[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="The match-cut from '2001: A Space Odyssey' spanning four million years: we're somewhere in between and wondering."]
Showing posts with label Nuclear power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear power. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 December 2011
The non-option of going back in time
The recent, and ongoing, debates on the merits of nuclear power, and whether we need it at all of it's just a motivated laziness in looking for alternate sources of energy (ASEs), has prompted me to evaluate the necessity of technology in life as we know it. In fact, to take the discussion further, I want to know if life as we know it is just an epochal assessment or if life as we know it has become a template for future generations to base their functions on.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="The match-cut from '2001: A Space Odyssey' spanning four million years: we're somewhere in between and wondering."]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="The match-cut from '2001: A Space Odyssey' spanning four million years: we're somewhere in between and wondering."]
The penetration of technology is indubitable and has, in many ways, become irredeemable. While many suggest that owing to the amount of environmental degradation the time has come for us to slow down, reevaluate our needs and, if possible, turn back from here to a time when life seemed more sustainable, I believe that in the 20th century, we definitely hit a point of no return. There's no turning back from here. That means we no longer do technology any justice by referring to it as something that has penetrated into our lives, we do it no justice by referring to it as a tool. We ARE what technology is. Even if it wasn't nuclear power that merited this reflection, it would've been something else. Life as we know it, more than anything else, is not sustainable. It never was; it probably never will be.
Probably.
If we rewinded to a time before the internet, before the computer and the transistors, before engines and hydraulics and electromagnetism, before astronomy, geology, meteorology, exploration and trade, before literature, production and communication, we arrive at a point where there was nothing behind us, a point of "zero history". It is when we move back to this point that we truly see where some of us aspire to return to. There was nothing before us to aid us in our future quests except the human body, the then-indecipherable forces of nature, and the human mind: a vast reserve of questions, extremely limited resources, and a helluva lot of time.
[/caption]
When we started asking those questions, when we started to explore farther into the fog of war, we hit the future. Since then, we haven't turned back because there was nothing to go back to. Everything was an improvement, everything that contributed something to the human condition and alleviated the pains of not-knowing. Do you think it would be better for us if we moved toward a tribal way of life? No way. Sure, we could make love to the environment and not be afraid of nature turning against us in unimaginable ways, but at some point, our basic instincts will take over. They always have, and they always will, too.
The tribes that we observe living in forests and valleys today seem to present a solution to us because we've hit a wall with our energy resources and don't know where to go to from that point on. But without us, without the restrictions and the hindrances we pose to the sustenance of their livelihood, tribes would've become quite something else by now. Even they would've evolved technologically, and invented their own methods of acquiring more knowledge and using it to their benefit. They live in a controlled environment, fighting to remain what they've remained as for the past six millennia. If we all retrogressed to that stage, we'd have gone back a few thousand years back in time, but we'd begin again.
The reason we look to such "reduced" ways of life—reduced by the various techniques at our disposal today—is because we are panicking. We are finally realizing that we, as humans, are unsustainable, and we're ready to take desperate measures to assuage that thought. We are looking at what is not us and joining the dots to give absolute freedom and sustainability. However, in effect, we are bound to give ourselves only the curse of changelessness. All that we have done as humans, all that we have explored and reared and produced, will then lie as waste. Let me tell you, it is easy to join the dots, but that doesn't mean the image will then come to life. There is a lot that we're missing out, perhaps because we're taking them for granted.
Yes, our energy needs are growing. For six thousand years, we've been asking questions and answering them, and this is the point we've come to. I'm not advocating that in that pursuit, we lay to waste all that crosses our paths; no. I'm only saying the answer to our energy needs isn't regression, isn't the reevaluation of everything that came before us. If anything, the notion of future has made us understand that anything is possible, and if something doesn't seem to work out, then we haven't looked hard enough. Simply because our options are significantly unviable ASEs, nuclear energy, thermal power plants and regression doesn't mean we pick regression: we pick what will sustain us in the short-run so that it can power the ideas that will be necessary for the long-run. If we're working to prolong something that wasn't born with the universe, we will take a hit. Let's last it out, not back down. There's a difference.
Friday, 4 November 2011
The nuclear energy issue
I'm the worst environmentalist around. I can perfectly understand the science of it but, beyond that, I find things to be uncharacteristically slippery. One of the causes I attribute this disorientation to is that environmentalism today has assumed a mostly reactionary nature. I agree that it is completely justified: if we don't work against the ruthless developers today, we won't have greenery to appreciate tomorrow. But I'm not passing judgment, I'm only observing that it has become purely reactionary and that is something I can't tackle very well.
In this context, when some scientist who used to work for the Atomic Energy Commission speaks up that India doesn't really need nuclear power but could make do with solar power, the suggestion itself becomes appropriated as defense against the government's push to establish an NPP in Koodankulam. The principles behind the suggestion, however, are left for the scientists and engineers to deliberate upon. Although the government will consider the advantages and disadvantages of such an installation, the most relevant question is whether such solar farms can withstand the growing energy requirements.
Such a consideration is important because it characterizes an attitude. The ongoing protest at Koodankulam by its inhabitants is completely justified because it will impact their livelihoods. When a firebrand environmentalist jumps in, however, and calls for solar farms to be installed instead, he is not making a good case for himself; what he should've called for instead is that the government reexamine its development policies. He should've protested against the government's attempts to maintain a "sustainable" growth rate by effecting drastic projects instead of providing alternate solutions that will only continue to sustain such unreasonable expansion. And for as long as reactionary environmentalists campaign against a particular thing, they will not have campaigned for the right reasons.
(What are the right reasons? Against crazy growth rates? How is a crazy growth rate defined when there is no notion of a fixed quota? Where do we draw the line? I'll save that for another day and another post.)
On a final note: why the Indian government insists on installing an NPP along the coast is beyond me. Many of the lessons of Fukushima have been learnt too literally by other countries - the safeguards that were missing there aren't missing everywhere else - but what a natural disaster did was shift the focus away from having a copious source of radiation established along the seashore. At the least, the government could have assuaged opposition from such quarters by planning for the NPP to be installed further inland.
In this context, when some scientist who used to work for the Atomic Energy Commission speaks up that India doesn't really need nuclear power but could make do with solar power, the suggestion itself becomes appropriated as defense against the government's push to establish an NPP in Koodankulam. The principles behind the suggestion, however, are left for the scientists and engineers to deliberate upon. Although the government will consider the advantages and disadvantages of such an installation, the most relevant question is whether such solar farms can withstand the growing energy requirements.
- Given Tamil Nadu's energy needs and the cost of producing 1 watt of energy from 1 solar cell, the investment will have to be somewhere close to Rs. 17,000 crores (and this excludes all of the costs to follow). However, in order to produce 2 gigawatt of energy in a continuous manner, high-efficiency solar cells will have to be used, with said number hovering somewhere around 40%. This, in turn, places a great stress on the cadmium, mercury and sulfuric acid industries, which are essential components of a solar farm.
- Given the intermittent nature of solar electricity generation, batteries will have to be integrated with the farming grid in order store energy for later use, and as all engineers are aware, there is a conversion from electrical to chemical energy that occurs with a loss of close to 12%.
- In each photovoltaic cell, during operation, a photon with a frequency in the visible spectrum of Em radiation knocks out an electron from the valence band to the conduction band, generating a small potential difference that gives rise to a current. The problem is that a single good cell creates only 1.5 volts across its electrodes.
- Solar cells produce only direct current (DC), which cannot be used for powering appliances before it has been converted to alternating current (AC). Such additions add significantly to the cost of installing a solar farm; at this juncture, being aware of the "money is not a problem" train of thought...
- Solar electricity is "understood" by policy-makers in terms of its feasibility and grid parity. Feasibility takes into account the amount of solar energy an area receives across the span of one year and, at the given efficiencies, if the solar cells will produce enough energy to achieve parity. Subsequently, grid parity is a determination of whether the cost of electricity generated by other means is less than the cost of electricity generated via solar cells. With twenty-two nuclear power plants in various stages of operation in India, grid parity cannot be hit without installing solar farms that generate tens of gigawatts of energy. Now, return to point #1.
