The descent of book design

I have just enjoyed reading John Saturnall’s Feast by Lawrence Norfolk, but I was troubled by some aspects of the book design.

First, the title font seemed incongruous, evoking 1890s art nouveau rather than the 1630s and following decades of the book’s setting, particularly when used as large drop caps after the floral “woodcut” initial caps of the excerpts of “The Book of John Saturnall” that precede each chapter. The opening page of each chapter also sports the chapter’s running title, which is unusual and looks like a mistake, since the large drop cap indicates that it is an opening, not a running, page.

Second, The drop caps are set as if by a word processor, i.e., by lazily clicking “Drop Cap” in the layout program without regard to design or readability.

There were also some other glaring typesetting and layout errors, though overall the text itself was well set. Finally, the dust cover curled so badly that it had to be taken off while reading (which some people do anyway, but more usually to preserve the cover of an old book, not one that’s brand new).

Then I realized my mistake: I had bought the U.S. edition, forgetting to seek out the original British edition first. Bloomsbury first published the book in the U.K., and Grove published it in the U.S. Following are the first few pages of each edition side by side. The Bloomsbury images are screen captures from Amazon UK, and the Grove images are my own scans. (Although the Bloomsbury drop caps do not conform to the modern ideal, they are actually true to how books were set in the late 17th century, which those pages successfully evoke. The Grove edition sets these sections just like the rest of the text, only ragged right.)

Bloomsbury	Grove

Note, the British paperback appears to use the Grove edition, which suggests the driving aesthetic behind the latter: to be trade paperback ready. Note the larger text font, ready for photo-reduction. And the gaudy cover.

[[[[ ]]]]
Apart from its degraded vessel, John Saturnall’s Feast is a compelling fantasy about the power of cooking, representing alchemical wizardry and creativity to woo, mock, and sustain in lean times as well as flush. And ultimately to cross barriers, to subvert orders, to assert an older magic, older gods, a natural order.

Land use and solar power

Here is a list of a few solar "farms", i.e., fields of photovoltaic panels, in Ontario

Amherstburg: 10 MW on 196 acres (79 ha)
Belmont: 20 MW on 448 acres (181 ha)
St Clair: Moore Solar Farm: 20 MW on 297 acres (120 ha)
St Clair: Sombra Solar Farm: 20 MW on 347 acres (140 ha)
Walpole: 20 MW on 344 acres (139 ha)

The average is 18.1 acres (7.3 ha) per MW of installed capacity.

Granting a generous average capacity factor of 15%, that comes to 121 acres (49 ha) per MW of average output.

The average per-capita electricity load is about 1.9 kW in Canada, which comes to almost a quarter-acre of solar panels per person.

But the sun doesn't shine brightly all the time, and not at all at night. So, even with more favorable numbers, all of that acreage paved over with solar panels is sacrificed in addition to continuing reliance on other sources.

environment, environmentalism

Slate notices the misapplication of climate action

From a couple of recent articles at Slate.com ...

Mark Hertsgaard, Tuesday, July 2, 2013:

Eating beef is particularly environmentally damaging: Cows are less efficient than chickens or pigs at converting corn (or other feed) into body weight, so they consume more of it than other livestock do. As a result, the industrial agriculture system employs 55 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of beef. Meanwhile, livestock production is responsible for much of the carbon footprint of global agriculture, which accounts for at least 25 percent of humanity’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

Despite its large carbon footprint, the agricultural sector is invariably overlooked in climate policy discussions. The latest example: In his 50-minute speech on climate change last week, President Barack Obama did not even mention agriculture except for a half-sentence reference to how farmers will have to adapt to more extreme weather.

(The rest of Hertsgaard’s article delves into the “responsible meat” fantasies of Michael Pollan, in denial of the facts just spelled out here.)

David Biello, Tuesday, July 16, 2013:

Few would have to change their livelihoods as radically as American farmers if efforts to combat climate change became more serious. ... [T]he biggest change delivered by science to farming in the past century is ... the advent of fossil-fuel-powered machinery and fertilizer wrested from the air by chemistry. That, along with cutting down forests to make room for farms around the world, makes agriculture the second-largest cause of the greenhouse gas emissions changing the climate. There's methane from massive meat farms and manure lagoons. There's nitrous oxide — yes, the stuff used at the dentist’s office — seeping out of the soil thanks to all that nitrogen fertilizer, and it's no laughing matter since N₂O is nearly 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO₂ over a century [and persists in the atmosphere less than a tenth as long as CO₂, making it ~170-fold a more effective target for action. And methane is more than 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO₂ over a century and persists in the atmosphere only 10 years, making it ~200-fold a more more effective target for action.]

(The rest of Biello’s article mostly describes only reducing tillage, but with the example of using herbicides instead.)

