Power Generation

The more I hear about renewable power sources the more clearly I understand that these technologies are only part of the answer to the problems of global warming and fossil fuel exhaustion. It's not that the technologies don't work (they clearly do) or that they are uneconomic (they’re fast approaching economic parity, a trend that will only accelerate as investment grows) or even that we can't find somewhere to site them (although there are bound to be limits on the numbers of wind turbines we can build).

The problem is simply that they, or rather the weather patterns they exploit, are not reliable. Wind turbines can be becalmed, solar generators can be hampered by cloud, fog or the turning of the earth, and the result is that predictable peaks of demand probably cannot reliably be met by solely by these technologies. They aren’t going to be enough, so what do we do to bridge the gap?

Ultimately, when the coal, gas and oil run out (or when the CO2 emissions from their burning just become unsustainable), we should have plenty of options if we continue to pursue scientific investigation and the application of new technology. I have undoubtedly missed something obvious, but I think the solution is likely to include some combination of the following:

• Large numbers of wind and solar power generators as well as tidal power turbines,
• Large-scale electricity storage systems to time-shift generating capacity to coincide with demand,
• Imported electricity from places like north Africa, where solar energy is abundant and local demand is negligible,
• Changes to our lifestyles to use less energy, focussing on efficient, low-carbon, sustainable behaviours,
• Innovative new power sources, like Bill Gates’ Traveling Wave Reactor, or, if we’re very patient (or lucky), fusion power generators.
• Traditional fission power stations, along the lines of the new experimental units currently being built in Europe. 

The problems of carbon-free power generation are many, varied and non-trivial but they’re also amenable to the effects of time, ingenuity and investment. We could tomorrow launch a plan to replace fossil fuels with a combination of wind, tidal and nuclear power, for example. It would be unpopular, probably, but it could be done.

At the same time we need to be investing in distribution infrastructure. A smart grid should allow us to smooth the peaks of demand to some extent, for example by switching off refrigerators or air conditioning units for the fifteen minutes after Eastenders when everyone rushes off to boil kettles. This also requires considerable investment by large numbers of people but, again, it’s probably doable.

It seems likely, in an otherwise uncertain future, that our population will continue to grow and that even if our per capita usage shrinks, our overall requirement for energy will increase. The above suggestions may help us cope with this situation but the underlying requirement is continued investment in education, science and technology. Without that, and the benefits such investment brings, the future looks very grim indeed.

A short review of the new iPad

I've had it only a few hours but I am already happy to comment on the new iPad. Indeed, for anyone who has used wither of the previous models, the new iPad will be very familiar. Turning on the new model is like being re-introduced to an old friend who has, to the absolute delight of his long-term acquaintances, lost weight, regained his youth and acquired a huge new collection of sparkling anecdotes; it is, quite frankly, a joy.

There have been lots of reviews over the last few days from various Apple bloggers and technology journalists (John Gruber, David Pogue, Jim Dalrymple, The Verge) but I'd like to think my take, as a long-term user, will also be interesting.

The first thing that strikes you when you upgrade from a first generation iPad is that the thickness and weight are dramatically reduced. Simply removing the device from the exquisite packaging is enough to make you fall in love again. The first-gen unit, so useful and brilliant until this morning, is now a little lumpy, destined never again to command the respect and desire that were once it's own.

The next thing you notice when you upgrade from your iCloud-enabled first generation iPad is that the process is entirely painless. Within minutes of entering your Apple account details you will have access to all your apps and data as if nothing had really changed. If you've ever experienced the "joy" of switching laptops and transferring applications and data files, you'll understand why a seamless upgrade is so refreshing.

When you get past the upgrade and realise that your system is now up and running, the next thing you notice (if you haven't spotted it already) is that the display is absolutely stunning. Quadrupling the resolution has made text sharper and images (generally) more beautiful. Actually, the low resolution of images used in many websites is a minor problem - they look awful - but that's hardly the fault of the iPad. For text, and if you're using applications like FlipBoard, the experience is akin to reading a backlit magazine; absolutely amazing.

And the other features? The rear-facing camera is pretty good (although you feel a bit of a tit wielding such a large device) and the huge screen makes composition very easy. FaceTime and iMessage work seamlessly, exactly as you'd expect. Everything, from touch response to app opening, is fast; I've found no noticeable delays anywhere.

In short, the new iPad is a huge upgrade from the first generation model and a significant step forward from the iPad 2. If you're considering a tablet, but can't decide between Apple and one of the recent Android releases, get a new iPad. If you're not sure which iPad to buy, visit an Apple store, play with the display models, then buy the new iPad (iPad 2 is great but you'll really want the Retina display).

