Final Dialogue

On our final session the topic was engineering in the world. As usual we had a guest lecturer but this time also one of our classmates got up and spoke about the topic. An interesting topic, about which a lot could be written, no doubt but I would like to take this space and write about my own opinion and thoughts on the matter. Well, actually I will narrow the subject down a notch as I am a little bit pressed for time. What I would like to share with you are my views on the importance of engineering in the world of today.

First off, where would we be today without the engineers? Engineers are today’s inventors. Looking back to the Stone Age one could argue it was the engineers of their time that built the first tools and weapons. But fast-forward to our time and engineering is a mundane profession. There are a lot of engineers and they aren’t really considered to be that special anymore, albeit they are needed perhaps now more than ever.

There are a lot of problems in the world, some of which already have a technical solution (thanks to engineers) but the problem still persists (due to finance and politics). Perhaps the time has come to involve engineers in politics. Me and some of my friends were discussing some new political decision when we came to the conclusion that the people who made it happen really couldn’t have a clue what it was about. That is when we started to try and find a single engineer in the Parliament of Finland.

Perhaps if engineers got involved in matters that did not concern them directly they could change the world for the better? Engineers are used to think in terms of practicality, numbers and absolutes. Either a structure will hold or it will not, there is no maybe, and perhaps this view on things is what is needed in politics?

If we were to look at it from the viewpoint of there not being any clean drinking water in large parts of the poor world. Is it due to engineers not being able to clean water, transport it to houses and transport wastewater away? I think not. In many places waste is dumped in the streets and this creates a poisonous environment, is that because engineers have yet to create a method for collecting waste and disposing of it? I think not. Many places lack a public transportation system, is that because engineers have failed to invent a vehicle large enough to transport several people at once and build a structure on which said vehicle could travel? I think not. A lot of people die needlessly because of diseases easily cured, is that because of engineers? Well that is because of lack of medical personnel, but a lot of the tools M.D.’s use are created by engineers and the machinery used when manufacturing medicine is created by engineers.

I think you see my point. Now we stand at the crossroads. Engineers have done their part for the world already, now it is time for the other professions to stand up and do their part or the engineers really do need to involve themselves in matters that are actually not a part of their profession?

ICT

Our last lecture was an E-lecture, meaning that everything was found on the net (a recorded lecture and two videos on youtube). ICT stands for Information Communications Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communication_technologies). That this lecture was made as an E-lecture suited the topic really well. Below is a map (taken from Wikipedia) that shows how much money is spent in different locations on information and communications technology.

ICT is something that is deeply integrated with everything else in today’s world. It affects the economy and society perhaps more than we think. A lot of the things we do are somehow connected to the internet or some similar kind of network of computers (banks etc.). Just think about it, if it all were to go away today you would not have a computer, smart phone or mobile phones for that matter, internet, e-mail, credit/bankcards etc. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people would be without a job and those still with a job would have a much harder time doing it.

For this reason it should come as no surprise that the poorer countries in the world are investing in ICT. They may not have the same amount to spend as the western world but they’re doing a good job nevertheless. Since the economy of several poor countries are still dominated and controlled by the government many may say that they should get the necessities for their people first before they start spending on “luxuries” such as computers and such.

Albert Butare said in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYBw0nSr1o&feature=related) in response to the statement that they should try to get the necessities to all of their people before they start to buy computers that clean drinking water, sufficient food and good shelter and computers and internet are not mutually exclusive. Rwanda aims to be a knowledge based economy by 2020.

Butare may have a point. Getting computers and internet might prove a wise decision, since if they help to get the economy going then the government will get back the money spent in a short amount of time and then that money can be spent on getting the necessities. Think of it like this; either they give you a small amount of money daily that you buy food for but it is not sufficient to buy the amount you would need or they do not give you any for a period of time and after that you get money daily with which you can buy enough food. I am not saying that it is a good solution but I can see why they do as they do. And let’s face it, in many poor countries there simply isn’t enough money to help everyone but if they get their economy going there would be enough money to go around. The problem, however, is that it takes time and money to get money.

