the demolished public school in Newtok, where on a recent visit, a few stray dogs and a lone ermine prowled among the ruins.

Late last year, the final residents of this sinking village near the Bering Sea left behind the waterlogged tundra of their former home, part of a fraught, federally funded effort to resettle communities threatened by climate change.

Nearly 300 people from Newtok have moved nine miles across the Ninglick River to a new village known as Mertarvik. But much of the infrastructure there is already failing. Residents lack running water, use 5-gallon buckets as toilets and must contend with intermittent electricity and deteriorating homes that expose them to the region’s fierce weather.

Newtok’s relocation was supposed to provide a model for dozens of Alaska communities that will need to move in the coming decades. Instead, those who’ve worked on the effort say what happened in Newtok demonstrates the federal government’s failure to oversee the complex project and understand communities’ unique cultural needs. And it highlights how ill-prepared the United States is to respond to the way climate change is making some places uninhabitable, according to an investigation by The Washington Post, ProPublica and KYUK radio in Bethel, Alaska.

Dozens of grants from at least seven federal agencies have helped pay for the relocation, which began in 2019 and is expected to cost more than $150 million. But while the federal government supplied taxpayer dollars, it left most of the responsibility for the move to the tiny Newtok Village Council. The federally recognized tribal government lacked the expertise to manage the project and has faced high turnover and internal political conflict, according to tribal records and interviews with more than 70 residents as well as dozens of current and former members of the seven-person village council.

Federal auditors have warned for years that climate relocation projects need a lead agency to coordinate assistance and reduce the burden on local communities. The Biden administration tried to address those concerns by creating an interagency task force led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Interior Department. The task force’s report in December also called for more coordination and guidance across the federal government as well as long-term funding for relocations.

But the Trump administration has removed the report from FEMA’s website and, as part of its withdrawal of climate funding, frozen millions in federal aid that was supposed to pay for housing construction in Mertarvik this summer. The administration did not respond to a request for comment.

“We’re physically seeing the impacts of a changing climate on these communities,” said Don Antrobus, a climate adaptation consultant for the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. “And the fact that we don’t have a government framework for dealing with these issues is not just an Alaska problem, it’s a national problem.”

Newtok’s relocation follows the resettlement of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, where land vanished under rising sea levels. Both relocations have been labeled “blueprints” for the federal government’s response to climate change. Both have been mired in complicated and disjointed funding systems and accusations that the government neglected traditional knowledge.

by Emily Schwing and Ash Adams, Washington Post via ADN |  Read more:

Image: Tiny homes in Mertarvik. (Ash Adams/For The Washington Post)

via:

[ed. Potemkin buffalo.]

via:

[ed. My kind of place.]

A pair of slip shade wall light fixtures from the late 20’s and early 30’s. Manufactured by the Lincoln Company.
via:

Art Deco house, San Francisco
via:

How Ships Escaped the Great Stagnation

In January 2024 the largest passenger ship ever built, Icon of the Seas, set sail from Miami on her maiden voyage. Icon is five times larger than the Titanic by gross tonnage (the internal volume of a ship) and spans 20 decks containing more than 2,500 passenger rooms. At full capacity she can carry nearly 10,000 people – up to 7,600 passengers along with 2,350 crew. Passengers can enjoy 40 bars and restaurants across eight ‘neighborhoods’, plus several theaters and a top-deck aquapark comprising seven swimming pools and nine waterslides. The ship is 365 meters long and 65 meters wide, giving a population density equivalent to approximately 420,000 people per square kilometer. That’s about 70 times the density of London and 50 percent higher than Dharavi in Mumbai, often cited as the world’s densest urban area.

 

Airplanes today fly no faster than they did in the 1970s. In many countries, road speeds have decreased. Flying cars never showed up. In developed countries, the tallest buildings have only inched higher. Most rich countries produce less energy per capita than they did 20 years ago, and the cost of building new physical infrastructure like railways seems to rise inexorably. Yet cruise ships continue to grow: a natural experiment in what can be achieved outside the constraints that have stifled progress on dry land. (...)

The great stagnation in everything but cruise ships

New buildings, airplanes, bridges, and trains built today are often barely distinguishable from those built decades earlier, apart from often costing much more money. There is some incremental progress, especially in safety and energy efficiency, but in many areas we have stopped making performance records at all. In some, like the speed of the fastest passenger airplanes, we have even gone backward. (...)

The cruise industry, in contrast, continues to break records. The title of world’s largest passenger ship has been broken nine times so far this century, including three times in the last five years. The trend for ever-larger cruise ships accelerated around the turn of the millennium when Carnival Cruise Line’s Sunshine became the first passenger ship to exceed 100,000 gross tons in 1995. By 2008 Oasis of the Seas had more than doubled that record at 226,000 gross tons. (...)

Passenger numbers have also increased from just over 7 million passengers per year in 2000 to 31.7 million in 2023. The industry suffered badly during the Covid-19 pandemic, beginning with the high-profile Covid outbreak aboard the Diamond Princess off the coast of Japan in February 2020, resulting in the quarantine of the 3,700 people on board. Subsequent lockdowns, capacity limits, and mask mandates that persisted long after widespread vaccination all contributed to depressed passenger numbers. But new megaships like Icon have driven a strong post-Covid recovery, and passenger numbers and revenues in 2023 surpassed pre-pandemic records. 

Part of the reason for the relatively slower progress of physical infrastructure projects, compared to rapid progress in digital technologies, is sheer technological difficulty. Software products can be built rapidly and iteratively improved. Mistakes can usually be easily rectified by editing offending lines of code. When, on the other hand, Ford discovered in the late 1990s that ignition switches in its cars could cause fires, it had to recall 14.9 million vehicles.

But not all differences between the rates of progress in the worlds of bits and of atoms can be explained by technological difficulty. In the United States, housing, medical care, and childcare costs have risen faster than overall inflation since 2000, while consumer electronics, digital services, and small manufactured goods have become significantly cheaper in real terms. British researchers found something similar: in industries where increasing supply requires building new physical infrastructure, like houses, electricity pylons, power stations, and new railway lines, prices have risen. (...)

Compared with large-scale construction projects on land, the cruise industry is something of an outlier. Large modern cruise ships are sometimes even cheaper in real terms to manufacture than flag carriers of the past when measured per gross ton in 2024 dollars. The steady improvement of European shipbuilding suggests that it isn’t technological difficulty, a lack of skills, or the prices of raw materials that make infrastructure expensive in Europe, but flawed rules and institutions.

Cruise fares have also fallen in real terms. A cruise forum user unearthed a Royal Caribbean brochure from 1983 that shows pricing for its first dedicated cruise ship, Song of Norway. The prices indicated are per person based on two people sharing a room. The cheapest seven-day Caribbean cruise fare is $995 (about $3,000 dollars in 2024 prices) per person for an interior room. An equivalent cruise in 2024 aboard Royal Caribbean’s Freedom of the Seas was roughly five times cheaper, at around $600 dollars per person. A balcony room in 1983 cost $1,750 ($5,500 per person in 2024 prices) while a balcony on an equivalent weeklong Caribbean cruise aboard Wonder of the Seas (constructed in 2022) only cost around $1,000 per person in 2024. Even on Icon, which is in greatest demand, a balcony cabin costs around $1,700 dollars per person.

And it’s not simply that cruise lines are managing to cram more people into a smaller space on modern ships. If we divide the gross tonnage of a ship by its passenger capacity we find that each passenger on Icon of the Seas has about 33 percent more space than they would aboard Song of Norway. (...)

Cruise ships spend their lives either temporarily docked at a port or out at sea, where they impose almost no localized negative externalities and there is therefore little drive to subject them to national regulation.

They also have a trump card they can play to escape regulation that might come their way: the flag of convenience. Each ship sails under a specific nation’s flag, obliging it to abide by the laws and regulations of that nation. Cruise liners, because they are mobile, can choose which flag to fly. (...)

Cruise ships are held back – by land

Cruise ships could be even bigger and more numerous. The main limiting factor is not the ships themselves, but the land-based infrastructure with which they interact, such as ports, bridges, and canals.

The issue with ports is depth. Engineers therefore aim to maximize gross tonnage (the overall internal volume of a ship) without excessively increasing its length or draught (how deep a ship projects into the water). Typically, a heavier ship would be built with a larger draught to provide stability, but this curtails the range of ports that large cruise ships can access. Popular tourist destinations like Venice and Santorini have ports that can no longer accommodate the largest cruise ships. Deepwater ports like Miami and Barcelona have the necessary depth to handle vessels with significant draughts and typically provide better infrastructure for large numbers of passengers. As large cruise ships proliferate, more artificial deepwater ports like the international cruise port in Cozumel, Mexico, are being built to meet demand.

While the depth of existing ports constrains the maximum draught of cruise ships, the height of key bridges limits size in the opposite direction, placing a cap on the maximum sailing height. This was illustrated recently when Icon of the Seas could barely sail under the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark during her maiden voyage from the Turku shipyard in Finland to her final destination in Miami. The bridge has a clearance of 65 meters above sea level, requiring Icon’s engineers to partially disassemble the ship’s masts and travel at high speed during the lowest tides to safely clear it. Symphony of the Seas has retractable funnels that allow it to shrink from its usual sailing height of 72.5 meters and squeeze under the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge (clearance 69 meters).