Trust me; the new iPad is not going to disappoint. It's simply superb.

Travelling on Business

It sounds glamourous, doesn’t it? Get the right job right job and you can spend part of each year traveling the world to visit customers, suppliers and partners, building relationships, selling your products or solving problems. You get to fly business class, stay in 5-star hotels, drink champagne, eat in fine restaurants, visit fantastic bars and basically have a great time meeting new people in exciting places.

At least, that’s the fantasy. That’s what everyone imagines life is like for the international business traveller. Luxury, excitement and adventure.

And that’s a pretty good description of the way it works, except for a couple of important points that nobody likes to talk about.

Lots of people like to travel. They holiday, visit friends, see the sights and generally have a good time racking up new experiences. The key difference about traveling for business is that you normally do it alone or with a work colleague. If you’re married or if you are used to traveling with friends and loved ones, the difference can be quite disconcerting. Suddenly, instead of having fun with your significant other, you’re hanging around in a hotel lobby waiting for your colleague to come down so that you can have breakfast or you’re watching bad TV late at night because the change of timezone has broken your sleep routine.

So the first point is that business travel isn’t like going on holiday with the family. In fact, it’s a lot more like being at work but without the familiar breaks, distractions, routines and support structures.

It can also be crushingly lonely. When you’re stuck in a hotel five timezones from home with no family, no colleagues and nobody to talk to (especially if you’re socially inept, like me) the time can drag, horribly. Even luxury hotels aren’t a lot of fun when you’re on your own; there’s only so much time you can spend in the gym or at the buffet.

What about the flying? Surely that’s exciting, right? Well, no, not really. The first time you fly Business Class it’s an adventure and you should give it a go if you get the chance; after that it’s just a way to get from A to B without the tedious discomfort of Economy. And don’t mention airport lounges, even the luxury ones; spend too long in airports and part of your soul dies.

Great restaurants, fine foods and good bars add gloss to a trip, especially if you let you hair down with colleagues. At the end of the day, though, no matter how great your colleagues are, they’re not family and the experience quickly loses its appeal.

Should you feel sorry for me as I flit around the world in relative luxury? No, not really, but don’t kid yourself that it’s non-stop partying and fun. It’s a lot of work, in foreign places, a long way from home and it’s often lonely, boring, bleak and uncomfortable. But also, sometimes, quite a lot of fun.

Writing a Bad Job Advert

LinkedIn, the occasionally useful social networking site for professionals, has recently started sending me job adverts they think might interest me. As they have millions of people and CVs in their database, marrying individuals to job adverts seems like a logical next step. If I was looking for a job, or even if I was merely contemplating a move, it would be a very useful service.

My only complaint, which is minor and may not be entirely reasonable given that the service is still in Beta, is that the adverts seem to be selected on the assumption that your CV can be used to determine the sort of job you might be interested looking for. That’s a reasonable assumption, I suppose, unless you’ve changed direction and the service pushing jobs to you that haven’t been of interest for several years.

Actually, if I’m completely honest, I do have a few complaints about the adverts themselves. I don’t change jobs very often - I’ve had only three employers in 17 years - but when I look for jobs I want the experience to be simple, painless and stress-free. I want to read a description of the vacancy and understand what the job entails, what it can offer to me and what skills and experience are required. Many of the adverts served by LinkedIn fail in one (or more) of several important ways:

• By far the most serious failing relates to salary. No employer wants to pay more than the market rate but if you don’t list your salary I’m not going to apply for your vacancy. Salary is the measure by which I benchmark your vacancy against my current role and expectations. If you offer only vague descriptions like “Mid to senior level”, “Competitive salary plus benefits” or, the real killer, “Salary negotiable, dependent on experience” I can really only assume you mean “Salary is rubbish”. It’s dishonest and deceitful; just state the salary range you’re prepared to offer or I’m not going to send you my CV. 
• Use of hyperbole is a red flag. Anyone who resorts to “Great working atmosphere” or “Acme people are happy, go-getting people” is clearly trying too hard to make a dull or second-rate company sound good. Give it a rest. 
• Poor grammar, spelling or layout are indicators of a lack of attention to detail. That’s a really bad trait for a potential employer. 
• Where is the job based? It’s surprising how many adverts just list “London”, as if it were trivial or desirable to trek from one side of the city to the other. Give me the address - it’s not secret, is it? 

So if you’re preparing an advert to appeal to the best people around, the people who, by definition, are rarely on the market, make sure you’ve crafted a well-structured advert that includes details of the company, job, salary and location. Get it right and I might apply for your job. Get it wrong and you’ll never hear from me.