Hot Fun in the Summertime

Summer officially arrives tomorrow.  I am dreading it.  I will be counting the days until the anticipated arrival of the cool crispness of autumn.  My house doesn’t have central air conditioning, and summers in Pittsburgh are most often hot, sticky and extremely uncomfortable.  I will walk out of my air conditioned bedroom in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, and as I enter the hallway, the heat and humidity will hit me like a discourteous slap in the face.  Mother Nature will taunt me by causing a jungle to grow in my small yard.  I’ll fight a losing battle with her using a lawnmower and weed whacker as my weapons of choice.  Then I’ll add to the work by planting a small garden only to be disappointed when the weeds overtake the flowers and vegetables despite my efforts to keep them at bay.  Daylight pours into my window at 5:00 AM to disrupt my dreams.  If I can make it to 6:30, I consider it to be a good night’s sleep.


I was thinking about my dislike of summer this morning and wondering when this transition occurred.  As a young boy, summer used to be my favorite season.  School was out, and those long, hot summer days beckoned to me.  They were so full of possibilities.  Back then I could sleep till 9:00 or 10:00 even with the translucent curtains my mother hung in my bedroom.  Back then it was fun to get up really early once in a while to enjoy the cool and quiet of the morning.  On hot summer days, I’d ramble in the woods near my home.  One of my favorite spots in those woods was a spring that formed a small pool.  Many times my friends and I tried to dam up this small pond to create a swimming hole, but someone would always seem to tear down our makeshift structure before the water got deep enough for anything more than wading.

 

Other days, I’d grab one of my brothers to play home run derby with a wiffle ball and bat.  I learned to throw a deceptively slow pitch that, when it was working, guaranteed a swing and a miss.  When it wasn’t working, my brother would hit it a mile.  When we tired of wiffle ball, we might just lie in the grass watching the fluffy, white clouds float across the sky to the distant roar of a neighbor’s lawnmower or the occasional humming of an airplane heading toward the county airport.

 

There were chores, of course, but for most of those hot summer days, we were left to our own devices.  On days too hot to do anything else, I’d spend hours lying on the glider on our front porch engrossed in a good book from the local library.  We never had air conditioning to cool our house or our car.  We just slowed down.  On hot, humid nights my father would bring out the hose and sprinkle my brothers and me as an excuse to water the lawn.  Then when it got dark, we’d play games under the street light in front of our house with other kids from the neighborhood while my parents sat on the front porch talking quietly.  We played tag, hide & seek, release, mother may I and various other games passed down from previous generations of kids.

A few times each summer, we would pack up the station wagon and go on an all day picnic to a nearby state park.  There we’d swim, fish, throw Frisbees and eat a delicious meal of hamburgers, hot dogs, potato salad and baked beans.  Mom would bring a jug filled with Kool-Aid for the kids, and Dad would sneak a few beers when the coast was clear of park rangers.  As dusk was approaching, we would carry everything back to the car and head home.

As I thought about the lazy, hazy summer days of my boyhood, I wondered if I could recapture my youthful love of this season.  So rather than lament the coming heat and humidity, I decided that I should learn from the lessons of my youth and consider all the ways that I might begin to enjoy summer once again.

(For God’s Sake) Give More Power to the People!

That was the title of a 1971 hit song by the Chi-Lites, written by the group’s lead singer, Eugene Record.  It also may be one answer to the question of how we can achieve a more sustainable system for powering our homes in the future.  You might think of it as taking a small step backward to make a giant leap forward.

 

In the early days of America, settlers’ homes were heated by fireplaces that were powered by wood from the surrounding forests.  Light was provided by candles made in the home from tallow.  There were no central utilities delivering light and heat to the homes in a village.  Each homeowner was, in essence, his own utility. 

