How many things will pass for money? Investment and disinvestment are both aimed at regulating growth from one sector to another, but at higher benefit-to-cost ratios, such moves will fail.
Two important cases in point: cap-and-trade in reducing GHG emissions and levying a fee to pursue unauthorized constructions (in cities like Chennai).
The confounding factors are posterity and space: once consumed, the machine cannot be reversed unless there is more investment/sanctioning.
Showing posts with label investment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investment. Show all posts
Monday, 23 July 2012
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Some important calculations and comparisons
For the Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu, India, consider the following chart that shows the variation of irradiance against the time of year.
[caption id="attachment_20580" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Values courtesy Weather Underground (data from the US National Weather Service)"]
[/caption]
Considering the energy ratings of the major solar panel-manufacturers in the market, the average efficiency at which they perform (14%), and the average cell temperature on a particular day of the year (34 degrees Celsius), it can be estimated that to produce 169.1875 watts of energy, an initial investment of US $989,688.125 will have to be made against the installation of 1,000 panels, each measuring 1m to a side. Given that there are those who suggest solar energy be used instead of commissioning a nuclear power plant in the district, it should be noted that to make up for the deficit of 2 gigawatts, 11,821,205 panels will have to be installed covering a 11.82 sq. kilometer swath of land at a total cost of US $69,149,911,828.50 or Rs. 3 lakh 39 thousand crore. That is 26 times more than the cost of the two reactors coming up Koodankulam.
The amount of photovoltaic waste generated per one megawatt of peak power, as reported by a study conducted by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment (called the 'Development of the Take Back and Recovery System for Photovoltaic Products', 2007) being 6079.375 tonnes per year (distributed across the planet for the sake of consumption in India), the quantity of waste generated by the year 2020 will be 109,428,750 tonnes. The amount of radioactive nuclear waste generated in the same period in India stands between 3960 tonnes and 5940 tonnes.
Thus, the principle agent owing to which the focus of the media is greater on nuclear energy and lesser on other forms of energy production is radioactivity. If spent nuclear fuel wasn't radioactive, nuclear power plants would make a case for themselves considering they're much cheaper to install, maintain and produce much less waste. That is why it is important to know the processes involved in the manufacture of solar cells and the more-common health hazards posed by those processes: high-efficiency cells contain the mildly-toxic tellurium and indium, and the highly-toxic cadmium and sulfur. Of them, the last three are known to have teratogenic effects.
I'm not trying to build a case against renewable energy resources nor am I trying to build a case for nuclear energy. I'm only making known what the majority do not already see, may not wish to see or simply refuse to see.
[caption id="attachment_20580" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Values courtesy Weather Underground (data from the US National Weather Service)"]
[/caption]Considering the energy ratings of the major solar panel-manufacturers in the market, the average efficiency at which they perform (14%), and the average cell temperature on a particular day of the year (34 degrees Celsius), it can be estimated that to produce 169.1875 watts of energy, an initial investment of US $989,688.125 will have to be made against the installation of 1,000 panels, each measuring 1m to a side. Given that there are those who suggest solar energy be used instead of commissioning a nuclear power plant in the district, it should be noted that to make up for the deficit of 2 gigawatts, 11,821,205 panels will have to be installed covering a 11.82 sq. kilometer swath of land at a total cost of US $69,149,911,828.50 or Rs. 3 lakh 39 thousand crore. That is 26 times more than the cost of the two reactors coming up Koodankulam.
The amount of photovoltaic waste generated per one megawatt of peak power, as reported by a study conducted by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment (called the 'Development of the Take Back and Recovery System for Photovoltaic Products', 2007) being 6079.375 tonnes per year (distributed across the planet for the sake of consumption in India), the quantity of waste generated by the year 2020 will be 109,428,750 tonnes. The amount of radioactive nuclear waste generated in the same period in India stands between 3960 tonnes and 5940 tonnes.
Thus, the principle agent owing to which the focus of the media is greater on nuclear energy and lesser on other forms of energy production is radioactivity. If spent nuclear fuel wasn't radioactive, nuclear power plants would make a case for themselves considering they're much cheaper to install, maintain and produce much less waste. That is why it is important to know the processes involved in the manufacture of solar cells and the more-common health hazards posed by those processes: high-efficiency cells contain the mildly-toxic tellurium and indium, and the highly-toxic cadmium and sulfur. Of them, the last three are known to have teratogenic effects.
I'm not trying to build a case against renewable energy resources nor am I trying to build a case for nuclear energy. I'm only making known what the majority do not already see, may not wish to see or simply refuse to see.
Some important calculations and comparisons
For the Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu, India, consider the following chart that shows the variation of irradiance against the time of year.
[caption id="attachment_20580" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Values courtesy Weather Underground (data from the US National Weather Service)"][/caption]
Considering the energy ratings of the major solar panel-manufacturers in the market, the average efficiency at which they perform (14%), and the average cell temperature on a particular day of the year (34 degrees Celsius), it can be estimated that to produce 169.1875 watts of energy, an initial investment of US $989,688.125 will have to be made against the installation of 1,000 panels, each measuring 1m to a side. Given that there are those who suggest solar energy be used instead of commissioning a nuclear power plant in the district, it should be noted that to make up for the deficit of 2 gigawatts, 11,821,205 panels will have to be installed covering a 11.82 sq. kilometer swath of land at a total cost of US $69,149,911,828.50 or Rs. 3 lakh 39 thousand crore. That is 26 times more than the cost of the two reactors coming up Koodankulam.
The amount of photovoltaic waste generated per one megawatt of peak power, as reported by a study conducted by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment (called the 'Development of the Take Back and Recovery System for Photovoltaic Products', 2007) being 6079.375 tonnes per year (distributed across the planet for the sake of consumption in India), the quantity of waste generated by the year 2020 will be 109,428,750 tonnes. The amount of radioactive nuclear waste generated in the same period in India stands between 3960 tonnes and 5940 tonnes.
Thus, the principle agent owing to which the focus of the media is greater on nuclear energy and lesser on other forms of energy production is radioactivity. If spent nuclear fuel wasn't radioactive, nuclear power plants would make a case for themselves considering they're much cheaper to install, maintain and produce much less waste. That is why it is important to know the processes involved in the manufacture of solar cells and the more-common health hazards posed by those processes: high-efficiency cells contain the mildly-toxic tellurium and indium, and the highly-toxic cadmium and sulfur. Of them, the last three are known to have teratogenic effects.
I'm not trying to build a case against renewable energy resources nor am I trying to build a case for nuclear energy. I'm only making known what the majority do not already see, may not wish to see or simply refuse to see.
[caption id="attachment_20580" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Values courtesy Weather Underground (data from the US National Weather Service)"]
[/caption]Considering the energy ratings of the major solar panel-manufacturers in the market, the average efficiency at which they perform (14%), and the average cell temperature on a particular day of the year (34 degrees Celsius), it can be estimated that to produce 169.1875 watts of energy, an initial investment of US $989,688.125 will have to be made against the installation of 1,000 panels, each measuring 1m to a side. Given that there are those who suggest solar energy be used instead of commissioning a nuclear power plant in the district, it should be noted that to make up for the deficit of 2 gigawatts, 11,821,205 panels will have to be installed covering a 11.82 sq. kilometer swath of land at a total cost of US $69,149,911,828.50 or Rs. 3 lakh 39 thousand crore. That is 26 times more than the cost of the two reactors coming up Koodankulam.
The amount of photovoltaic waste generated per one megawatt of peak power, as reported by a study conducted by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment (called the 'Development of the Take Back and Recovery System for Photovoltaic Products', 2007) being 6079.375 tonnes per year (distributed across the planet for the sake of consumption in India), the quantity of waste generated by the year 2020 will be 109,428,750 tonnes. The amount of radioactive nuclear waste generated in the same period in India stands between 3960 tonnes and 5940 tonnes.
Thus, the principle agent owing to which the focus of the media is greater on nuclear energy and lesser on other forms of energy production is radioactivity. If spent nuclear fuel wasn't radioactive, nuclear power plants would make a case for themselves considering they're much cheaper to install, maintain and produce much less waste. That is why it is important to know the processes involved in the manufacture of solar cells and the more-common health hazards posed by those processes: high-efficiency cells contain the mildly-toxic tellurium and indium, and the highly-toxic cadmium and sulfur. Of them, the last three are known to have teratogenic effects.
I'm not trying to build a case against renewable energy resources nor am I trying to build a case for nuclear energy. I'm only making known what the majority do not already see, may not wish to see or simply refuse to see.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Clear and present danger
“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
Clear and present danger
“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.
With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.
Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.
Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.
Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.
Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.
(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)
A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.
Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?
We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.
So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Philosophiae homis
The 'Book Summary' makes me wonder... why are the likes of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman so few and so far in between? The popularization of science may not seem like a necessary fixture to its acceptance in mainstream media, but over the years it has become increasingly necessary to clarify its role in the eyes of the common man—even roles such as those played in the maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider or of the International Space Station. That Einstein's papers on special and general relativity need a "redesigning" betokens a moment's reflection on the dependence of our day-to-day activities on scientific research and development, whether the increasing investment in experimental apparatuses sees justification just like military spending does, and if anyone ascribes the need for that investment to anything apart from science's utilitarian value.
Philosophiae homis
The 'Book Summary' makes me wonder... why are the likes of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman so few and so far in between? The popularization of science may not seem like a necessary fixture to its acceptance in mainstream media, but over the years it has become increasingly necessary to clarify its role in the eyes of the common man—even roles such as those played in the maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider or of the International Space Station. That Einstein's papers on special and general relativity need a "redesigning" betokens a moment's reflection on the dependence of our day-to-day activities on scientific research and development, whether the increasing investment in experimental apparatuses sees justification just like military spending does, and if anyone ascribes the need for that investment to anything apart from science's utilitarian value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)