My personal opinion is that you really need a little of both, spend some money on ICT and other venues that might generate income and some money to those that need it today to live.

Transportation II

In this workshop we were paired up and were given a couple of topics to choose one from. I and my partner chose one that was about the future of public transportation. We were supposed to dream up a scenario and then during one minute pitch it to the teachers and the rest of the class. I really liked our idea so I thought I ought to spin it a bit further here.

So on to our idea, it was basically to combine the taxi service with the public transportation service (in this case mainly busses). Our idea would work of off existing infrastructure and require minimal modification to the existing structures. It would use technology that already exists (or are in late-stage development).

The key element is small driverless cars. These cars would fit up to 5 persons (a whole family) and would thusly be somewhat private and could replace an own car. The system itself would utilize the existing bus-stops as destinations and only travel between them. At every bus-stop there would be a button to call upon one of these cars and then you can choose your end-destination (another bus-stop) and it will travel straight there.

The way the cars would be able to drive themselves works of the principle of sensors in the car that senses a metal strip or metal spikes imbedded in the asphalt and via that an onboard computer knows where it is. Then there would have to be other sensors that would make the car stop in case there is something in front of it. There has been a lot of research into these kinds of cars by the big manufacturers and some prototypes have been tested. Even toy manufactures like the idea, as an example can be given this LEGO car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM-YwHk9mPI), so if toys can do it then why not real cars?

As we kept digging deeper we came to the conclusion that this would work best in the inner-city and that there could be a small parking lot at each bus-station with enough space for 2-3 cars so that there would always be a free car. Then we would have a central garage from where a car is sent out whenever a spot at any bus-stop becomes free. With enough cars the net could be widened to cover the entire country.

The system itself would be controlled via a central computer and thusly easily configured as a “normal” bus-system if needed, so that for example during the day there would always be several cars arriving at the same time so there would be same amount of spaces as in a bus. They would then travel a certain route and pretty much act the same way as the buses today. Then during the evening they would only drive when needed. The beauty of this system is the ease with which it can be modified from a bus-style system to a taxi-like system. Any type of in-between usage can also be done, like if you call upon the car and another car with empty spaces is nearby it could pick you up on its way to another destination, much like car-pooling. All that is needed to change the principle they work on is a few key-strokes on a computer.

This system would only work if it is adapted with full force. If only a few cars are used on a test basis then the “availability” would not be a part of the test and without that the system will most likely fail. But if the system would be adapted then there is nothing but money that stands in the way of widening the net and by doing that replacing also the trains and in time probably all other cars in the whole country. It would be one single entity that would handle all the public transport in the country except for the air traffic. A beautiful thought, and already implementable. Just a matter of money, as always.

Transportation I

This time we had a lecture by Dr Khan Rahaman via webcam. That he could be halfway around the world while giving us a lecture only goes to show what technology is capable of in this day and age.

First he talked about what urban transportation planning is, then gave us some basic facts of urban mobility, then something about the challenges involved and asked if we need to make the planning sustainable. After this the different aspects involved in sustainable urban transportation planning.

Personally I felt the red thread through all the challenges was the government. The five pillars were environmental, social, economic and finance, governance and technology. The government has the power to affect all of these areas either through finance (carrot) or law and penalties (stick).

There are a lot of researcher currently occupied with the problems concerning the transportation itself and the socioeconomic issues therein lays but are anyone looking into how to get the government onboard? I mean, even a perfectly laid plan will fail if there was no consideration as to the government “putting sticks in the spokes”. The reasons are multiple; corruption, fear, pressure from somewhere, lack of knowledge, greed or simply their own mind.

But on to the actual transportation. Making the transportation sustainable should start with the means of transportation. The means should be environmental-friendly and cost effective. Environmental friendly is easy enough to understand but what does cost effective mean? Usually it means the least cost per person per transported mile but what is included therein? How do you count in such things as comfort and safety during the transportation, how many times a day should the same route be offered and how far will people be willing to walk to and from the bus-stop, metro-station or similar gathering point? In the western world there has been several studies regarding this but how about the developing world? I would dare to venture a guess that they are happy with far less since that is still in many places more than what they have now.

Adding a few key-routes so that people would have access to work, school and hospital would dramatically improve their situation in the developing world. The transportation could be organized only a few times a day and that would already be sufficient to provide the poor with more than ample workplaces. Creating public transport does not mean that there has to be a lot of different routes travelled multiple times a day, sometimes all that is needed is for people to get to and from the place of work.

Basically “sustainable” means that it can go on for a long time. So in the sense of providing a possibility for work to the poorest in developing countries, sustainable transportation could be a bus going to the work place in the morning and home after work is done and paid for by the company. Sometimes it is better to do the improvements in small increments since that could be the only way to guarantee that the whole thing doesn’t collapse under its own weight, a small community has no chance to sustain a widespread collective transportation system without subsidies from the city/government.

Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries

So we didn’t have a lecture this time and were instead given some reading material; 2 papers and 3 links. Here are the links:

1.          1. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/disposal.html

2.          2.  http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/uwm-issues.html

3.          3. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/swm-fogawa1.htm

We were supposed to ponder this and update our blog as we saw fit. Well almost.

So I thought I’d begin with a little on solid waste collection and disposal. Collection seems quite straightforward; it’s the moving of the solid waste from point A (consumer or collection of consumers) to point B (disposal site). This can be done by having someone going around collecting the solid waste and transporting it to a certain point or by having the consumers themselves transporting it to a certain point. Then from that point someone transports it to the disposal site (unless that point already was the disposal site).

This is how it is done in most of the industrialized world by using garbage trucks. However, there is a system with pipes running under the city is in use at a few places. This pipe system collects and transports the trash to the disposal site without the use of manpower kind of like a central vacuum cleaner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_vacuum_cleaner).

In the developing world then? Well mostly it’s dumped in the streets and if collected simply dumped someplace else, i.e. collection varies from regular to sporadically to not at all and disposal methods from bad to worse. Well this is not to say that there aren’t a few good examples but those are not an issue and thus not in the scope of this blog.

What can be done then? Well how about using the poor people? Offering them certain amount of money/kg of waste should be an easy enough way (and not too expensive) of getting the streets cleaned? And at the same time some of the poor would get an income in a sort of “lesser evil”-way. Or the people living there could be educated to sort their trash and transport it themselves to designated “hot-spots” from where collection could occur, like in the industrialized world.

Moving on to the disposal. There are numerous ways of disposal, most of which require money, energy, technology, know-how and most importantly (sorted) waste. Most of these methods require a substantial initial investment which might not be an option in the developing world.

But let’s say that we can get the collection working and people sorting their waste, what then? Reuse and recycle to minimize the amount of waste, biowaste taken care of biologically (composting, fermentation etc.) leaving only a small amount left (if the sorting and r&r is done properly). This “small” amount poses no problem to modern technology; it could be turned into energy or given some research used as raw material for some product. I mean if a modern-day watertreatment plant can clean the wastewater and get from that same process biogas, heating, electricity (hydro power) and fertilizer then I do not see a problem with expanding the field of solid wastes likewise. Albeit that modern day waste facilities do produce among other things electricity and heat. But there is always room for improvement and at this point the focus should be on sorting (done by the consumer) and minimizing waste.

Energy (Part II)

So today’s lecture was a workshop on 4 different cases. My group’s case was about providing electricity for a couple of wells being dug and perhaps providing some excess electricity for the community. The wells were to be planned and dug by the authorities and our only concern was the energy production. The area in question was desert like and close to the equator.

I do not wish to diminish the importance of the other cases in any way but I will use this space to spin further on our idea as I found it quite interesting.

Our idea was to build a water tower next to the well and of course use a pump to get the water up there. On top of the water tower we placed solar panels and wind turbines to produce the energy needed for the pump and the pump would run non-stop during the day and thus eliminate the need for batteries (with low life-expectancy) as the energy would be stored in the displacement of the water mass. On the way down the water would pass through a turbine and thus we would get energy for the community. This is about as far as we got concerning the technology of our case, we did however think about the socioeconomic issues as well.

So to further the idea I would like to say that I found this idea intriguing since it would be possible to build it in components and ship it from wherever and put together on site like LEGO bricks. This could keep costs down and would mimic some projects of the UN. This is the basic idea; modular and easy to ship in its components (like IKEA furniture).

So on to specify the energy component of this idea. Being that the water tower would have to be quite high (we need to have a certain drop to get “any” energy out of the turbine) it would be rather vise to use the height to its full potential. This means that a wind turbine would be optimal to place on top since it would reach the stronger winds higher up. Since they cannot be placed too tightly together the space in between could be utilized by placing solar panels. Furthermore, we could use the temperature difference between the outer air and the inside of the water tower to gain more energy with small Stirling engines placed all over the surface.

I haven’t done the math on this but I believe we would get sufficient energy out of the solar panels, Stirling engines and wind turbines to power the pump and then some. To add to that we would still get energy from the water turbine.

This would basically be a self-sufficient system that can be dropped in place anywhere around the equator. Adding to it a small water treatment plant we would have clean water, electricity distribution (in some way) of both. Then we could do another system with wastewater treatment and fermentation and some biogas power plant, basically a “all the utilities you need” in a box.

So as the lecturer said (do not remember the exact words); most the technical problems can be solved by engineers, however, the socioeconomic problems are another issue.

Energy (Part I)

Being supportive of the idea of information being free and accessible for all I like to use Wikipedia and in about five minutes I found out the following; there are mirrors dating back to the 6000 BC and the Stirling engine (The basic working principle of the Stirling engine can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine ) was invented and patented in 1816. So what does this have to do with anything? Well I just wanted to show that the two key components of a great way of using solar energy have been around for almost 100 years.

The technology is readily available, the components are relatively “low-tech” and the manufacturing process not at all that difficult. You might make an analogy to the RK-62 and AK-47; both have the same working principle but one is expensive and accurate and the other is cheap but still manages to do what it is made for. The same applies to this solar energy technology, it can be done cheaply without precision tools but to achieve a high efficiency you need to do it carefully with better material and thus the price tag will be somewhat higher.

So back to the fact that this technology have been around for about 100 years. What has happened in that time? Pretty much nothing until recent years. Now there are a few companies trying to market this idea but the progress is slow.

Well, onto something most people do not know. There is more radioactive material being released into the surroundings from a coal power plant (radioactive particles in fly ash) than from nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste). Another thing that is said about the nuclear power is that it is so dangerous but can you mention any other accident beside Chernobyl (there have been a few)? And think about those coal miners that were trapped for two months in Chile, think about all that have died in mining accidents and think about the greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants.

The post WWII nuclear research ban and the negative picture media and Greenpeace have painted up has stopped the nuclear power from reaching its full potential (efficiency-vise). While on the topic of Greenpeace one should mention that Patrick Moore, one of the founders, left Greenpeace when he realized that he was the only one of the leaders with any kind of education and that Greenpeace was opposing nuclear power due to political reasons. He now supports nuclear power (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_founder_supports_nuclear_energy).

In no way do I wish to tell you that nuclear power is the answer but it is a much better alternative than coal power plants. The sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow which means that you have to have a versatile production base to manage simply on renewable energy sources. How about burning peat then? Well if you burn something, chances are that there will be CO2 emissions.

If you want to use renewable energy sources (excluding those where you burn anything) you can only get small quantities and thus you have to have a lot of them, a lot of wind turbines, a lot of solar panels and a lot of dams. Well dams are a bit special since they can be made large. But the point is that you need to build your net accordingly that it can handle the surges caused by usage and by abundance. There was a problem a while back in Germany when they had storms and their wind generators were producing too much electricity that the net had to be shut down not to cause too much harm.

Decentralized power is great if your net is build for it and I do support filling the Sahara with solar panels and utilizing deep-sea currents and putting up giant wind generators out at sea but I would like people to be educated that the nuclear power is not dangerous so that it would get a higher priority in research so that we may find a way for fusion power.