That model changed with the electrification of America.  In the 1880s the first power generating stations were built.  Within a very short time, homes were wired and began using electricity for lighting, heating and all sorts of appliances.  Today in the USA, about 68% of electricity is generated from the burning of fossil fuels.  The burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) contributes carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which most scientists believe are causing undesirable changes to the earth’s climate.  To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, utilities would have to switch from burning fossil fuels to alternative sources, such as by wind, solar, hydro or nuclear.  Existing homeowners in states with electric choice programs can switch to utilities offering power generated by these alternative sources if they want to do their part to reduce global warming, as described in my previous blog, “Everyone Knows It’s Windy.”

However, what if in the near future homes were built like in the days of the early settlers with the concept that each was a fully (or nearly) sustainable unit from a power standpoint?  Instead of coming with fireplaces designed to heat the home, they would come with individual power plants capable of generating most, if not all, of the household’s electrical needs. 

This is the thought I had after a recent visit to one of my favorite Pittsburgh destinations, the Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens.  Phipps has been open to visitors just about as long as we’ve had centralized electric utilities.  However, over the past 10 – 15 years, Phipps has been involved in a $23 million, multi-year project to upgrade and expand its facilities.  The Center for Sustainable Landscapes is the centerpiece of Phase III of that project.  On its website, Phipps calls the Center “one of Earth’s greenest buildings.”  The Center showcases many systems and techniques that can be incorporated into new buildings, including residential homes.  These include designing and constructing a building to make it incredibly energy efficient, as well as installing equipment to heat and cool the building using a ground source geothermal HVAC system and to power it using photovoltaic panels and a vertical axis wind turbine. 

The technology for installing many of these features already exists.  For example, you could request that the roof of your new house be covered with solar shingles, and you could demand that a small vertical axis wind turbine be included in the home’s design to supply power to your homestead.  If enough new home buyers demanded that such features be incorporated into their houses, or enough towns adopted building ordinances requiring these types of systems, we could reduce the demand on centralized power plants and eventually meet the entire demand for electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. 

Tearing a page from the history books, we would be living again like the original settlers in houses that independently produce the power to light and heat our living spaces.  And that power would be sustainable, non-polluting and would not add to global warming.  For God’s sake, that certainly would give more power to the people!

Everyone Knows It's Windy

I’ve known for some time that I can choose my electricity supplier.  Electric choice came about as a result of power industry deregulation that began in the late 1990s.  By way of background, the power supplier operates the machinery that generates electricity.  The other link in the electric supply chain is the local electric distribution company.  We can’t choose our distribution company.  Electric distribution companies are public utilities that have been granted the exclusive right to run wires overhead or underground that connect to the wires in our homes.  Since distribution companies are monopolies, their rates are regulated by state public utility commissions.  Suppliers, on the other hand, are able to compete with each other to sell us the power that gets delivered by the distribution company.

I had been contacted in the past by various power supply companies seeking my business.  In one case someone came to my door and offered me what seemed to be a good deal.  A few years later, another company offered me what seemed like a slightly better deal, so I switched to them.  In both cases, I did very little research in making my choice, and I never really thought about switching suppliers on my own. 

Recently, however, my power supplier notified me that it was leaving the electrical supply business.  A second letter stated that my supplier was transferring its customers to another company.  The letter told me that the rate would stay the same for one month and then would change from a fixed rate to a variable rate.  I remembered reading horror stories in the newspaper about people receiving shockingly high bills this past winter after signing up for variable rate electricity.  So I decided I’d better do some “power shopping” to figure out the best deal for me.

Now I knew the internet was the place to go to shop for power, but I’d never done it before.  So I went to my favorite search engine and searched for “electricity choice.”  Since I live in Pennsylvania, I looked for websites with a Pennsylvania focus.  I found two that were very helpful.  The first was a site called Electric Shopping Guide.  The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate runs this site, which seems like a pretty reliable source of information to me.  The site contains a Guide instructing consumers how to shop for electricity.  The Guide advises consumers about what to look for in selecting a supplier.  It also contains charts with rates offered by competing suppliers and other useful information.

I discovered that one of the first things you must decide is whether you want to sign up for fixed rate or variable rate pricing.  Variable rates are often lower than fixed rates but can be increased by the supplier without notice.  If you are interested in looking for the best deal every month, a variable rate may interest you.  Personally, I felt like I had better things to do than monitor the cost of electricity on a monthly basis, so I looked for a fixed rate. 

There are two important factors in choosing a fixed rate.  First of all, you have to decide for how long a term you want the fixed rate.  Terms typically range from 3 months to a year.  Obviously, if you anticipate rates dropping, you may want a shorter term.  Conversely, if you think they may be going up, pick a longer term.  The second important factor in choosing a fixed term is whether the supplier charges an early termination fee.  Just like many mobile phone carriers, some electricity suppliers will hit you with a fee if you decide to leave early.  I noticed that one supplier charges a fee of $295, while others have no early termination fee at all.  An early termination fee is not legally allowed for variable rate plans.

The charts in the Electric Shopping Guide also will tell you if the electricity being supplied is generated from burning fossil fuels like coal or from renewable resources such as wind, solar, water or biomass. 

While the Shopping Guide provided much useful information, I found that the rates quoted in the charts were somewhat outdated.  So I visited the other site that I found to be helpful.  PA Power Switch – Pennsylvania is operated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and it contains more up-to-date rate comparisons.  Then, if you find a supplier that has what you want, you can click on a link that takes you directly to the supplier’s website.  Once on the supplier’s website, you can see the actual rates being offered and sign up for the plan you want.  The new supplier typically will contact your present supplier and distribution company to advise them of your switch.

As a result of my power shopping, I switched to a supplier offering a fixed price for a one-year term.  My supplier will not charge me a cancellation fee if I should decide to switch again during my contract term.  And the best part is this:  for less than a penny per kilowatt hour more, I am now getting electricity generated exclusively by wind power.  I was so excited that I went out and bought a cordless electric lawn mower.  Now the power of the wind cuts my grass!

So whether you’re interested in reducing your carbon footprint or in just finding the cheapest electricity available, doing some power shopping is a good idea.  And now, when I’m mowing my lawn or dreaming about buying a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, I’ll be humming that old song by The Association, “Everyone Knows It’s Windy.”  

I Swear

I’d like to talk about swearing.  I don’t mean the kind of swearing that involves taking an oath.  Perhaps the word I am looking for is cursing, though that can also mean uttering “a prayer or invocation for harm or injury to come upon one,” according to Merriam-Webster online.  Believe me; no one would mistake what came out of my mouth a few evenings ago as any kind of “prayer.”  It’s kind of interesting that we don’t have a good English word that the dictionary defines as, “shouting a blue streak of obscene, blasphemous and otherwise profane and offensive words, because something (or someone) has made you extremely frustrated or angry.”  For an example, I’d say, “see, Sergeant Snorkel in Beetle Bailey.”

Actually, I don’t swear very often.  My wife thinks it was a character flaw that I never swore in front of my mother.  “I never had reason to,” I offer, but she’s not buying it.  She thinks it was some kind of Catholic-boy-Madonna complex.  I actually never swore that much growing up.  I suppose it was that Catholic thing again.  I didn’t want to have to confess to our priest – an imposing man with a booming voice – that I’d done something that merited more than the three Hail Marys he usually doled out as penance for my sins. 

Then came high school when a very smart, very moral guy entered my circle of friends.  George swore early and often, and knew more curse words than a Longshoreman.  He didn’t have to be angry.  He cursed in normal conversation.  I figured that if a guy like George could swear like he did, it was high time that I jumped into this game.  Of course, learning to golf helped immensely.  After a few muffed shots, there’s nothing better to accompany some thrown clubs than a bit of projectile cursing.  By the time I was in college and had joined a fraternity, I had learned the art of the casual swear.  All you need to do is add a choice curse word or two in place of any adjective during the course of a conversation. 

Upon entering the professional workforce after college, I had to tone down the swearing.  Sure, there were occasions when a boss or client decided to toss some profanity into the conversation to prove he was a regular, macho guy.  On those occasions I could bring in just enough to make the other guy feel he could trust me, but would dial it back a few notches to let him know he’s the man.

As the years went by I found myself swearing less and less.  I think that when you don’t swear very often, it kind of backs up like a river behind a logjam.  Then something or someone will really frustrate you, which is like throwing a stick of dynamite into the logjam.  The resulting explosion lets loose a torrent of expletives that continue to stream out until the backed up river has run its course.  That happens sometimes when I get cut off by another driver. Then I find that I can go on for five minutes or more with some pretty salty words and phrases.  

The other night I was making coffee and had filled the basket with fresh grounds and set it on the kitchen table.  Then inexplicably my hand bumped the basket and the grounds went flying everywhere.  Dynamite lit, tossed into the logjam and, boom, we have detonation!  After hearing me rant for 5 or 10 minutes, my wife and adult son came into the kitchen to see what was going on.  By then, equilibrium had been restored and I smiled sheepishly.  “Maybe I’m coming down with Tourette’s,” I offered.  “Well,” I thought to myself, “thank goodness I’m Episcopalian now and won’t have to explain this to a priest!”

Ball of Con Fusion – Part 2

In my previous post, I examined our current mix of energy sources and described why our continued reliance on fossil fuels has a wide variety of negative environmental consequences beyond contributing to climate change.  While wind, solar and other renewable sources have the potential to meet a higher percentage of our energy needs, they are not likely to completely fill the gap that would be created by completely abandoning the burning of fossil fuels. My post concluded with a brief discussion of nuclear fusion as a potential fuel for our future energy needs.

Fusion holds the promise of an energy source that does not release CO₂ or other greenhouse gases and generates very little waste.  It would use cheap, abundant seawater as its fuel.  It wouldn’t carry the risks of nuclear fission that led to the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  Of course, after 60 years of trying, scientists have not yet solved the mystery of a controlled fusion reaction that could be used as a source of power generation. 

However, in February 2014 scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California reported that they had achieved a milestone of sorts in the quest to obtain a controlled fusion reaction.  Their experiment resulted in more energy being generated from the fuel core than the amount of energy that went into it.  A Washington Post article by Joel Achenbach described the breakthrough.  In his article, Achenbach quoted a scientist from the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as saying, “In 30 years, we’ll have electricity on the grid produced by fusion energy – absolutely.”  Achenbach pointed out that one of the short-term problems of achieving further progress is lack of funds.  Congress appropriated only $500 million for scientific research into fusion in the federal budget for 2014.  He also quoted a New Jersey Congressman as lamenting the fact that the U.S. is losing leadership in fusion energy research to Europe, Japan, South Korea and China.  One wonders, however, why this has to be a competition.  Wouldn’t breakthroughs in fusion research benefit every country on earth?  This would seem to be an area where nations could pool their resources if it could mean achieving success more rapidly.

So if fusion is 30 years away or more, are there any other glimmers of hope out there that hold the promise of cheap, non-polluting energy?  Perhaps you remember something about “cold fusion” being achieved many years ago.  Way back in 1989, scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reported achieving a fusion reaction.  They claimed to achieve it not at intensely high temperatures like those on the sun, but at normal room temperatures.  The early excitement of their discovery soon faded as other scientists were unable to replicate the results.  Also, the science of what happened in the reaction was murky.  Within a few weeks of the Pons/Fleischmann announcement, their discovery was described as “junk science,” and cold fusion as a concept was declared dead by no less an authority than the New York Times.

Despite the storm of criticism, research continued on cold fusion, or as it was renamed “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” or “LENR.”  Twenty years after it had been declared dead, CBS News in an April 2009 report on its 60 Minutes program declared that “Cold Fusion Is Hot Again.”  CBS reported on work being done by Michael McKubre at SRI International, which is an independent, nonprofit research institure.  McKubre’s work seemed to confirm that whatever one calls the reaction, it was producing more energy than it was using.  CBS hired a renowned physicist, Robert Duncan, who was (and still is) Vice Chancellor of Research at the University of Missouri.  CBS News asked him to evaluate the results of experiments at Energetics Technologies – a laboratory in Israel that had reported the largest gains in energy as a result of LENR.  After studying their methodology and reviewing their results, Duncan concluded that “the excess heat was quite real.”

More recently, a January 2014 article by David Hambling in the UK edition of Wired magazine concluded that “LENR is fringe science, but continues to progress stealthily into the mainstream.”  According to the article, much of the current work on LENR is being done in the business world rather than by the government.  Italian inventor Andrea Rossi developed a LENR reactor he calls an Energy Catalyzer or E-Cat.  Derided as a hoax by some, it was reported in May 2013 that the E-Cat’s production of energy was verified by a panel of independent scientists.  Yet plenty of skeptics remain. 

Hambling’s Wired article also mentioned that the U.S. Department of Energy recently announced that it was providing some funding for LENR projects, so at least the U.S. government gives some credence to this technology.  Its advocates claim that commercialization of LENR as an energy source is a lot closer than it is for hot fusion. 

As non-scientists, there’s not much any of us can do to hasten the development of a clean energy source to take the place of fossil fuels.  Perhaps the best we can do is encourage efforts in the most promising technologies by asking our representatives in Congress to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and to start subsidizing energy sources that can meet our needs without poisoning our environment and contributing to global warming.  Beyond that, all we can do is continue to hope for a near term breakthrough in one of these technologies that would permit us to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels.

Ball of Con Fusion – Part 1

So round 'n' round 'n' round we go
Where the world's headed, nobody knows
Just a Ball of Confusion
Oh yea, that's what the world is today.

Those lyrics from the Temptations' 1970 hit Ball of Confusion[1] could easily describe our collective perceptions today about energy use and its impact on the environment.  In this and my next post, I will attempt to untangle the ball of confusion that keeps us tied to the use of fossil fuels to meet America's energy needs.  Burning fossil fuels to heat our homes, propel our cars and power our factories releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  Most scientists agree that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels and that buildup is causing global warming and other changes in climate. 

Despite the consensus among scientists, climate change skeptics abound, particularly in the United States.  According to a Pew Research Center poll taken in October of 2013, only 25% of self-proclaimed Tea Party Republicans believe there is solid evidence of global warming.  In fact, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “Drill, Baby, drill,” was used as a campaign slogan by the Republican Party.  The Republicans continue to strongly advocate continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels to meet our nation’s energy needs.  Not surprisingly, Republican candidates are overwhelming favored over Democrats in terms of being the recipients of campaign contributions from the fossil fuels lobby.  

But even if you don't believe that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change, it is hard to ignore the other environmental impacts associated with their use. From mining to processing to burning, coal’s negative impact on the environment is well known.  Strip mining and mountain top removal have left ugly scars throughout coal country, and acid mine drainage contributes pollution to streams and rivers daily.  In addition, burning coal contributes a lot more than carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.  The laundry list of pollutants emitted from coal burning power plants includes sulfur dioxide (linked to acid rain), nitrous oxides, various particulates and a veritable cornucopia of hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, arsenic and lead.  Power plants have constructed air pollution control devices to remove many of these pollutants, but then they end up in coal ash and other solid wastes that must be disposed of. Oh, and did I mention the human toll?  Over 100,000 lives have been lost as a result of coal mining during the past century, not to mention the thousands afflicted with Black Lung Disease from years of working in coal mines.  

Oil production likewise results in plenty of pollution besides carbon dioxide emissions.  The damage from major oil spills including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon and the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill has been well documented.  Refining crude oil into its component products also results in air and water pollution.  While a portion of petroleum products are converted into petrochemicals, approximately 80% is manufactured into products that will be burned as fuel.  Most of that will end up as gasoline to fuel motor vehicles.  Motor vehicles contribute carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and smog-inducing volatile organic compounds to the air along with tons of carbon dioxide. 

What about natural gas?  It’s been touted as a transition fuel – as a less polluting substitute for burning coal to produce electricity.  It is true that burning natural gas releases carbon dioxide and little else to the atmosphere.  The CO₂ emitted from burning natural gas is about half the amount emitted from burning coal.  However, a recent study conducted by Stanford University, MIT and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that methane leaks associated with its production and transportation may be negating any environmental benefits obtained by switching from oil and coal to natural gas.  This is because methane, the chief component of natural gas, has 30 times the heat trapping potential of CO₂.  Also, much of the natural gas today is being extracted from deep shale formations using the controversial method of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking."  Opponents of fracking cite instances of methane migration into groundwater supplies and express concerns about what happens to the hazardous chemicals injected into the ground during the fracking process.  They see these and other negative environmental impacts as reasons to ban this relatively new method or to at least argue for a moratorium on its use until fracking's  risks are better understood.

Overall, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas accounts for 67% of the energy currently produced in the U.S.  Only about 12% of America's energy needs are met by using renewable sources such as wind, water, solar and biomass.  Another 19% is produced using nuclear power.  

So what about nukes?  They are powered by nuclear fission – the splitting of atoms from radioactive material.  It is true that nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases, but increasing their use to generate our power carries its own set of risks.  Since being put into commercial use, there have been at least three well publicized disasters involving nuclear power plants – Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).  In addition to those major accidents, there have been many smaller instances of things going wrong at nuclear plants around the world.

 

So can renewables meet the future energy needs in the United States?  Some would say it’s possible.  As an example, nearly half of Sweden's  power needs are being met with energy generated from renewable sources.  Various legislative actions, including a carbon tax, have driven down that nation’s reliance on fossil fuels; currently only about 30% of Sweden’s energy is derived from burning them.  But the U.S. is a bit different than Sweden. It has over 300 million more people and a much larger area. 

So if renewables are not the complete answer, is there a power source that can take the dominant place of fossil fuels in the U.S.?  For decades scientists have held out the promise of nuclear fusion as a cheap, non-polluting source to power our electric generating plants.  Rather than splitting atoms, fusion releases heat and energy by combining them.  Our sun and the stars are powered by the fusion of hydrogen atoms under intense heat and pressure which creates helium as a by-product.  The hydrogen to power fusion on earth could be obtained from cheap, abundant seawater.  Unlike fossil fuels, fusion produces no greenhouse gases or other atmospheric pollutants.  And unlike current nuclear plants that rely on fission, fusion does not produce large amounts of dangerous radioactive wastes that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.

Fusion indirectly provides power to us when we utilize solar panels to generate electricity.  It also indirectly supplies power via the prehistoric vegetation that was formed into the fossil fuels we extract and burn today.  Man has learned to use fusion to release massive amounts of power for destructive purposes.  Thermonuclear weapons like the hydrogen bomb use fusion triggered by a smaller fission-based nuclear explosion to create a destructive force 1,000 times more powerful than atomic (fission) bombs.  However, the creation of a sustained fusion reaction to meet peacetime energy needs has been a bit more difficult to achieve. 

Nevertheless, there has been some recent, significant progress toward the use of fusion as an energy source.  In my next post I will take a look at that progress and discuss whether the problems created by burning fossil fuels to supply energy over the past 200 years might be solved by using nuclear fusion over the next 200 years. 

---

[1] Written by Norman Whitfield & Barrett Strong

Add Some Music to Your Day

As promised in my first post of this year, this second is about what I hope to accomplish in 2014.  Of course, six weeks into the year, it is way overdue.  But to coin a well-used phrase, “better late than never.”  So here are my hopes for 2014.

1. Music – I played drums in a rock band when I was in college, but these days my drum set is packed in cases in the basement.  A number of years ago, I decided to learn to play the guitar.  During 2013, I barely touched my guitar.  When I was contemplating retirement, I bought a banjo.  My banjo sits in its case collecting dust.  The title of this post is taken from one of my favorite tunes from the Beach Boys’ 1970 Sunflower album.  To quote a line from that song, “Music is in my soul.”  Music has always been an important part of my life.  This year, I plan to add some music to my day as often as I can. 
2. Outside Interests – The thought of spending more time outside is not particularly attractive in the midst of the harshest winter in twenty years.  But I am looking forward to more outdoor activities in 2014.  I enjoy taking walks and love to bicycle, both of which I spent some time doing last year.  But I would like to make the most of the current season and learn once again how to cross country ski.  I’ve done a little cross country in the past and really enjoyed it.  I’d like to find a place nearby that rents cross country ski equipment and spend some time getting back into it.  I also would like to do some fishing this year.  When I was an Indian Princess Dad, I had fun fishing with my daughter.  I would like to start fishing again this year and learn how to clean the fish if I’m skillful or lucky enough to catch some.
3. Writing – I had business cards printed last year to identify myself as a “Writer/Blogger/Editor.”  Though I continue to maintain active status as a lawyer, I really don’t identify as one anymore.  I am a writer and that should be my primary activity.  I need to write to entertain, to challenge, and to change the world.  I have a folder full of ideas that I never found time to open in 2013.  I want to try to publish my children’s story, “Anna Breaks a Stick.”  I want to write more op-ed pieces and offer them for publication.  I plan to take an intensive writing course in 2014.  By the end of the year, I hope people can begin to think of me as a writer rather than as a retired lawyer.  For that to happen, I need to find more time to write.
4. Hobbies – Many years ago I enjoyed several hobbies that involved making things.  I made beer, wine and did a little bit of simple carpentry.  I’d like to find the time to take up those hobbies again.  I have about ten gallons of wine aging in my basement that needs to be bottled.  I have two cans of malt collecting dust that I need to make into four cases of beer.  I have several little woodworking projects sitting in a bin in my workshop.  I hope this is the year that I can make time to create something real and enjoyable from the work of my hands. 
5.  Estate Management – I am the lord of my manor.  With that title comes much responsibility.  Rooms need to be painted, plaster needs to be repaired, and artwork needs to be hung in the appropriate places.  In addition, floors need to be washed, grass needs to be mowed, and carpets must be swept.  Either I need to find time to exercise these responsibilities with my own hands or hire contractors to do the work.  Otherwise, the castle will start to fall down around my head.  Where are the servants when you need them?
6.  Reading – I love to read.  Last year, I read fifteen books.  Every writer needs to be a voracious reader.  I am currently reading my third book of 2014 and plan to match or exceed last year’s count.
7.  More of the Same – Finally, I looked over my list of 2013 accomplishments and realized that I will continue to do most of that stuff during 2014 as well.  So where will I find the time to do everything else?  Taking a page from the corporate playbook that I studied for those many years as a corporate lawyer, I know the answer is not to work harder, but to work smarter, right?  Yeah, right. 

So how much of what’s on my list will actually happen in 2014?  Ultimately, that will depend on me.  Each day choices confront me.  I can choose to watch reality TV or I can read a book.  I can practice my guitar, or I can spend that hour checking Facebook.  Like most people, I won’t always make the best choice, but at least by setting down my hopes for the year, I have created some guideposts to remind me how I’d like to be spending my time.  And at my age, time becomes more and more precious.  I can’t count on being able to publish a story in five years, because I know many people in their early sixties don’t make it to their late sixties.  So a year from now, I will measure how I did – how I used this precious commodity – and I will consider whether I added enough music to my day.