Also noticing the misapplication of climate action is the National Academy of Sciences, in its recent report “Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions”:

[T]he combined effect of current energy-sector tax expenditures on GHG emissions is very small and could be negative or positive. The most comprehensive study available suggests that their combined impact is less than 1 percent of total U.S. emissions. If we consider the estimates of the effects of the provisions we analyzed using more robust models, they are in the same range. We cannot say with confidence whether the overall effect of energy-sector tax expenditures is to reduce or increase GHG emissions.

environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism

How to set a proper drop cap

A Proper Drop Cap

It is crucial to remember that the drop cap is part of the first line of text. It should therefore be set to be clearly attached to the first word, unless it is a single-letter word in itself, in which case the first line of text should be closer than the subsequent lines to the drop cap. After a drop cap, it is also customary to set the rest of the first word in caps or a few words in small caps.

The space between the drop cap and the lines after the first should be visually equal to the space between lines. That is, except for its connection to the first line, a drop cap should have equal space around it, both to the right and below.

A drop cap usually looks better balanced if it overhangs the left text margin slightly. The amount varies with the shape of the letter.

How to Set a Proper Drop Cap

Do not use the automatic “Drop Caps” feature in the paragraph style. This is typography, not word processing.

Delete the first letter of the text and set the paragraph without opening indentation.

Set the initial cap in its own frame or text box, or picture box if it is a graphic.

Size and style the drop cap as desired.

Make sure the drop cap box is in front of the text box.

Set the runaround or text wrap of the drop cap box to 0.

Position the drop cap box as desired.

Size the drop cap box to create the desired space around it (to the right and below).

Add a space at the start of the text, and tighten the kern space after it to move the text of the first line closer to the drop cap. The text should be close enough that it is clearly attached to the drop cap as a single word. If the drop cap is itself a single-letter word, the space should be visually consistent with the wordspaces of the rest of the line. If more kern-space adjustment is required than allowed by the typesetting program, repeat with another space to move the text further to the left.

If the bottom of the drop cap box interferes with the text below it, set the runaround or text wrap of its bottom edge to a negative value so that the text is not affected.

Example from Essays, or Counsels Civil and Moral [1812 and 1825] by Francis Bacon, George Bell and Sons, London, 1881:

This week in Windpower Monthly

12 July 2013: French wind industry in disarray following ECJ conclusion
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has concluded that the French tariff system for wind power falls within the concept of state aid.

12 July 2013: Uncertainty could derail Euro offshore growth, warns EWEA
Market uncertainty in Europe could lead to problems financing offshore projects and derail the growth in the sector, according to European Wind Energy Association.

15 July 2013: Spanish reform to deliver further blows
Spain's wind sector predicts "a torrent of financial problems" following Friday's approval of the Spanish government's power sector law, retroactively slashing returns on wind power generation.

16 July 2013: Greek draft law could break wind sector
The Greek government is drafting a law to push back the determination of a feed-in tariff (FIT) to the moment when a project is connected to the grid.

17 July 2013:
Forecast or pay penalties, India tells wind power producers
Wind farm operators in India now face fines if they fail to accurately predict their output for the following day under a new directive that came into force on 15 July.

10 July 2013: Iberdrola sells Turkish wind portfolio
Turkish engineering firm Guris has confirmed that it has acquired 100% of Spanish utility Iberdrola's wind portfolio in Turkey, totalling 133MW.

16 July 2013: Iberdrola seeks buyer for Romanian wind farms
Iberdrola has put Romanian wind assets on the sales block, as as the Spanish power company continues with the disposal of non-strategic assets.

Plus:
1 January 2013: GE leads deal to buy Iberdrola wind farms
Iberdrola, the owner of Scottishpower, is selling its French wind farm business to a consortium led by American industrial giant General Electric for about €400 million (£326.4m) in its drive to cut debt and maintain an investment grade credit rating.

9 January 2013: Wind company leaves Hammond [New York]
Iberdrola Renewables has confirmed that the meteorological test towers have been disabled and the company will no longer pursue developing the Stone Church industrial wind farm in Hammond, a project the company has been courting for the past several years.

15 January 2013: Iberdrola: Uncertainty continues for wind project development
Iberdrola Renewables is again confirming its commitment to the U.S. market — and the Pacific Northwest — after reports that the company is abandoning wind projects in the face of a continued weak market for renewable energy. After a New York news weekly reported that Iberdrola was canceling 100 projects in the U.S., the company came out in news reports to reaffirm its plans to remain active developing renewable energy projects here, while acknowledging the pipeline will be "rightsized."

24 June 2013: Wind developer abandons Ellis County [Kansas] project
In a registered letter delivered to many residents in the area today, Iberdrola Renewables, LLC said, “A variety of circumstances have led the company to the conclusion that it cannot move forward with developing the wind resources on the Property. As such, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Iberdrola Renewables, LLC is terminating the Agreement effective July 20, 2013.”

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms

Comments on July North American Windpower

A friend sent us a copy of this month’s issue of the trade journal North American Windpower, and it contains a couple of items that demand comment.

