Tuesday, February 10, 2015

INDIA CALLING OR CRYING: THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN, A NEW ERA HAS BEEN USHERED IN INDIAN POLTICS

During the last five decades all people (who were sincere and honest to the nation and country and not to any boss, chair or party to fulfill their desires through nondubious and noncorrupt means) talked in their drawing rooms that this country can progress to prosperity only when a revolution takes place, a revolution by the silent hapless billion plus people of this land against all efforts of the ruling polity and bureaucracy to fool them, to loot them.

Even today as I write this a big debate is going on on all media channels wherein all the national spokes persons of all the established parties are attributing Aam Aadmi Party's win and Bhartiya Janta Party's loss to the secular credentials of one and Hindutava agenda of the latter. But let us understand that no revolution in the history of mankind has occurred with religious agenda. In fact all revolutions have taken place as a war between haves and havenots because haves have always thrived and made merry on power, authority, corruption and loots..Still they do not want to take cognizance of the fact that that it is the awareness and recognition of the plain and simple reality of today's India described in words below i.e.
Sisters and brothers of India, whether from villages or cities, from any religion, caste or creed,rich or poor, don't be taken in by any of the tricks of politicians, for end of corrupt people  and corruption will be the end of your poverty and miseries.Your poverty is a direct result of  corruption  by  those in authority and power.
which is responsible for such a clean sweep in the latest Delhi elections. In fact it is the dawn of a new era, a watershed mandate in the Indian political history where the power of ballot has rejected the hitherto effective and accepted model of Indian politics wherein the vote banks could be purchased/ goaded/fooled by empowering a few henchmen/goons economically much in the same manner as Muslim rulers would make Nawabs and British rulers would make Rai Sahibs at the expense of common man's rights and dues. The new model mooted by Aam Aadmi Party expects the Indian rulers to work for the betterment of each and every individual rather than for a few favoured and chosen ones.

Sunday, February 8, 2015


By Photo: Jeff Fusco/Getty Images
President Barack Obama is getting serious about climate change, a challenge that "poses a greater threat to future generations" than any other, he said in last week's State of the Union. In July, his administration announced an EPA regulation to slash carbon pollution from power plants. In November, he struck a pact with China on long-term emission reductions. And recently the White House unveiled a plan to cut methane emissions nearly in half by 2025.
Addressing climate change means, in large part, stepping away from dirty energy sources like coal and oil and toward cleaner sources. That’s a good thing. But it requires developing more energy elsewhere, including from one alternative source that has gotten scant attention in the mainstream press: nuclear energy, which poses its own serious environmental risks. 
The EPA’s proposed power-plant regulation provides a carbon credit to states for maintaining nuclear energy production at current levels: in other words, a carbon subsidy for maintaining the nuclear status quo. Following the release of the draft rules, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy made clear that the credit is meant, in part, to help the struggling nuclear industry. “There are a handful of nuclear facilities that, because they are having trouble remaining competitive, they haven’t yet looked at re-licensing,” she said at a roundtable discussion with business leaders in Chicago. If nuclear energy plants begin closing, she warned, “It’s a lot of carbon reduction that needs to be made up for a long period of time.”









Why Nuclear Power is Not “Low Carbon” » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

A False Promise
Why Nuclear Power is Not “Low Carbon”

by KEITH BARNAM
The UK government is committed to massively subsidising new nuclear reactors, based on the claim that they generate ‘low carbon’ electricity.
But what is the carbon footprint of nuclear power? I have trawled the literature and found that there is no scientific consensus on the lifetime carbon emissions of nuclear electricity.
Remarkably, half of the most rigorous published analyses have a carbon footprint for nuclear power above the limit recommended by the UK government’s official climate change advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
According to the CCC, if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, by 2030 all electricity should be generated with less than 50 grams of carbon dioxide emitted for each kilowatt-hour (50 gCO2/kWh).
Since all new generators have lifetimes well over 20 years, I believe this limit should be imposed on all new electricity supply systems here and now – and all the more so for those with lifetimes spanning many decades.
Note that thanks to long construction times for the EPR design and a forthcoming legal challenge, it’s entirely possible that the planned Hinkley C reactor will not be completed until 2030 or beyond. It will then be subsidised for the first 35 years of its projected 60 year lifetime – taking us through until 2090.
What is the carbon footprint of renewable electricity?
When comparing the carbon footprints of electricity-generating technologies, we need to take into account carbon dioxide emitted in all stages in the life of the generator and its fuel. Such a study is called a life cycle analysis (LCA).
There are other gases such as methane that are more dangerous greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The most reliable LCAs take all greenhouse gases into account and present equivalent carbon dioxide emissions.
In a recent paper in Energy Policy, Daniel Nugent and Benjamin Sovacool critically reviewed the published LCAs of renewable electricity generators. All the renewable technologies came in below the 50 gCO2/kWh limit.
The lowest was large-scale hydropower with a carbon footprint one fifth of the CCC limit (10 gCO2/kWh). A close second was biogas electricity from anaerobic digestion (11 gCO2/kWh). The mean figure for wind energy is 34 gCO2/kWh, and solar PV comes in a shade under the 50g limit, at 49.9 gCO2/kWh. Bear in mind that rapidly evolving PV technology means that this last figure is contantly falling.
What’s the carbon footprint of nuclear power?