Such a consideration is important because it characterizes an attitude. The ongoing protest at Koodankulam by its inhabitants is completely justified because it will impact their livelihoods. When a firebrand environmentalist jumps in, however, and calls for solar farms to be installed instead, he is not making a good case for himself; what he should've called for instead is that the government reexamine its development policies. He should've protested against the government's attempts to maintain a "sustainable" growth rate by effecting drastic projects instead of providing alternate solutions that will only continue to sustain such unreasonable expansion. And for as long as reactionary environmentalists campaign against a particular thing, they will not have campaigned for the right reasons.
(What are the right reasons? Against crazy growth rates? How is a crazy growth rate defined when there is no notion of a fixed quota? Where do we draw the line? I'll save that for another day and another post.)
On a final note: why the Indian government insists on installing an NPP along the coast is beyond me. Many of the lessons of Fukushima have been learnt too literally by other countries - the safeguards that were missing there aren't missing everywhere else - but what a natural disaster did was shift the focus away from having a copious source of radiation established along the seashore. At the least, the government could have assuaged opposition from such quarters by planning for the NPP to be installed further inland.
The nuclear energy issue
I'm the worst environmentalist around. I can perfectly understand the science of it but, beyond that, I find things to be uncharacteristically slippery. One of the causes I attribute this disorientation to is that environmentalism today has assumed a mostly reactionary nature. I agree that it is completely justified: if we don't work against the ruthless developers today, we won't have greenery to appreciate tomorrow. But I'm not passing judgment, I'm only observing that it has become purely reactionary and that is something I can't tackle very well.
In this context, when some scientist who used to work for the Atomic Energy Commission speaks up that India doesn't really need nuclear power but could make do with solar power, the suggestion itself becomes appropriated as defense against the government's push to establish an NPP in Koodankulam. The principles behind the suggestion, however, are left for the scientists and engineers to deliberate upon. Although the government will consider the advantages and disadvantages of such an installation, the most relevant question is whether such solar farms can withstand the growing energy requirements.
Such a consideration is important because it characterizes an attitude. The ongoing protest at Koodankulam by its inhabitants is completely justified because it will impact their livelihoods. When a firebrand environmentalist jumps in, however, and calls for solar farms to be installed instead, he is not making a good case for himself; what he should've called for instead is that the government reexamine its development policies. He should've protested against the government's attempts to maintain a "sustainable" growth rate by effecting drastic projects instead of providing alternate solutions that will only continue to sustain such unreasonable expansion. And for as long as reactionary environmentalists campaign against a particular thing, they will not have campaigned for the right reasons.
(What are the right reasons? Against crazy growth rates? How is a crazy growth rate defined when there is no notion of a fixed quota? Where do we draw the line? I'll save that for another day and another post.)
On a final note: why the Indian government insists on installing an NPP along the coast is beyond me. Many of the lessons of Fukushima have been learnt too literally by other countries - the safeguards that were missing there aren't missing everywhere else - but what a natural disaster did was shift the focus away from having a copious source of radiation established along the seashore. At the least, the government could have assuaged opposition from such quarters by planning for the NPP to be installed further inland.
In this context, when some scientist who used to work for the Atomic Energy Commission speaks up that India doesn't really need nuclear power but could make do with solar power, the suggestion itself becomes appropriated as defense against the government's push to establish an NPP in Koodankulam. The principles behind the suggestion, however, are left for the scientists and engineers to deliberate upon. Although the government will consider the advantages and disadvantages of such an installation, the most relevant question is whether such solar farms can withstand the growing energy requirements.
