Design for the New Climate

Recently, I saw The Ideas Economy's website and posted 2 ideas that I thought it would be useful. One was to design modular mobile smart housing that acts as a self sustainable unit; and the other a kind of 'lead net' that covers the entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes.

It just came to me after reading and following up the number of natural and man-made disasters that seems to erupt in a short span of 3 years. Regardless if the Mayans had been right about 2012,  we have to prepare for a definite real climate that is today and the near future.Highly populated areas, usually in cities, do not have much open space for escape. As such, I am thinking of the many possibilities of designing the units and the 'safety net'.

Climate change does not confine to the natural environment, about melting ice caps and the rise of sea levels. We are now facing another impending problem that is more instaneous and dire: terrorism. While we can add in rows of CCTVs, sending police and guard dogs to patrol at stations, airports, and sub stations; we must first eliminate any possible attack inland. For that reason alone, nuclear plants, oil rigs in danger points should be seriously considered for a permanent removal.The energy that we should use must be some form that we can contain in a much higher possibility. With the recent Fukushima Nuclear accident, signs are begining to show that the spread of radioactive pollution is going world wide. I think that is itself an expensive lesson to take and we have yet to see the full impact of the disaster.

I particularly liked the idea of solar energy. Many may not for the actual costs of producing them as compared to nuclear energy. But recently I have accidentally stumbled upon a paper by the late John O Blackburn, who wrote 'The Historic Crossover:Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy'.(see reference below)

I really wouldn't want to try nuclear in the long term given the change of climates now where there appears to be a rise in the number of earthquakes.Naturally people may doubt about statistics. Despite the nature of hard core research stats, we live under the sky to know what is really happening. Sometimes, a better trust is within us. Within me, myself, I do not believe that nuclear is the solution. It has never been. With the Fukushima Nuclear incident, I am more than adament to vote against nuclear energy. You know how the Japanese work. They are very merticulous and responsible people. If this could happen, I think its serious enough to make a resolution. -- Karen Fu, adapted from my own post to PhD forum.

Reference:
(A) The late John O. Blackburn, Duke University’s Professor Emeritus of
Economics and former Chancellor,
Solar and Nuclear Costs—The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now
the Better Buy’ http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=11407
Obituary of  Dr John Blackburn, which reflects his personality:
http://news.duke.edu/2011/01/blackburn.html
Prof Blackburn's paper:
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
(B)  Nuclear waste recycling problems:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling
http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/
(C) Nuclear reactors in quake zones: http://tinyurl.com/4kxux8u

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis. Are we playing with fire?

Just posted my reply to Fil Salustri on PhD-Design forum list with regards to Nuclear energy.This is related to my ealier blog posts here. Sharing this on my blog and open for comments:

> Forest fires are nature's way.  Fires happen all the time, not started
> by humans.  Sometimes, humans start bad fires, but nature recovers.
> Read up on the nature, frequency, and response of nature to forest
> fires.
> And yes, nuclear energy is containable.  This is evident from the
> history of nuclear energy.
>

I just knew before I shut my eyes to sleep that someone would say this because
I didn't specify 'Fire'. My apolgies for missing the explaination.

Forest fires are natural occurance. But what I was trying to say was that
fire is something we cannot control effectively despite our advancement
in technologies. Fires can be started by humans as they could be started by
nature. With climate change and weather conditions getting drier in places
in California and Australia, prepare for more fires.

And many fires are initiated by humans.
And often it is very hard to recover. Often at the risks of firefighters.
One typical example is the forest fire in California in the US about 2
years back.
It was outrageous. (see reference links below my sig.)
And notably the fire caused in LA was human induced too.

> Nuclear energy is not spontaneous at all.  The nuclear fuel is HIGHLY
> manufactured material.  Naturally occurring uranium is virtually
> harmless.  I have samples of pitchblende in my rock collection.  Have
> had since I was a boy.  I'm fine.

Naturally occurring uranium is harmless, but after human intervention, this can
become harmful. The same could be said about gun powder. Some cultures use
it for fire crackers, celebration; while some used it to blast their
enemies' heads off.

The hard truth is there are people who have uncanny ways of doing things.
They are all innovative. But the cause for concern is the potential and the
extent of danger that each element poses. It I hold uranium. or even harmless
amount of untouched hydrogen, I am fine. But if I hold just hydrogen
alone and played
with it in huge amounts under pressure, I get a hydrogen bomb. Human ingenuity
can come up with ideas. Just that it has to be on the right track.
Hydrogen is abundant.
Wrong use, and its a terrifying abundant gas used for massive destruction.

> We are imperfect beings.  Your demand for "100 percent" containment is
> not rational.  It can't be done.  Nature can't do it.  Humans can't do
> it.

True we are imperfect beings. And also due to our imperfection, we cannot also
be confident and sure that humans can design the best containment to fuels
that are potentially highly combustible. Both nature and humans cannot
ensure 100 percent
containment on any materials that we have to be totally safe. We need
precautions.
If we can prevent a disaster like Fukushima, and we are able to do now; I feel
we should take the precaution now like some of the EU countires are doing now.

> Forget about coal being depleted.  What about the health risks and
> GHGs from using coal as an energy source?

Should have added to say that I don't even want coal / fossil fuels and anything
that exhaust fumes.  Anyway I've just stated my stand on coal now at
late bedtime.

>
> As far as cost goes, I would like to know where you got your
> information on cost.  I expect that given the extremely tight control
> on nuclear plants, that the costs would be higher.  But are the costs
> that much higher - proportionally - than other high-tech / dangerous
> technology?  I ask out of ignorance.  Until I have numbers, I will not
> endorse one side or another of the argument.
>

I am trying to hunt for the stats. It comes with a large world map
showing where the
nuclear plants are. US has lots concentrated in the eastern part of
their country.
Then they show the costs of setting up a plant that is initially high
and covers itself
over a period of time. If memory doesn't fail me, in aroun 5-8 years
time, and its covered.
I should have recorded the link when I read it last week.
I will try to find it.

>
>>
>> In all, why should it be all fission?
>>
>
> Cuz that is, for now, the only game in town.

if thats the only game in town, then we are being utterly uncreative.
How can we be confined by that one source of energy alone when there
are clearly others at hand?

Its like talking about using only force to answer problems in the world.
There are many ways of doing it. Gandhi used peace for India to obtain
freedom for
his people. Singapore used to believe that merging with Malaysia as
the only way to
survive. People used to think that a country that has lots of natural
resources are the ones
which will prosper. It is via human creativity that makes our
prosperity and it is
humanity that keeps our society sustainable.
All these policies/inventions.ideas are man-made. We can change. For
that to change,
we must have guts to go into the unknown and venture. And fortunately for us,
we have other sources of energy that we can source. It may not be quick and cost
effective like nuclear, but we can design it with our expertise of new
forms of energy tio
answer problems. Policies to encourage smart use of energies. My blog
is about that.
If anyone's interested, its below my sig too.

The reality is do we need to really use
that much energy? Of course we don't. Thats another topic.

Its already 3:20 am here. I need to get some sleep. I only login an
hour ago. Shouldn't have.
But I did. So I might as well complete at least this email. I have
books to cover and notes to take
tomorrow.

>
>>
>> I'm fully awake...
>> Karen Fu
>>
>
> I hope you get a good night's rest.
> Try a shot of whiskey.  That always helps me. :-)
>

Thanks for the advise. But I don't drink.
I only use wines for culinary purposes.
And I don't take caffeine to wake me up.
I use excercise. It works.  : )

I'll look for the infographic and the stats and post later.

Karen Fu
elfin blog: http://daringtochange.wordpress.com
Other blogs can be traced from here. Your adventure may vary.

My sleepy links are for your reference. I shall endeavour to look for more.
But for now, let me have my slumber.... (thanks)

1. California Forest Fire, New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30wildfires.html
2.What causes forest fires:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-forest-fires.html
3. Human caused wildfires increases in Calif
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wildfires/2009-05-14-human-caused-wildfires-increasing_N.htm
4. Eyeing Japan, Countries reassess Nuclear Plans:
http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/blog/2011/03/15/eyeing-japan-countries-reassess-nuclear-plans/

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

An Energy Question to ask -- aftermath of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.

Just threw the question to the list, and I thought I might as well put it here as I am looking for answers.

 

'Happen to miss some important emails and now I ended up a living Owl.
I just answered Fil offlist and I thought it would be nice to ask the
list a few questions:

1. are we playing fire when we suggest that nuclear energy is containable ?
We can't even effectively control fire, something that is an ancient
fuel that we have been using
for millions of years. Forrest fires in the States and in Australia
are clear recent examples. They burned for
days with huge social costs.

2. Knowingly that nuclear energy is the most cost efficient and
therefore the attractiveness of making lots
of money is one strong advantage, at least from the commercial point
of view. And that natural resources like coal is depleting, offers
another point for Nuclear,  how about the cost of playing nuclear
energy which is tonnes more spontaneous than fire.
Can we be afford it? What is the safest nuclear plant design that
would contain possible accidents?
Reading the accidents and news daily, can we trust people to play god?
Or at least the master of something
that we cannot 100 percent contain?

3. What is the real benefit of having a nuclear plant? Why is it that
we cannot make other forms of energy cheap? Why has it got to be
nuclear? Sun is abundant source of energy in many parts of the world.
Why not tap and transfer this energy?

In all, why should it be all fission?

Hope this is taken in good candor.

I'm fully awake...
Karen Fu'

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Fukushima problem, a German Solution - a realisation of a Design thinking trap.

Following the news that Germany will scrap all their nuclear plants by the year 2021, I must say I applaud the Germans hands down.I was reading and following the lists post about the incident and how design thinking should be changed to fit in problems like Fukushima. People were talking about systems that are compex and more than complicated. I was busy reading and let all my 10 fingers raced after my eyes could run. It was mad.
Then I deleted the entire post earlier after reading the string of posts while typing my views. It just came to me that certain problems need not go through a complex process. For 20 minutes, I fell into that trap too. If u see a complex framework that could blast our planet, what would you do?
For a Fukushima lesson, the answer is to flee and do whatever it takes to chop the entire system out. Not morphing it. The Tsunami is in us, our own thinking trap. What components within the trap is another topic. I applaud the Germans who are daring enough & have the foresight and wisdom to scrap all the nuclear plants by 2021. On many levels, all we need is just a conscience and facing the hard truth what is truly important. Then we just do it. Not hard all if one choses not to be so.
Design thinking in check. My personal gain too.
Cheers!
Karen Fu
PS: Personally I wouldn't want any kind of nuclear activity in my country, Singapore. With terrorism treat around the corner, & a more than crazy climate in the process of change; having just one nuclear reactor could be  made into a bloody bomb.
One blast and Singapore could be history. And I don't want that.

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Status of "design" re: Japanese nuclear crisis?

Thought I paste my reply to a forum post which I think is important. I've found Clive Dilnot Professor of Design Studies from the School of Art Design History and Theory Parsons School of Design, New School University; more than thoughtful. This is only my answer to the initail part of his email post to PhD forum. I have suggested an initail idea of a multilayer lead net to contain radioactivity. But I believe the more important issue is to change the minds on consumption and the way we live. The psychology behind is to focus both in policies and products. here's the copy of my reply, open for crit:

Can't help it but to want to post thoughts on Clive's email after seeing how the Japanese community here felt and how I come to shock of the latest events in Japan. All these, despite natural disaster, has a strong link to human error in design.

In regards to the unfolding double tragedies in Japan, Donald Norman’s
“leap-to” diatribe in defense of engineers completely misses the
point. In fact, it is part of the problem (in that, as the subsequent
replies showed, it diverts the real question in all the wrong
directions—no Virginia, building a 100-metre sea wall is not the
answer).

Totally agree on this aspect. But unortunately many scientists, engineers etc
do not think this way. Despite the prowess of what advance science and technology can do,
the ultimatum is still human factors. I see this tragic event the result of systemic loopholes.
The other thought that came to my mind is that we over emphasis about nuclear energy and being awfully over confident about our abilities to contain such technology. Our human complacency can often misquide us to think that advanced know-how is the solution to all, which unfortunately isn't.Its often like a problem left to the open thinking that you could swat them with a large net, forgetting that the problem may be larger and more powerful in strength. When all these add up, it mutates into a snowballed problem that could have been sorted at base point.Nuclear energy is by far, I think, the most dangerous form of energy to use. It may be economical from a commercial standpoint, but the opportunity cost is often devastating. Apparently Fukushima had mechanical problems way back in the 70s. But strangely, they have not been totally cleared off. It makes me wonder how could engineering problems such as pressure and cooling systems were solved. I would have thought policies or products to encourage alternative fuel sources with possible policies to cut down unneccessary consumption would greatly reduce the need for electrical energy. On many levels, psychology may well be the most fundamental aspect in solving energy problems.The immediate thought was to design a kind of 'lead net' that covers the entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes. Damn thick wall, but I suppose it is better than nothing or leaving 50 brave Japanese rescuers choosing to risk their lives to look for survivors. I think its utterly unfair to these people. The persons who design the reactors and those who allowed the faulty systems to be in place for so long should be the ones to take on most of the responsibilities.

My original post asked two questions. The first was open—what does the
word “design” mean when it is used in connection with the design of  (or
what I would call the configuration) of the Japanese nuclear plants?
What is “design” here? What is that in the nuclear plant or as a quality
of the plant, that causes commentators to talk of its ‘design”?

Design here would simply mean to be responsible; be wise & honest to know the risks; be
intelligent to fit all the demands with a solution that has a backup for possible accidents despite the magnitude.No design is considered even passable, when any kind of problem is overlooked. 
The age of the reactors may be a problem. But I think the system in place is a greater problem.
The thinking of those people who design the policies and the physical product are the most
important factor. Everything grows old with age. But why is it that some products/buildings could last while some don't? Simply because the strict attention to every design detail in compliance to
different kinds of human environments & our common natural environment keeps it good.

Only have this bit of bedtime for the long torso and tail bit of Clive's detailed thought on the mega accident.It's actually a wake up call not only for Japan but to everyone of us on this globe. We have not yet figure out the pending danger it poses to the environment. Looking at the line of eathquakes that have happend,will there be a string of other similar earthquakes waiting to errupt? Pretty frighteining stuff if you pile all these up with what Dr Stephen Hawkings had mentioned that  our future is in space. But instead of lining up to fly to Mars or wherever into the unknown, we need to solve the problem that is inherent within us. I see it as a root problem. For if it is not solved by the root, your evergreen tree cannot grow, and nevermind if it would last.
That's how I see it.
Night night all,
Karen Fu

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change