Earlier this week, according to the BBC, scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California have overcome one of the major barriers to achieving fusion power generation through the process of Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) (this was particularly exciting to me having done an independent study on ICF as part of an energy conversion course in university).
Inertial confinement, which was previously thought to be the less feasible of two approaches to generating fusion power (the other being magnetic confinement), relies on the application of high powered energy, delivered in the form of several coordinated laser pulses, to a fuel target (typically hydrogen isotopes that can fuse to form helium and release valence energy in the process).
Fusion energy is particularly exciting because of the vast energy payload that can be delivered relative to the quantity of fuel used, and the fact that the fuel can be derived from a hydrogen isotope (deuterium) which is found in abundance in ocean water (deuterium constitutes approximately 1/6500th of the world’s ocean water). It is also exciting in that the byproduct of a successful reaction is helium which is less harmful than the nitrogen-oxides (NOx) and sulfur-oxides (SOx) that commonly result from the burning of fossil fuels.
Fusion energy is particularly difficult to achieve because it requires the positively-charged nuclei of two hydrogen atoms to fuse, and to do so these nuclei must overcome the electromagnetic repulsion that exists between them. Through the application of enough energy, the nuclei can be accelerated to extremely high speeds such that, upon colliding, the strong nuclear force within the atoms dominates allowing this fusion to occur. A side effect which has previously proved to be an obstacle for scientists is that applying such large quantities of energy creates plasma, which the BBC article above appropriately refers to as “a roiling soup of charged particles.” The concern has been that the plasma would absorb the majority of the laser’s energy, limiting the amount of energy that could be successfully delivered to the fuel target in a uniform fashion. The energy must be delivered uniformly so that the fuel – a spherical pellet – has nowhere to go but towards its own centre, thus condensing it and creating the conditions to achieve ignition of the reaction.
Recent results have shown that the plasma does not significantly affect the target’s ability to absorb the incident laser energy, and could actually be manipulated to improve uniformity of the fuel compression. The NiF hit their target with 669kJ of energy in approximately 10 billionths of a second, which upon scaling is equivalent to boiling the contents of “50 Olympic-sized swimming pools in one second.” Calculations suggest that the NiF can achieve ignition with 1.2MJ, with spokesperson Dr. Glenzer saying “it’s going to happen this year”.
So why does fusion matter?
If controllable fusion power can realistically be achieved it could stand to change our energy infrastructure dramatically. This is an opportunity for a seemingly endless supply of energy, without the burdensome greenhouse gas emissions produced by conventional power plants.
At a glance, the origins of many serious problems can be directly associated with energy resources. Desalination, for example, is a promising means of providing potable water to coastal developing nations, but this is a very energy-intensive process. If the cost and abundance of energy are no longer a factor, it would be much more feasible to implement large boiling facilities that feed from a fusion grid.
Where droughts are the cause of famine, artificial climates that are conducive to plant growth could be created, or water could be pumped to and from previously unthinkable distances. Perhaps the Sahara desert could be slowly re-cultivated in this fashion.
Conflict and war have historically resulting from the struggle to control resources, as exemplified today in areas such as the Persian Gulf. But, where a cheaper alternative is economically viable, there would be a diminished need for oil.
The simplifications above do little justice to the complexity of these issues, but serve to show the significance of a clean, powerful energy with an abundant fuel supply from more than just a technological perspective (though it is fascinating to conceive our scientists recreating the same energy source as the stars right here on our lonely planet).
Where policy occasionally stumbles, it is good to know that technology continues to progress. And while technology is not the panacea for environmental change, it can certainly help. Energy is a big piece of the environmental puzzle – if we can crack the fusion problem, the other pieces may just start to fall into place.
Fusion: Why we’re closer (and why fusion matters)
1 02 2010Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Desalination, Energy, Fusion, Grid, ICF, Inertial Confinement, National Ignition Facility, NIF, Power, Resource Conflict, Resources
Categories : Uncategorized
Embracing Corporations to Save the Environment
28 01 2010In a previous article I described the need to redefine our economic model such that resources are valued prior to consumption, and a cost is incurred as they are removed. The idea was that in a world with finite resources, it is not sustainable to stoke our economy with stimulus funds which encourage further consumption.
Of course, this is a very complex problem. It is human nature to collect as many resources as possible. This very economic model has allowed for technological progress and has provided better, safer living conditions as a result.
So how does a society spur innovation, while steering off the disastrous course of over-consumption? One concept I had proposed was that by significantly increasing the cost of removing resources, companies must become very efficient at utilizing those resources to turn a profit. Rather than growth, the focus turns to balance. A country which over-consumes would be seen to have an unhealthy economy, while those focused on resource replenishment and efficiency would prosper.
This requires a significant shift in social values. To strive for balance is to shift the pinnacle of success from one who owns everything, to one who has the highest quality of life (i.e. physically, emotionally, etc.).
Where can we even begin to initiate this social shift? We are seemingly stagnated by a societal structure that is so entrenched it can’t be budged. But there is an old saying which I think has merit: “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Specifically, I am referring to large corporations which are the life blood of our current economy. And while it is
easy to point the finger at corporations as the cause of (or at the least the fuel for) our unsustainable economic practices, it is unrealistic to suggest our current society could survive without them. Organizations must be changed from the inside, not torn down from the outside – but perhaps the occasional outsider can help.
Non-profit organizations (NPO’s) are popular outlets for advocates of a cause, but there is an unfortunate disconnect between NPO’s and corporations. While an NPO may house the expertise and knowledge of what is required for change to occur, there are often barriers to achieve change on the scale desired, whether those barriers be financial or lack of influence. A successful corporation tends to be both financially well-to-do and have a powerful circle of influence, thus it seems an intuitive partnership. Why then, does the disconnect exist?
We can say that corporations simply don’t care (or that they care only about money), but corporations are just collections of people, and people do care given the right motivation. What motivates people in a corporation? On at least on some level, we should assume that employees are motivated by what their company does – and this is how they can be embraced!
As an example, I work for a consulting firm, so it makes sense to engage interest in our consultants through pro-bono initiatives that offer business services to an environmental NPO. The NPO can improve their operations, consultants gain valuable experience, and more importantly the NPO’s mission gets exposure within the firm, contributing to a cultural shift. Now, when that same NPO is having difficulty embracing an Oil and Gas company (which is admittedly less aligned on the issue of environmental sustainability), there may be an opportunity to expand the NPO’s circle of influence through a relationship between the consulting firm and the Oil and Gas company.
Do you work for an advertising company? Offer subsidized advertising to a sustainability initiative – it may just result in the adoption of bio-friendly ink. Are you a manufacturing company? Consider optimizing the size of your packaging, perhaps during the re-design your advertising company will suggest a new bio-friendly ink. Whatever your
line of work, it is worth considering how the skill set of your company can be paired with a cause. Sustainability is a cause with many manifestations, so it may offer a good starting point.
Embrace your corporations everyone! They are crucial to achieving social change on a mass scale.
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Consulting, Corporations, Environment, NPO, Resources, Sustainability
Categories : Uncategorized
Rethinking the GDP
26 11 2009As promised, this post is a follow-up to my previous article in which I posited the idea of major economic reforms that could lead to real environmental change and sustainability.
While in Hong Kong I stumbled upon an organization called Civic Exchange, a self-proclaimed public policy think-tank, that recently published a book titled “The Great Disconnect” (available in PDF form here).
The book probes the driving factors of environmental change and makes some interesting insights related to the economic crisis of 2008. Of these insights, I found the most interesting to be the author’s analysis of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as the prime indicator of a country’s economic state. The Government of Canada defines GDP as “the unduplicated value of all goods and services produced in a year within Canada’s borders measured at market prices.” This is to say that it is a measure of economic throughput – it measures the final value of goods and services. This style of book-keeping is problematic from the perspective of environmental policy because it focuses on the value of production without considering the upfront cost of consumption.
The book provides a useful example – consider the sale of lumber. A tree by itself does not have value in our economy. However, if that tree is cut down and sold as lumber it adds value to our GDP. A cost can only be associated with consuming this resource if we pay to reforest the region.
Now consider that a widely adopted practice to battle the ongoing recession has been the distribution of stimulus funds to encourage spending. Since we gauge the health of our economy by the size of the GDP, there must be an increase in the production of goods and services to improve our economy. Ultimately, the world-wide reaction to the global recession has been to consume more resources. Understandably, when unemployment rates are rising governments may find it difficult to focus attention on sustainability, but it is clear that on a planet with finite resources this model cannot go on forever. What is needed is a new economic performance indicator that values more than just the production of goods and services.
The crux of the problem with achieving environmental sustainability, as I see it, is that our economic model awards growth at all costs. This is not to say that capitalism is flawed, but that our means of measuring its inputs and outputs are primitive. In a suitable analogy I see our economy as a car. Our current model rates vehicles by their speed and acceleration without considering the fuel-efficiency and safety performance – it is outdated. We are being sold a Ferrari as a family vehicle, and while it currently offers a glamorous lifestyle we have put ourselves at serious risk of a catastrophic crash. Without considering all inputs to a system, we cannot control the outputs or make sufficiently educated decisions. A key input that I believe is being neglected in our economic model is the value (and condition) of resources – particularly non-renewable fuels, and plant-life capable of absorbing CO2.
With a debit-credit system of tracking our resources, a more natural economic goal could be to achieve a balance (where a deficit represents the wasteful use of resources, and a surplus represents the creation of value from limited resources). The beauty of a balance-based system is that the terms “waste” and “value” can always be redefined. As standards of quality improve the cost of resources can be increased, thus making it more difficult to produce a valuable product, which in turn would spur the creativity and innovation required to drive an economy forward.
The cornerstone of this model rests in the interpretation of “quality.” Standards of quality in life would have to be redefined for such a model to work. Stature in society must be driven from psychological, physical and emotional satisfaction rather than the accrual of material goods.
The concepts I have put forth are obviously far easier said than done. Every nuance of a new economic system requires serious global agreement (and participation), and a change in the core values of entire nations. Such value shifts have happened before (consider how quickly values surrounding personal privacy and social connectedness have changed with the adoption of the Internet). It is my hope that the shift away from blind consumption (and towards true sustainability) can be achieved before the consequences become visible, because, as with the speeding Ferrari – by the time we can clearly see what lies ahead it may be too late to avoid the crash.
Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: Economics, Environmental Policy, GDP, Resources, Sustainability
Categories : Uncategorized
Asia’s Role in Climate Change Policy – Part II
19 11 2009I’ve returned from my trip to Hong Kong, ready to provide some analysis of the climate change debate hosted by Intelligence^2 Asia “The west is full of hot air; Asia is saving the world from climate policy disaster.”
The debate proved to be less one-sided than I’d anticipated, though the focus of the discussion tended to drift from the proposal. At the heart of the defense, the argument is less that western climate policies such as the soon-to-be-abandoned Kyoto protocol are negatively impacting our environment – more that western policies are not sufficient, and do not adequately acknowledge a history where the majority of carbon dioxide emissions were generated from countries that are now industrialized and able focus on cleaner technology. Many developing nations do not have this luxury and must rely on cheaper, coal fired power to support their industrialization to enjoy lifestyle for which they have worked so hard to earn – particularly in countries such as India and China.
I can certainly sympathize with this point of view. Consider having spent your life working tirelessly to achieve the luxuries of a western lifestyle for your family (climate controlled buildings, cars, readily available electricity and water), and just as you are starting to see results you are told – by countries that had free reign on their emissions while developing their economies – that you must limit your rate of development because you are polluting too much in the process. It comes across as a hypocritical “do as I say and not as I do” argument. However, regardless of the extent to which it is unfair, there is a serious difference between the unknowingly ignorant practices of industrialized nations throughout the 20th century, when the significance of pollution was unknown, and ignorant policy making when new information has become available.
According to Wired magazine “If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today.” India is not far behind. Given that both countries are imposing plans that rely heavily on coal to meet their energy needs, it would be a stretch to say that “Asia is saving the world from climate policy disaster.” The audience of the debate felt the same and the proposal was voted down at a ratio of approximately 8:1. However, it was also made clear that there is a need to rethink our western policies. Any effective climate change policy must take into account the fact that Asia needs to develop, and will require large amounts of energy to build that infrastructure. While the donation of ‘carbon credits’ from industrialized nations to developing nations to compensate their emissions is a good start, it is not sufficient. What is needed is larger economic overhaul that values environmental preservation, and incentivizes people to make more conservative choices. And that is precisely what I will be talking about in my next post! In the meantime enjoy this picture taken from Lamma Island nearby Hong Kong which juxtaposes a coal fired power plant against a scenic ocean beach.
Skyline from Lamma Island, Hong Kong
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: China, Climate Change, Consumption, Debate, Environmental Policy, Resources
Categories : Uncategorized
Asia’s Role in Climate Change Policy – Part I
5 11 2009Next week I will be attending a debate in Hong Kong titled “The west is full of hot air; Asia is saving the world from climate policy disaster.”
My knee-jerk reaction was that this would be a farcical debate, considering the widely-accepted notion that China is the world’s heaviest industrial polluter. I think however, that this is exactly the point. Perhaps having a front row seat to devastating climate change provides the proper perspective to develop meaningful, progressive policies on resource consumption and air quality.
Certainly in Canada, where water and energy resources are abundant we have some of the worst conservation practices in the industrialized world . Can we expect to rally support for practical environmental policies when the consequences of wasteful habits are hidden from our everyday routines? Conversely, if constant exposure to a damaged environment has become the standard for a country, to what extent can we put our faith in their policymaking?
Stay tuned for my next article where I hope to be able to answer these questions in more depth after processing the night’s debate.
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: China, Consumption, Debate, Environmental Policy, Resources
Categories : Uncategorized
Decentralizing our Infrastructure
18 10 2009Recently I read Ray Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near.” Kurzweil, a reputable futurist, takes the reader through his vision for a future in which machines overcome human intelligence, recursively redesigning themselves in an “intelligence explosion” known as the singularity (don’t be afraid, the machines don’t overtake the human race, we become the machines). Kurzweil predicts that ongoing advancements in the fields of genetics, nanotechnology and robotics will lead us into (and beyond) the singularity. These advancements raise questions about the energy and infrastructure required to support our ongoing technological development and increasing population. One of the themes revisited throughout the book is sustainment through massive decentralization of our infrastructure.
Decentralization is the localization of services currently administered through large hubs – think power plants, industrial agriculture, and water treatment centres. Given our state of technology, it has historically made sense to keep these systems centralized; however they are susceptible to a number of dangers. Recall the immense blackout of North America’s eastern seaboard in the summer of 2003, caused by the shutdown of a generating station in Eastlake, Ohio. While electrical power IS distributed through a grid, the generators are large nodes on which we are very dependent. Ideally individual households could act as generating stations, connected through a self-organizing, self-repairing network not unlike the brain. Of course, this level of decentralization is not yet possible (we would need the ability to more efficiently harness the sun’s energy, while mitigating factors – from noise to meltdowns – that currently keep our power plants and treatment centres away from home), however it does provoke interesting discussion about the benefits of decentralized resources – namely decreased dependence on individual nodes.
Consider cloud computing – Amazon is just one example of a company now offering this service having realized they could put their otherwise idle servers to use outside of the busy holiday shopping season. Instead of hosting files on one computer, Amazon keeps your information on a network of computers. If, for some reason, one server were to catch fire and become irreversibly damaged, never fear! Your information is safely stored around the world. And because the Internet is quite adept at finding new paths around damaged nodes, you probably wouldn’t notice that a fire had happened at all.
Can principles of self-organizing networks be applied to resource and infrastructure problems? I think they can with a little effort. Maybe the Jetsons weren’t so far off in their depiction of the future home. There may be a market for faucet-sized water treatment devices, solar-generating windows, and green-roof vegetable gardens. The Internet could be the platform to support this development. Let’s get this singularity moving people!
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Cloud computing, Decentralization, Energy, Infrastructure, Resources, Singularity
Categories : Uncategorized