- Given Tamil Nadu's energy needs and the cost of producing 1 watt of energy from 1 solar cell, the investment will have to be somewhere close to Rs. 17,000 crores (and this excludes all of the costs to follow). However, in order to produce 2 gigawatt of energy in a continuous manner, high-efficiency solar cells will have to be used, with said number hovering somewhere around 40%. This, in turn, places a great stress on the cadmium, mercury and sulfuric acid industries, which are essential components of a solar farm.
- Given the intermittent nature of solar electricity generation, batteries will have to be integrated with the farming grid in order store energy for later use, and as all engineers are aware, there is a conversion from electrical to chemical energy that occurs with a loss of close to 12%.
- In each photovoltaic cell, during operation, a photon with a frequency in the visible spectrum of Em radiation knocks out an electron from the valence band to the conduction band, generating a small potential difference that gives rise to a current. The problem is that a single good cell creates only 1.5 volts across its electrodes.
- Solar cells produce only direct current (DC), which cannot be used for powering appliances before it has been converted to alternating current (AC). Such additions add significantly to the cost of installing a solar farm; at this juncture, being aware of the "money is not a problem" train of thought...
- Solar electricity is "understood" by policy-makers in terms of its feasibility and grid parity. Feasibility takes into account the amount of solar energy an area receives across the span of one year and, at the given efficiencies, if the solar cells will produce enough energy to achieve parity. Subsequently, grid parity is a determination of whether the cost of electricity generated by other means is less than the cost of electricity generated via solar cells. With twenty-two nuclear power plants in various stages of operation in India, grid parity cannot be hit without installing solar farms that generate tens of gigawatts of energy. Now, return to point #1.
Such a consideration is important because it characterizes an attitude. The ongoing protest at Koodankulam by its inhabitants is completely justified because it will impact their livelihoods. When a firebrand environmentalist jumps in, however, and calls for solar farms to be installed instead, he is not making a good case for himself; what he should've called for instead is that the government reexamine its development policies. He should've protested against the government's attempts to maintain a "sustainable" growth rate by effecting drastic projects instead of providing alternate solutions that will only continue to sustain such unreasonable expansion. And for as long as reactionary environmentalists campaign against a particular thing, they will not have campaigned for the right reasons.
(What are the right reasons? Against crazy growth rates? How is a crazy growth rate defined when there is no notion of a fixed quota? Where do we draw the line? I'll save that for another day and another post.)
On a final note: why the Indian government insists on installing an NPP along the coast is beyond me. Many of the lessons of Fukushima have been learnt too literally by other countries - the safeguards that were missing there aren't missing everywhere else - but what a natural disaster did was shift the focus away from having a copious source of radiation established along the seashore. At the least, the government could have assuaged opposition from such quarters by planning for the NPP to be installed further inland.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Notes On A Nuclear Blast
[caption id="attachment_779" align="aligncenter" width="295" caption="h - Height of the burst; d - Distance above ground zero to which peak overpressure extends"]
[/caption]
The height of burst and the distance from ground zero above which a peak overpressure extends is given as:
d.h1 = h.d1 = W^(1/3)
where W is the yield of the explosion, in kilotons.
‘d’ and ‘h’ are the distance and height for a 1 kT yield.
Given any two of the yield W, burst h overpressure p, or distance d, proceed as follows:
[caption id="attachment_780" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="h vs. d chart"]
[/caption]
For any other two parameters given, proceed in a similar way.
[/caption]The height of burst and the distance from ground zero above which a peak overpressure extends is given as:
d.h1 = h.d1 = W^(1/3)
where W is the yield of the explosion, in kilotons.
‘d’ and ‘h’ are the distance and height for a 1 kT yield.
Given any two of the yield W, burst h overpressure p, or distance d, proceed as follows:
[caption id="attachment_780" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="h vs. d chart"]
[/caption]- Calculate scaled height of burst: h1 = h.W^(-1/3)
- Given the scaled height h1 and the given overpressure p, calculate the distance d1 at which p is produced
- Convert scaled distance d1 to actual distance: d = d1.W^(1/3)
For any other two parameters given, proceed in a similar way.
"I've got a great ambition to die of exhaustion rather than boredom."
- Thomas Carlyle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)