With ports limiting maximum draughts and important bridges restricting maximum sailing heights, the latest generation of megaships has expanded outward, resulting in the distinctive wide profile of modern vessels. The largest cruise ships are now too wide to use the Panama Canal, which can only take ships up to 51.5 meters in width, and must instead sail around Cape Horn if they are being redeployed from America’s East Coast to the West Coast or South Pacific.

by Michael Hopkins, Works in Progress | Read more:
Images: uncredited

via:

via:

The New Stadium Scam Is a Server Farm

La Porte, Indiana, is a small city between South Bend, Indiana, and Chicago, Illinois. The recent announcement that Microsoft is investing over a billion dollars into a vast new data center campus in La Porte is expected to be transformational for the town of 22,000 people.

Microsoft was given a 40-year tax abatement on equipment, a renewable state sales tax exemption through 2068, and just $2.5 million of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) over four years—roughly 30 percent of what it would normally owe. After that? Nothing. Local utilities would cover the infrastructure.

Indiana's levy system is designed to reward growth with lower taxes. But when the biggest newcomer isn't taxed, the reward goes with them, the burden stays with the taxpayers, and the scales get tilted by bureaucrats.

Just 60 miles up the toll road sits Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears. The stadium's 2002 post-modern renovation cost $587 million, $387 million of which was shouldered by taxpayers. Two decades and two dozen quarterbacks later, Chicago only has $640 million (thanks to $256 million in interest) left to pay (oh, and the Bears are now threatening to leave.)

Cities have long bankrolled stadiums for billionaire team owners, while promising taxpayers jobs, tourism, civic pride—maybe even a Super Bowl. The results? Almost uniformly dismal. The Cincinnati Bengals deal left Hamilton County, Ohio, buried in debt and obligated to fund high-tech upgrades just to keep pace. Miami, Florida, spent $500 million in public funds on a baseball stadium for the Marlins, only to see attendance collapse and the team gutted. St. Louis is still paying off the Edward Jones Dome, even after the Rams skipped town for sunnier Los Angeles. Charlotte, North Carolina, is the latest addition to this hall of shame after handing over $650 million in tourism taxes to renovate Bank of America Stadium, earning them the "Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year" distinction from the Center for Economic Accountability.

Today's stadium boondoggle is a server farm: shinier, techier, but often just as bad for taxpayers. Small towns (and not a few big ones) are bending over backward to lure data centers. Local economic development officials tilt the scales, suspend the rules, and give away the farm. The sales pitch is nearly identical to the stadium era: "It'll create jobs. It'll put us on the map. It's worth the investment."

But once the banners come down and the golden shovels are back in the closet, what's left is a trail of lopsided deals, and taxpayers stuck holding the bag. (...)

Analysts project that data center capacity will more than triple by 2030 and estimate the U.S. will need to reach 35 gigawatts of capacity by then—double today's total. The surge is largely driven by artificial intelligence (AI), which alone could account for 70 percent of all data center demand by 2030. These facilities already draw more electricity than some nations, and Goldman Sachs projects they'll consume up to 9 percent of U.S. power by decade's end. New builds are booming—yet much of that construction is being underwritten, piece by piece, by state and local governments chasing the illusion of growth.

by Marc Oestreich, Reason | Read more:
Image:Wirestock|Dreamstime.com

A Spring in Every Kitchen

Johnny Appleseed used to be a staple character in old American children’s books. A ragged vagabond in the early nineteenth century, Appleseed traveled barefoot through the forest, wore coffee sacks with cut-out holes for his arms and head, and planted thousands upon thousands of apple trees for the first settlers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana.

“Appleseed” was a nickname; he was born as John Chapman. As a young man, Chapman became convinced that Christianity had lost its way and needed to be restored by a new church. He worked in an orchard, fell in love with apples, and devoted the rest of his long life to wandering through the newly occupied Middle West, passing out tracts for the new church — and establishing apple orchards, selling the saplings for a few pennies each.

Although a dozen or so Johnny Appleseed festivals are still celebrated, he is less likely to be found in children’s books today. That may be because historians realized that Appleseed was not just a kindly religious eccentric who went around planting apples so that Midwesterners could have fresh, healthy fruit. Instead, he was a vital part of village infrastructure: his apples were mostly not for eating, they were for making hard cider.

Typical hard cider has an alcohol level of about five percent, enough to kill most bacteria and viruses. Many settlers drank it whenever possible, because the water around them was polluted — sometimes by their own excrement, more commonly by excrement from their farm animals. Cider from Appleseed’s apples let people avoid smelly, foul-tasting water. It was a public health measure — one that, to be sure, let some of its users pass the day in a mild alcoholic haze.

For as long as our species has lived in settled communities, we have struggled to provide ourselves with water. If modern agriculture, the subject of the previous article in this series, is a story of innovation and progress, the water supply has all too often been the opposite: a tale of stagnation and apathy. Even today, about two billion people, most of them in poor, rural areas, do not have a reliable supply of clean water — potable water, in the jargon of water engineers. Bad water leads to the death every year of about a million people. In terms of its immediate impact on human lives, water is the world’s biggest environmental problem and its worst public health problem — as it has been for centuries.

On top of that, fresh water is surprisingly scarce. A globe shows blue water covering our world. But that picture is misleading: 97.5 percent of the Earth’s water is salt water — corrosive, even toxic. The remaining 2.5 percent is fresh, but the great bulk of that is unreachable, either because it is locked into the polar ice caps, or because it is diffused in porous rock deep beneath the surface. If we could somehow collect the total world supply of rivers, lakes, and other fresh surface water in a single place — all the water that is easily available for the eight billion men, women, and children on Earth — it would form a sphere just 35 miles in diameter. Adding in reachable groundwater would add some miles to that sphere, but not enough to dramatically alter the fact that our water-covered globe just doesn’t have that much fresh water we can readily get our hands on.

Couldn’t we make more? It is true that salt water can be converted into fresh water. Desalination, as the technique is called, most commonly involves forcing water through extremely fine membranes that block salt molecules but let water molecules, which are smaller, pass through. The Western hemisphere’s biggest desalination plant, in Carlsbad, California, is a technological marvel, pumping out about 50 million gallons of fresh water every day, about 10 percent of the water supply for nearby San Diego. But it also cost about $1 billion to build, uses as much energy as a small town, and dumps 50 million gallons per day of leftover brine, which has attracted numerous lawsuits. For now, in most places, supplying fresh water will have to be done the way it has always been done: digging a well or finding a river, lake, or spring, then pumping or channeling the water where needed.

The Problem

No matter what its source, almost every way that humans use water makes it unfit for later use. Whether passed through an apartment dishwasher or a factory cooling system, a city toilet or a rural irrigation system, the result is an undrinkable, sometimes hazardous fluid that must be cleaned and recycled. When water engineers say, “We need clean water,” clean is the part they worry about.

Clean water is a necessity for more than just drinking. Almost three-quarters of human water use today is for agriculture, especially irrigation (out of all the world’s food, about 40 percent is grown on irrigated land). Another fifth of water use is by industry, where water is both a vital raw ingredient and a cleaning and cooling agent. Households are responsible for just one-tenth of global water consumption, but most of that is used for cleaning: washing dishes, washing clothes, washing people, washing away excrement.

Providing the clean water needed for all these purposes entails four basic functions:

• Finding, obtaining, and purifying the water that goes into the system;
• Delivering it to households and businesses;
• Cleaning up the water that leaves those homes and businesses; and
• Maintaining the network of pipes, pumps, and other structures responsible for the previous three functions.

Simple to describe, these tasks are hair-pullingly complex on the ground. The challenge of building and operating a water system that can supply the daily onslaught of morning flushes and showers while not flooding people who turn on their taps at low-use times is the sort of thing that keeps engineers awake at night. Even simple water-supply pipes are more complex than one might think. Water is heavy and not very compressible. When it travels through a pipe, it can acquire a lot of momentum. When multiple water users close valves or stop pumps, the momentum can create a shockwave in the pipe. In big pipelines, this “water hammer” is like a freight train smashing into a wall — it can damage the pipeline or tear apart equipment. Special slow-closing valves and pumps are required.

Difficult as these technical issues are, they have been largely understood since biblical times and before. By far the biggest and most frustrating obstacle is instead what social scientists call “governmentality” — and what everybody else calls corruption, inefficiency, incompetence, and indifference.

The evidence is global and overwhelming. English cities lose a fifth of their water supply to leaks; Pennsylvania’s cities lose almost a quarter; cities in Brazil lose more than a third. So much of India’s urban water is contaminated that the cost of dealing with the resultant diarrhea is fully 2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Texas loses so much water that just fixing the leaks could provide enough water for all of its major cities’ needs in the near future. All fifty states and all U.S. territories are plagued by water systems with lead pipes, which can leak dangerous lead into their water. The Mountain Aquifer between Israel and Palestine is the primary source of groundwater for both. In an atypical act of collaboration, both are overusing and polluting it. And so on.

by Charles C. Mann, The New Atlantis | Read more:
Image: Julie Wallace; USGS; Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant in Los Angeles, Aerial Archives/Alarmy
[ed. Third installment in the series How the System Works (New Atlantis).]

How Impermanence Became Central to Japanese Thought

Nothing Lasts. How Do We Face It? (NYT)

Images:Moe Suzuki
[ed. On Japanese impermanence. Other topics: Fashion, Cuteness, Monsters, Seasonality, Walking, Iterations, Fandom, Milky, Boxes, Citrus, Koreans, Pop Music, Matcha, Ozu, America, Fermentation, Purin.]

Face House, Kyoto, Japan
via: