August 2008 Archives

By Digoy Fernandez SOME friends of mine are sick of the daily fare as far as news is concerned, because of the incessant bombardment one gets about murder, mayhem, corruption in government, the decline in public and private morals, public and private scandals, and chicanery that businessmen often engage in. Probably, the comic pages remain as one of the few remaining redeeming features of the daily news. Today, we have people who would manipulate events -- causing the loss of lives and the introduction of yet more misery to an already overburdened people – just to create scenarios that would keep them in power. Oblivious to the stern justice they would have to face on the Day of Judgment, they go about their nefarious ways. One day, however, they will be called to account for every peso stolen, every life taken, every person made miserable, every law broken. In many a good book, one learns that one reaps what one sows. Other faiths believe in the Law of Return, where one reaps a hundred-fold whatever good or bad he or she does in life. One of the most quoted rules is that which we Christians refer to as the Golden Rule: Do not do unto others what you would not want to have done to you. Interestingly, I picked up similar quotations to this Golden Rule as taught by other faiths or sublime teachers. Consider the following: Lord Buddha: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful (Udana Varga) 5, 18) Confucious: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you (Analects 15, 23) Hinduism: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you (Mahabharata 5, 1517) Taosim: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss (Tai Shang Kan Ying P’ien) Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself (Suna) Jewish Talmud: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man (Shabbat 32id) This set of similar teachings applies to both the private and public sectors, and also to the conduct of one’s personal life. It is also a good guiding principle for those who believe that social responsibility is all embracing and should not be confined to the narrow concept of corporate or private philanthropy.

By Digoy Fernandez Contributor THE sense I get from my previous posts on the possibility of opening up the dialogue (again) to the possible use of nuclear energy elicited both strong feelings from those who favor its use and those who feel that nukes are a dead end option. Probably, one way out of the morass is to try and consider the fact that, at present, the world is making use mostly of a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, geothermal plants, hydroelectric power, and the odd based wind farm or solar energy powered plant. Of the fuels mentioned above, it is probably proper to consider that fossil fuels like coal and crude oil and nuclear energy would form the bulk of what we could term as interim solutions pending the entry of more efficient and renewable sources of power. The move toward electric cars -- that still require an electric grid to draw power from -- and those I mentioned a few blogs ago that are powered by air, water, or hydrogen probably spell the death knell of the fossil fuel industry. Applications for crude oil would be more limited in the not too distant future to industry as cars and other forms of transportation find ways to exploit clean and renewable sources of motivation. In a very recent conversation I had with a classmate who just happens to be the Energy Secretary -- no, I did not get the idea of going nuclear from him -- he pointed out another possible source of energy that is best suited for countries located along the equator or in tropical areas: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). I am still Googling the topic because it is so interesting. But essentially, the process makes use of the heat energy stored in the world’s oceans to generate electricity. An ideal situation would be for a differential of 20 degrees Centigrade, which is possible in the equatorial region where surface temperatures really differ from those of the deeper nether regions (We have many deep underwater trenches surrounding our archipelago!). The OTEC process is still undergoing study and experimentation. But soaring oil prices should provide a suitable motivation for both governments and the private sector to take a long hard look at this almost infinite source of clean energy. Thus, even if we do eventually succumb to the temptation to the need to utilize nuclear power, this would also be, at best, an interim solution as we plumb the other existing and new technologies for the best possible application on a massive scale.

By Digoy Fernandez

As expected, the nuclear energy option is one that continues to elicit passionate arguments from both sides of the fence. In fact, the only reason I have chosen to bring the topic forward for thought is the perceptible change in the views of many who were violently against the use of nuclear energy.

The United States seems committed to the addition of more nuclear power plants. France gets 80 percent of its power needs from nuclear plants. But the most telling change in attitude is that one taking place in Germany, where nuclear energy has been an anathema subject for the past decades. In fact, the few nuclear energy plants in the country are bound by an exit law that mandates that they be decommissioned in a few years. However, the practical Germans are now reconsidering this position, and are even mulling the addition of new plants.

So, leaving Dr. Moore out of the equation, how does one assess whether a country does or does not need to consider the viability and safety of the nuclear option? I know that many anti-nuclear activists still have to be mollified with respect to what they suspect is the lack of a truly fail-safe power plant. Not a few are haunted by the memory of Chernobyl (Wormwood!) and the countless casualties caused by the failure of this reactor. Others feel that the issue of nuclear waste is not being handled properly, especially since the chance of leaks and leaching remains no matter where or how deep one consigns said waste. And the biggest nightmare is the prospect of some of these spent waste finding their way into nuclear weaponry, given the number of rogue states and groups that would give their arms and legs to get such material.

The countries that exist along the rim of fire like the one I live in should certainly make more effort to explore the use of geothermal energy. But a friend who has assets in such a project says that there is much work to be done in this area still. We have a huge gas field that should be able to make us less dependent on crude oil and coal fired plants. There is one viable wind farm that provides clean energy to a locale up north. Solar energy is supposed to be a viable option, but I understand that -- even for a country that has sunlight for a great portion of the year -- we have too much humidity and a long and violent rainy season that militates against the use of this method on a large scale. We have huge tides between islands that can possibly be harnessed, but this area still awaits both an intrepid and loaded group willing to invest in such a venture.

That brings us back to the heretical nuclear option……

By Digoy Fernandez AS A CERTIFIED Tree-Hugger and (laid back) environmental activist, this particular blog will probably strike most of my cohorts, and others besides, as nothing short of heresy. But in this particular time frame when fossil fuels have become particularly prohibitive and the rush to alternatives -- e.g., biofuels; solar energy; geothermal, air, wind and water energy; and a host of hybrid and other technologies aimed at powering today’s and future automobiles -- is going ahead full-steam, some serious thinkers are advocating a second look at nuclear power. One of the more serious proponents of a second look at nuclear energy for power plants is none other than Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who now confesses to be a “born again environmental activist,” albeit with a different slant. Moving away from a confrontational and anti-technology approach which he accuses his former colleagues to be guilty of, he believes that nuclear energy’s positives far outweigh the negatives. And in the light of dwindling fossil fuel resources -- which are great polluters, by the way -- he feels that the world will just have to embark on putting up more nuclear power plants if it is to meet the needs of future development. Dr Moore is certain that the emphasis on safety of today’s nuclear technology, and possible side benefits such as the production of hydrogen which can be used as an alternative fuel and in the production of water, makes the nuclear option viable. In this country, we had one chance to have a nuclear power plant, but politics and greed got in the way and turned it (the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant) into a white elephant that had to be paid for even if it was mothballed. So, what is one to do with a fully paid white elephant? Leave it there or convert it into a viable conventional gas or oil burning plant, or go the whole yard and re-examine the nuclear option? For those who claim that the site is above an earthquake fault, well, the whole country is caught in-between two trenches (Marianas and Philippine) which indicate our position in the Pacific Rim of Fire and the various volcanic and tectonic shocks the entire rim is subject to. And yet, some countries like Japan -- which has foresworn the use of nuclear weapons, obviously -- have nuclear power plants. In Europe, one country that does not seem bothered by the oil crisis is France, for the simple reason that they have so many nuclear power plants that almost all their needs are met by this source of energy. The question remains: Do we simply shrug away the nuclear option, or do we struggle with a host of other options (many of which are unpalatable)? As Dr Moore suggests, a complementary scheme of several types of clean energy can be used by any given country, without subjecting oneself to a knee-jerk reaction for or against a specific technology.

By Digoy Fernandez I THINK that the nearest most of us has ever gotten to an electric driven vehicle is the ubiquitous golf cart that one finds in upscale golf courses. One can even make a comparison between one driven by an electric battery or one motivated by a small internal combustion engine. One of the obvious shortcomings of the battery driven golf cart is if it runs out of juice right in the middle of the golf course, forcing you to carry our clubs and walk back to the clubhouse prematurely. Battery operated cars have shortcomings that are just being addressed now. One is the obvious size and weight of the batter needed to run a vehicle for a reasonable distance. The other is the length of time or distance that the car can run before running out of power. A third problem is making the batteries out of more environment friendly stuff so that one does not pollute the environment when the batteries have to be discarded. The old lead-acid battery technology is just getting a bit better these days, as battery companies are forced to take environmental considerations in hand in their manufacturing operations. One can try the E-Jeepney now servicing the route between Bel Air village and Rockwell mall. The electric jeepney is cute and, according to my niece who lives in Bel Air, provides a free fun ride for her family when they want to go to the mall. But like most vehicles of the genre, it is slow and can only run so many kilometers before requiring an overnight charge. Now comes Tesla Motors, with their sports car that has been tested quite extensively by mainstream automotive magazines and test organizations. Almost all are properly awed by the car's performance figures, until they come to the price. The car, as befitting a sports car with a low production volume, will probably hit $100,000 when it finally gets into the showroom. Well, it seems there is no lack of buyers because the first year run has already been spoken for. And perhaps even the following year's production. Such is the performance of the car that it makes speed junkies drool at the prospect of owning and driving it. The developer, Martin Eberhard, was a former Silicon Valley engineer who made money inventing useful products, and then was bought out, leaving him with a nest egg with which to pursue his dream of an electric car. He attacked the problem right at the source, by inventing a battery that would provide proper power for a reasonable length of time. The battery is of the lithium-ion variety, and is situated at the bottom of the car, increasing the vehicle's good low center of gravity even more. It allows the car to run up to 250 miles or 400 kilometers, which will allow for a trip to Baguio from Metro Manila plus some time motoring in the Pines City itself. It takes only 3.5 hours for a full charge. Fortunately, Mr Eberhard chose to tie up with a noted independent car manufacturer, Lotus Motors, for the chassis. Thus the car looks a lot like the Lotus Elise. Unfortunately, only two people can enjoy the car's benefits at any one time, but the trunk is large enough to carry golf clubs or a week's worth of groceries. Meanwhile, another new car company based in the UK is making its debut with its own take on an electric sports car. There must be a contagious disease somewhere. Why so much interest in upscale sports cars instead of mainstream vehicles? I suspect the reason to be economic in nature, as development budgets and cost of production will have to be spread over a larger number of cars for the cheaper variety of vehicles. This car company, the Lightning Car Company, has come up with a prototype that looks even more wicked and attractive than the TESLA. So far, they have a video of the car running but have yet to have it driven hard by the testers. What does this trend show? That, given the incentive of high gasoline and crude prices, it becomes attractive to explore and develop alternative fuels that can power vehicles. So, we have the air-powered car and the water-powered car we wrote about earlier. Now, we have the electric sports car. (Of course, there are other electric cars being developed or actually out on the street as of this writing, but none as exciting to the performance addicts like the Tesla and the Lightning.) Enjoy reading the following threads here and here on the two vehicles that we discussed. P.S: Daniel Dingel seems to be having problems with our bureaucracy, among other things. He wrote another response to our article about the water-powered car. Can any of the readers there provide him with the necessary direction, since I no longer have the patience or wherewithal to deal with our local bureaucrats? You can answer right on the blog on the water-powered car itself. Thank you.