On page 20, the journal’s editor, Mark del Franco, reports “Obama Addresses Climate Change”:

The plan calls on the U.S. Department of the Interior to permit enough renewables projects on public lands by 2020 to power more than 6 million homes. According to the American Wind energy Association (AWEA), such an undertaking would require the construction of more than 11,000 wind turbines assuming a 35% capacity factor and an average turbine size of 2 MW.

Del Franco does not provide a critique of that plan, so here it is.

First, 11,000 2-MW wind turbines would require 1,000,000 acres, more than 1,500 square miles, not to mention massive new power lines (the cover story of this issue is about the 8-billion-dollar, 3,600-mile transmission project that will carry wind output from west Texas to the state’s load centers in the east).

Second, 11,000 2-MW wind turbines would cost more than 40 billion dollars, two-thirds of which would be public funds to ensure the enrichment of private energy investors. And the turbines last only 10-20 years, so such a cost would be recurring.

Third, “6 million homes” in the U.S. represents about 4% of residential use, 1.5% of total electricity use, 0.6% of total energy use, and 0.2% of total CO₂ emissions. (As calculated using data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration.)

In short: Obama’s climate action plan calls for 40+ billion dollars to industrialize 1,000,000 acres of public land to (theoretically) reduce CO₂ by 0.2%. (And if consumption continues to grow? Then that figure becomes even more insignificant. And if wind, an intermittent and highly variable source, makes other plants run less efficiently, ie, emit more CO₂ per unit of electricity fed into the grid? — Whoops!)

Also in this article, del Franco calls the AWEA an environmental and conservation group. From their own web site: “AWEA is a national trade association representing wind power project developers, equipment suppliers, services providers, parts manufacturers, utilities, researchers, and others involved in the wind industry.” It should be obvious that industrial-scale energy development that requires large areas of rural and wild land stands firmly against the concerns of environmental and conservation groups.

Finally, another piece by del Franco requires a quick comment, “How Wind Can Aid In Climate Change”, page 6:

He [Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation] says scientists are also studying the link between May’s deadly Oklahoma tornadoes and climate change, but at this moment scientists do not have sufficient data to conclusively link tornado frequency and intensity to a warming planet. “The point is we are changing the climate with carbon pollution, and that is triggering unprecedented and dangerous weather conditions around the world,” he says.

Wasn’t the point, “scientists do not have sufficient data” to conclusively link weather conditions to a warming planet? Never mind. The point for such industry apologists must always be that we need to promote extensive industrial wind development in our last remaining rural and wild places to reduce human emissions of CO₂ — by, maybe, 0.2%.

OK, one more: “Campaign Combats Anti-Wind Myths”, page 8:

“The wind industry is being attacked by media-savvy and politically influential adversaries who often display a brazen disregard for factual information ...,” comments Morten Albaek, Vestas Group senior vice president.

That is, comments a media-savvy and politically influential industry flack who often displays a brazen disregard for factual information. Not to mention the absurdity of well funded full-time developers, lobbyists, and consultants painting themselves as victims as they expand their campaigns against for the most part spare-time volunteer citizens’ groups.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Wishful thinking of wind energy proponents

To the Editor, Vermont Standard [July 3, 2013]:

Kurt Staudter claims knowledge from a quarter-century of working in the electric industry, but one big fact seems to have passed him by (“Not in My Back Yard, but OK in Yours,” While We Were Sleeping, June 27). It’s been decades since the U.S. has burned any significant amount of oil for electricity. While 9/11 may have been about oil, particularly that in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. seems to have invaded and remained in Afghanistan to gain uncontested access to central Asian gas fields. Wind energy has nothing to do with oil, which is used for transport and heating, but it depends a great deal on natural gas.

As Staudter knows, the electric grid has to maintain a steady flow of power equal to demand second by second. Since wind is highly variable, it needs to be balanced by generators that can ramp quickly up or down as needed to maintain steady power. Such generators are fueled by natural gas. So wind energy, rather than moving us away from the causes of 9/11, contributes instead to the “reasons” for continuing U.S. aggression in central Asia that makes another 9/11 more, not less, likely.

Staudter must also know that operating a generating plant with frequent rapid ons and offs wastes fuel and wears down the machinery faster. Several analyses have found that combined-cycle gas turbines alone — which are more efficient and possible without the balancing needs of wind — would have no more, or would have even less, emissions than open-cycle gas turbines required to work with wind.

Finally, Staudter says wind is cheap. If that’s his “trump card,” then we should all welcome fracking, tar sands, and mountaintop-removal coal. But in fact, turning wind into electricity is not cheap. It is a diffuse source of energy, so it requires a massive sprawling infrastructure to collect any meaningful amount — in addition to the balancing generators to make it useful to the grid. The simple fact is that wind energy requires subsidies covering two-thirds of the cost (thank you, ratepayers and taxpayers) to make any profit.

At best, wind turbines represent wishful thinking. But the industrialization of wild and rural places at such great public and ecological cost makes them much worse: a symbol of waste, folly, and profiteering. In other words, business as usual.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont