Archive for December, 2018

Christmas Bubbles

December 23, 2018
Champagne Time Lapse

A time-lapse photograph of a glass of fizzy wine.

Recently I encountered the fantastic:

Effervescence in champagne and sparkling wines:
From grape harvest to bubble rise

This is a 115-page review article by Gérard Liger-Belair about bubbles in Champagne, my most favourite type of carbon dioxide emission.

Until January 30th 2019 it is freely downloadable using this link

Since the bubbles in champagne arguably add £10 to the price of a bottle of wine, I guess it is worth understanding exactly how that value is added.

I found GLB’s paper fascinating with a delightful attention to detail. From amongst the arcane studies in the paper, here are three things I learned.

Thing 1: Amount of Gas

Champagne (and Prosecco and Cava) have about 9 grams of carbon dioxide in each 750 ml bottle [1].

Since the molar mass of carbon dioxide is 44 g, each bottle contains approximately 9/44 ~ 0.2 moles of carbon dioxide.

If released as gas at atmospheric pressure and 10 °C, it would have a volume of approximately 4.75 litres – more than six times the volume of the bottle!

This large volume of gas is said to be “dissolved” in the wine. The molecules can only leave when, by chance, they encounter the free surface of the wine.

Because the free-surface area of wine in a wine glass is usually larger than the combined surface area of bubbles, about 80% of the de-gassing happens through the liquid surface [2].

Thing 2: Bubble Size and Speed 

But fizzy wine is call “fizzy” because of the bubbles that seem to ceaselessly form on the inner surface of the glass.

Sadly, in a perfectly clean glass, such as one which has repeatedly been through a dishwasher, very few bubbles will form [3].

But if there are tiny cracks in the glass, or small specks of dust from, for example, a drying cloth, then these can trap tiny air bubbles and provide free-surfaces at which carbon dioxide can leave the liquid.

At first a bubble is just tens of nanometres in size, but it grows at a rate which depends upon the rate at which carbon dioxide enters the bubble.

As the bubble grows, its surface area increases allowing the rate at which carbon dioxide enters the bubble to increase.

Eventually the buoyancy of the bubble causes it to detach from its so-called ‘nucleation site’ (birthplace) and rise through the liquid.  This typically happens when bubbles are between 0.01 and 0.1 mm in diameter.

To such tiny bubbles, the wine is highly viscous, and at first the bubbles rise slowly. But as more carbon dioxide enters the bubble, the bubble grows [4] and its speed of rise increases. The rising speed is close to the so-called ‘Stokes’ terminal velocity. [5]

So when you look at a stream of bubbles you will see that at the bottom, the bubbles are small and close together and relatively slow-moving. As they rise through the glass, they grow, and their speed increases.

If you can bear to leave your glass undrunk for long enough, you should be able to see the rate of bubble formation slow as the carbon dioxide concentration falls.

This will be visible as an increase in the spacing of bubbles near the nucleation site of a rising ‘bubble train’.

Thing 3: Number of bubbles

Idle speculation often accompanies the consumption of fizzy wine.

And one common topic of speculation is the number of bubbles which can be formed in a gas of champagne [6]. We can now add to that speculation.

If a bubble has a typically diameter of approximately 1 mm as it reaches the surface, then each bubble will have a volume of approximately 0.5 cubic millimetres, or 0.000 5 millilitres.

So the 4.75 litres of carbon dioxide in a bottle could potentially form 4750/0.0005 = 9.5 million bubbles per bottle!

If a bottle is used for seven standard servings then there are potentially 1.3 million bubbles per glass.

In fact the number is generally smaller than this because as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the liquid falls, the rate of bubble formation falls also. And below approximately 4 grams of carbon dioxide per litre of wine, bubbles cease to form [7].

Thing 4: BONUS THING! Cork Speed

When the bottle is sealed there is a high pressure of carbon dioxide in the space above the wine. The pressure depends strongly on temperature [8], rising from approximately 5 atmospheres (500 kPa) if the bottle is opened at 10 °C to approximately 10 atmospheres (1 MPa) if the bottle is opened at 25 °C.

GLB uses high-speed photography to measure the velocity of exiting cork, and gets results which vary from around 10 metres second for a bottle at 4 °C to 14 metres per second for a bottle at 18 °C. [9]

I made my own measurements using my iPhone (see below) and the cork seems to move roughly 5 ± 2 cm in the 1/240th of a second between frames. So my estimate of the speed is about 12 ± 5 metres second, roughly in line GLB’s estimates

Why this matters

When we look at absolutely any phenomenon, there is a perspective from which that phenomenon – no matter how mundane or familiar – can appear profound and fascinating.

This paper has opened my eyes, and I will never look at a glass of Champagne again in quite the same way.

Wishing you happy experimentation over the Christmas break.

Santé!

References

[1] Page 8 Paragraph 2

[2] Page 85 Section 6.3

[3] Page 42 Section 5.2

[4] Page 78 Figure 59

[5] Page 77 Figure 58

[6] Page 84 Section 6.3 & Figure 66

[7] Page 64

[8] Page 10 Figure 3

[9] Page 24 Figure 16

What can we learn from The American President?

December 12, 2018

The American President

I love the American President. It’s a weakness of mine of which I am not proud. No. Not that one: the film.

The American President was an Oscar-nominated film made in 1995 starring Michael Douglas as the eponymous hero and Annette Bening as a lobbyist who comes to Washington to campaign for a 20% cut in US greenhouse gas emissions.

The film is unremarkable in many ways. But the fact that cutting greenhouse gas emissions was a mainstream idea 25 years ago (albeit in a light-hearted romantic comedy-drama) puts into perspective just how slowly political reality has changed.

Constant

During the period from the fictional 1995 American President to the present 2018 incumbent, one thing has remain constant: the science.

Since 1981, when James Hansen and colleagues wrote a landmark paper in Science, the complexity of our models of the Earth’s climate has increased dramatically.

And our understanding of the way our Climate System works has improved, increasing our confidence in future projections.

But the core science has barely changed. Indeed, it hasn’t changed that much since Svante Arrhenius’ insight back in 1896.

Climate Change: My part in its downfall

I have been speaking and writing about Climate Change since 2004 or so. I think I have spoken to a few thousand people directly, and I guess each web article has been read a few hundred times. So perhaps I have helped a little to ‘raise consciousness’.

But regular readers will have noticed that recently I haven’t written about Climate Change as often as I used to. The reason is that I am lost for words.

Back in 2004, (9 years the American President) I thought there was a genuine public education requirement. But now, I don’t believe any rational human on Earth seriously doubts the reality of Climate Change or its causes.

[But just in case: if there is a rational human out there who doubts the reality of Climate Change, please drop me a line: I am happy to discuss any questions you have.]

Political Science

I still believe that despite The American President (yes that one, not the film) and his supporters, humanity will act collectively and decisively on Climate Change. Eventually.

I expect this because ultimately I think we will collectively understand that the alternative is in nobody’s best interest.

The ‘Natural Sciences’ have identified the existence of Climate Change, worked out its causes, laid out clear paths for how to combat it, and estimated the consequences of inaction.

But the path to action involves what Charles Lane writing the Washington Post has called ‘Political Science’. He identified the impasse as arising from the fact that we are asking the rich world (us) to pay now to solve a problem which will (mainly) occur in the future.

  • If the spending is effective, then the worst aspects of Climate Change will be abated and that expenditure may then appear to be a waste – the disaster was averted!
  • But if it the spending is ineffective, then the worst aspects of Climate Change will be experienced anyway!

This (and many other difficulties) are real and they are readily exploited by people who are acting – frankly – in bad faith.

So I expect we will act, but too late to avoid bad consequences for communities world-wide. And the political path we will take to action is not at all clear to me.

Reasons to be hopeful

But there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful. Renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels are now feasible in a large and growing number of sectors. And once the transition begins, I think it will move quickly.

The speed with which coal has been (and is is continuing to be) phased out in the UK has shocked and surprised me. You can check current grid generating mix at Gridwatch.

The chart below shows the last 12 months of generation on top and the previous 12 months below that. You can see that coal use has almost disappeared in summer and is now only used on the coldest darkest days.

This year UK Yearly generating mix

UK Yearly generating mix

UK Electricity Generating Mix for the last 12 months. Notice that coal generation – in black – is only significant for a few months of the year, and has declined this year (top) compared with last year (bottom)

Science is our greatest cause for hope.

Imagine if we were observing changes in climate and had no idea what was happening? We would be doomed to confusion and inaction. This has been the situation in which humanity has existed since the dawn of time.

But now, our collective scientific understanding  has allowed us quantify Climate Change, to discover its root cause, and to identify the practical steps we can take minimise the harm.

Humanity has never been in this position before. We have never previously known in advance the hand which nature will deal us.

So I see our inability to act collectively – as exemplified by the slowness of progress in the 23 years since the debut of the celluloid American President – as a temporary state.

I take hope from the fact that we when the political reality permits, science will guide us to the best available solution in the circumstances.

I just wish I could figure out what I can do to make that happen faster.

Links

On this site:

On Variable Variability

On IPCC web site

Refrigerators: Part#1

December 2, 2018

A month ago our refrigerator stopped working. A repair didn’t seem possible, so we headed to the shops to search for something as similar as possible to what we had just lost.

Thankfully, the snappily-named Bosch KGN33NW3AG fridge-freezer has proved to be entirely adequate.

Of course a new refrigerator requires testing (obviously) and an assessment of how close to specification it is performing. So…

How much energy should a fridge use?

Fridge Freezer Pictures

I made a ‘guess-timate’ by estimating the rate at which heat which would flow into the fridge. My thought was that this should be similar to rate at which the fridge would use energy.

[Aside: the actual calculation is tricky, but I’ll come back to it in a later post]

To estimate the heat flow into the fridge I measured the size of fridge and freezer compartments and the thickness of the insulation.

Then I calculated the area of each compartment that faced the room which I assumed to be at a nominal 20 °C.

Heat will constantly flow from the room, through the insulation, into the cold compartments and a simple rule (called Fourier’s Law) allows me to calculate the rate at which energy flows (watts).

I assumed that a perfect ‘heat pump’ – the scientific name for a refrigerator – would pump all this heat back out again, but would (unrealistically) not require any energy to operate.

By multiplying the rate of energy flowing into the refrigerator (in watts) by an amount of time (in seconds) I could work out how much energy (in joules) even a perfect refrigerator of this size must use.

I could then convert the energy used (in joules) into kilowatt-hours – the charging unit used by electricity companies – by dividing by 3.6 million (the product of 3600 seconds in an hour and 1000 watts in a kilowatt).

My calculations indicated that heat flows would be:

  • About 16.4 W into the refrigerator, amounting to around 144 kW-h over a year.
  • About 14.8 W into the freezer, amount to around 130 kW-h over a year.

So if the device were perfect, I calculated it would use 274 kW-h per year.

EU Label

The specification for the fridge says that it will use 290 kW-h per year, just 6% more energy than I estimated a perfect fridge would use. This indicates a fridge performing surprisingly well.

I assume that Bosch’s estimated consumption is realistic. So how wrong could my estimate be?

Well I assumed that the thermal insulation around the fridge had a thermal conductivity of 0.03 W/K/m – just three time greater than that of still air. This is exceptionally good insulation. But my estimate could easily be wrong by 10% or so if improved insulation had been used.

Opening the door.

Many people think that opening the door of the fridge will affect its energy consumption, but my calculations indicate that it is not really a very big problem.

I assumed that at worst, opening the door could replaces all the air in the fridge with room temperature air. If this were the case then:

  • opening the fridge door 10 times a day every day would use an additional 3.7 kW-h of energy per year which is just over 1% of the annual expected usage.
  • opening the freezer door once a day would use an additional 0.4 kW-h of energy per year which is much less than 1% of the annual consumption.

So my calculations indicate that as long as door is not left open for many minutes at time, perhaps by careless children tired of their parents nagging, then it will have relatively little effect on the energy consumption of the fridge.

Data

I logged data at four locations in the fridge/freezer over a day or so last weekend.

The figure below shows a composite view of the data from the top of the fridge and the freezer over a period from 7 p.m. on Saturday to 4:30 p.m. on Sunday.

Composite Data

I’ll analyse this data more in the next article, but here I will just note that the data show:

  • The basic cycle of the heat pump which switches on around once every 45 minutes.
  • The more rapid cycling of the air within the fridge – every 10 minutes or so.
  • The effect of leaving the door open.

It is pretty clear that when my son and his friend arrived home at approximately 5 a.m. on Sunday morning (!) they contrived to leave the door open for the best part of an hour!

Composite Data Close up

I thought this was impressive detective work on my part and it could well be the start of a new mode of behaviour analysis: Forensic Thermometry.

Perhaps I should propose °CSI Teddington. 😉

Anyway. More on the temperature and humidity data in the next article.


%d bloggers like this: